The Prophet of Nazareth

THE PROPHET OF
NAZARETH

\. , \ * V t>

> *\

?&&&

* THE PROPHET OF

NAZARETH

BY

NATHANIEL SCHMIDT

PROFESSOR OF SEMITIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES

IN CORNELL UNIVERSITY

DIRECTOR OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF

ARCHAEOLOGY IN JERUSALEM

o

&i-i»

j&etofork ^*J

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO.. Ltd.

1905
All rights reserved

Copyright, 1905
Br THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

Set up and electrotyped
Published December, 1905

The Mason Press
syracuse, new york

3Jn apftnoriam

VIKTOR RYDBERG EBENEZER DODGE

AUGUST DILLMANN

Dies diem docet

PREFACE

This volume is not the manifesto of a school, a sect, or a
party. The author acknowledges with gratitude the help-
ful suggestions and inspiring influence of every great
thinker and every faithful worker with whom he has come
in contact. But he has endeavored, so far as possible, to
see with his own eyes the character of each important prob-
lem, and to present in his own language, simply and un-
equivocally, the conclusions to which many years of study
and reflection have led him. In attempting to make a com-
prehensive statement within narrow limits of space, he has
often been obliged to give the bare results where it would
have been a pleasure to outline the course of protracted in-
vestigation. More frequently, a few suggestions of decisive
facts will convince the reader familiar with the problems
that nothing has been taken for granted without fresh ex-
amination. Wherever it seemed necessary to indicate care-
fully the grounds for a view not yet fully understood or
generally adopted, the author has had no hesitancy in doing
so at sufficient length. Particularly is this the case with the
question as to the origin and significance of the term "son
of man. ' ' As the author was the first to suggest that Jesus
never used this term concerning himself, either to claim
Messiahship in any sense, or to hint that he was "a mere
man, " or " the true man, ' ' but in some pregnant utterances
used it in reference to ' ' man ' ' in general, his duties, rights,
and privileges, he has felt it incumbent upon himself to at-
tempt such a re-interpretation of the life and teaching of
Jesus in the light of this conviction as has been urgently and
rightly demanded.

To bring out more fully the significance of this changed
estimate of Jesus, it appeared desirable to examine the basis
of ecclesiastical Christology in the supposed Messianic

vii

viii PREFACE

prophecies and types of the Old Testament, and the real
teachings concerning the Messiah in later Jewish literature,
as well as the character and intrinsic worth of the Christ of
dogma. It has been the aim of the author to treat with
sympathy and reverence a conception that has for so many
centuries furnished spiritual nourishment to men, and to
point out the historic value, not less real because rela-
tive and transitory, of this and kindred ideas destined to
pass away ; but also to set the old and the new over against
each other so clearly that men may see that there is no pos-
sible return to the past, and no permanent escape from the
consequences of scientific research by such compromises as
are affected by many at the present time. The abandon-
ment of erroneous positions is a duty, even if it implies un-
certainty and apparent loss. It should be regarded as an
inestimable privilege, when it renders possible a deeper in-
sight into the historic reality, and when it becomes manifest
that this reality transcends in moral value the fiction it dis-
places.

Just and thoughtful men will always remember with grat-
itude the master-builders who reared the imposing struc-
ture of Christian dogma and the faithful believers of every
name and denomination who have translated its most valu-
able thought into lives of spiritual beauty. But as the bless-
ings of a truer knowledge and a larger faith become appar-
ent, they will also accord due honor to the master-miners
who have shattered the foundations of untenable dogmas,
and most of all, to the souls who, free from the bondage of
external authority or the ambition for earthly rewards, have
passionately striven for the truth, drawn inspiration from
noble lives, imposed upon themselves wise rules of con-
duct, and labored for the emancipation and improvement of
the human race, in truest imitation of him who lived and
died for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

The last revision of this work has been made in Pales-
tine. Jews, Christians and Muslims have covered the whole
land with a net-work of traditions. It would be difficult to
find a place mentioned in the Bible that has not been identi-

PREFACE ix

fied, or a story told in its pages that has not been located.
The pilgrims to these sacred sites nourish their faith by be-
holding the very spots where the great miracles of the past
took place, and see in the more or less ancient relics which
"are with us to this day" evidences of their occurrence.
It is sad to reflect that the loss of this naive faith would
probably rob most of them of the only great enthusiasm or
touch of ideality that ever enters into their monotonous ex-
istence. Less sympathetic is the credulity of learned men
who easily persuade themselves of the accuracy of any tra-
dition concerning the scenes of Jesus ' life that can be traced
back to the time of Constantine, as though there were not
room enough in three centuries for many a memory to pass
away and many a loose conjecture to grow up into a time-
honored tradition! As the student of the literary docu-
ments must go behind his text, seeking to reconstruct its
original form and estimate its value, so the archaeologist
must free himself from the tyranny of topographical tradi-
tion, and learn to treat it as a useful servant. If at first the
scantiness of positive results seems a loss, there gradually
comes a sense of real gain.

For, after all, it was in this little land that Jesus lived
and died. His eyes looked up to this blue Syrian sky, and
rested lovingly upon these hills and valleys. In the vicin-
ity of yonder lake of Galilee he worked as a carpenter and
taught as a prophet. In this city and its immediate neigh-
borhood he spent his last days. Here, as elsewhere, nature
sets its stamp upon man. In spite of all changes, the people
of the land has preserved through the ages substantially the
same manner of life and modes of speech, social conven-
tions, customs and occupations, religious views and prac-
tices, and general outlook upon the world. The Arabic dia-
lect spoken is more like Hebrew than the language of the
Qur 'an is : and the ordinary f ellahin of to-day probably re-
semble the Galilean peasantry of nineteen centuries ago
more than the modern Jew does, with the Talmud, the
Ghetto and the Renaissance in his blood. It was with such
simple folk as one sees every day in the villages of Palestine

x PKEFACE

that Jesus grew up and mingled as a man, and the classes
with which he came into conflict may still be found in this
holy city of three religions. Only here was the career of
the Prophet of Nazareth possible. To understand both the
factors that determined his character and his real great-
ness, his personality and his message should be seen against
the background of his land as well as of his people and his
time. The life of Jesus fits its environment in nature not
less perfectly than its place in history.

During the preparation of this work many valuable sug-
gestions and friendly counsels have been offered by Dr.
James M. Whiton, for which the author desires to express
his gratitude. In dedicating the volume to the memory of
three illustrious teachers to whom he owes much, he wishes
to intimate also his indebtedness to three universities where
it was his privilege to study, and to three nations to which
he is bound by the strongest ties.

Jerusalem, January, 1905.

THE AUTHOK.

CONTENTS

CHAPTEE I
The Christ of the Creeds 1

CHAPTER II
The Decline of Dogma 11

CHAPTER III
The Old Testament Basis 35

CHAPTER IV
The Jewish Messiah 68

CHAPTER V
The Son of Man 94

CHAPTER VI
The Son of God 135

CHAPTER VII
The Logos 159

CHAPTER VIII
The Secondary Sources 174

CHAPTER IX
The Gospels 205

CHAPTER X
The Life of Jesus 240

CHAPTER XI
The Teaching of Jesus 293

CHAPTER Xn
The Historic Influence of Jesus 318

CHAPTER XIII
The Present Problem ....... 340

xi

xii CONTENTS

CHAPTEE XIV
The Leadership of Jesus 360

EXCURSUS A
Gnosticism 387

EXCURSUS B
The Collegia Vicentina . 390

EXCURSUS C
The Kesurrection « = 392

INDEXES

Index of Subjects 399

Index of Authors 408

Index of Texts 414

THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

CHAPTER I

THE CHRIST OF THE CEEEDS

Every man is a creed-maker. He forms his view of the
world by observation of external reality and reflection upon
the states of his own consciousness. His interpretation of
life is subject to constant change, and is at no moment quite
identical with that of any other man. In proportion as his
range of vision is wide and his judgment accurate, his creed
differentiates itself and assumes a distinctive character.
Disinterested search for truth by capable and independent
minds leads to diversity of belief, as well as to increase of
knowledge.

But there is also a collective creed-making. Similarity
of origin and environment tends to create similarity of life
and thought. In family, political society, and cult-com-
munity, there is a ceaseless labor to produce a common creed
and to express in common customs this corporate faith. A
tradition, based on the accumulated experience and thought
of many generations, presents itself as an invaluable aid to
the individual in the formative period of his life, and con-
tinues to be his chief assistance, stimulus, and corrective,
whatever new facts he may discover, and however discrimi-
nating his judgment may be. This tradition changes with
the growth of the social organism. A collective creed never
implies uniformity of belief. But the transformation is
slower than in the case of the individual, and similarity of
view is a strong cohesive force. The common creed pro-
duces unity of purpose, efficiency of practical endeavor, and
assurance of faith.

1

THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

The power of beliefs largely adopted by society, and em-
bodied in its life, to shape the thoughts of men, is counter-
balanced by the reaction upon society of new ideas backed
by strong personalities. The centripetal force is equalled
in the long run by the centrifugal force, the tendency to
preserve the type by the tendency to vary the type. Where
freedom of thought and speech gives opportunity for the
development of a distinct personal creed and for influencing
public opinion, while the social creed, whether symbolized
in formulas or merely found in a general understanding, is
sensitive and flexible, the balance of these forces is best
maintained. To the importance of the personal initiative
is due the development of creeds concerning great men.
Mighty rulers holding nations in subjection, forceful char-
acters assuming leadership, wonder-workers possessing un-
usual powers, sagacious interpreters of nature's life, en-
thusiastic heralds of some fresh evangel, naturally become
the objects of interest, curiosity and worship. The mysteri-
ous power exercised by these men is more readily felt than
explained. No human life can be fully known. Much
must always be left for imagination to supply. Imagination
may resort to local setting and historic circumstance, or it
may draw upon the general characteristics of a class. A
man's inner life cannot escape the effect of the nature that
surrounds him, the social milieu in which he finds himself.
A prophet is likely to do a prophet's work, a king to shine in
royal splendor, a sage to unlock nature's mysteries. The
influence of a great man is only in part due to what he ac-
tually says, or does, or is : in a large measure it is due to
this tendency to eke out the known facts with more or less
plausible conjectures drawn from environment, analogy,
or ideal.

At a certain stage of human development, the secret of
heroic lives is found in their connection with a higher world.
Beings greater than man, it is thought, give to their chosen
ones strength that is more than human, and knowledge that
lies beyond the reach of man's unaided intellect. But such
gifts would not come to them, if they were not of finer clay

THE CHEIST OF THE CEEEDS

than ordinary mortals. Their destiny is higher, their or-
igin more sublime. When they depart from earth, they are
not left to see corruption, but go to share the divine nature,
and to receive divine worship. When they appear on earth,
they are not born of the will of man, but come from a celes-
tial world and have a divine paternity. Euhemerus sug-
gested that all gods had once lived as men upon the earth.
This is a defective generalization. Countless men, warriors,
judges, patriarchs, kings, sages, prophets, have, indeed, be-
come gods. But innumerable gods have also become men,
not only by the gradual transformation of nature-spirits
into the image of man, but by an actual entrance upon the
life of a human being, by an incarnation.

It is natural that the category of divinity dominates the
conception of even the earthly life of such personalities.
Faith does not live by verifiable facts of history alone ; it
clings for its support to the present ideal ; it seeks the eter-
nal truth and grace that once flashed forth in sudden rays of
incarnate beauty.

One of the mightiest conceptions that ever swayed the
mind of man is the Christ of the great ecumenic creeds.
These creeds register the results of centuries of thought;
they set forth the finished product of a long development.
The roots of the idea lie deep in Hebrew antiquity. The
prophetic movement prepared the way for it. Political
hopes, doomed to disappointment, rose to furnish the ma-
terial of its growth. In the apocalyptic literature of the
Roman period, the Messiah appeared. An interpretation,
true to prevalent methods and fit to meet the needs of the
age, discovered his lineaments in many a passage of the
Hebrew Bible, and in many a person, custom, or institution,
a type of his character and reign. Early Christian litera-
ture, not less than the Aramaic Targums, testifies to this.
Thus the Old Testament became the source whence appar-
ently the Messianic ideal issued forth. The converging
point of all its streams was the life of Jesus. If the tradi-
tion of this life was enriched by features taken from the
prophetic word, the scope of Messianic prophecy was en-

THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

larged at the suggestion of incidents in the biography.
But the writers of the New Testament did not only work to-
gether Biblical material with the tradition of what Jesus had
said and done; they also built upon foundations that had
been laid in Greece and in the Orient. The strong Hellenis-
tic element in the New Testament facilitated a continuous
development of thought. It was not altogether a new world
the first Greek converts to Christianity were bidden to enter.
There were, indeed, many ideas that must have seemed very
strange, but also some that were quite familiar. The most
advanced type of Christology, which to the ordinary Jew
was least comprehensible and most objectionable, is likely
to have been one of the most congenial. There is no chasm
between the latest forms of thought in the New Testament
and the conceptions prevalent in other Christian writings
of the second century. However imperfect their methods
of interpretation may appear to modern minds, it would be
wrong to charge the Greek apologists and fathers with seri-
ously mistaking the trend of New Testament teaching.
And the great ecumenic creeds rest upon patristic Christol-
ogy. These creeds are a consistent development of certain
ideas that unquestionably hold an important place in New
Testament literature.1

It was honestly felt by some of the keenest minds of the
fourth century that the Christ they defined by dogma was
none else than the divine personality whose advent was pre-
dicted by the Old Testament and proclaimed by the New

1Eitschl and his school rightly emphasized the fresh influence of
Greek speculation upon the developing Christian dogma that came
with the first educated converts from paganism. But they were in-
clined to overlook the large element of Greek thought that already
existed among the Hellenistic Jews, to whom we owe the most impor-
tant types of Christology in the New Testament. Similarly, the early
Unitarians rendered a valuable service by pointing out that the doc-
trine of the Trinity was nowhere distinctly taught in the New Testa-
ment, as had been erroneously maintained, but themselves erred when,
seeking Scriptural support for their conception of Jesus, they failed
to give their full weight and natural significance to passages that un-
mistakably tend in the direction of this doctrine.

THE CHEIST OF THE CEEEDS

Testament. This conviction was well nigh inevitable. Was
not the Old Testament full of distinct prophecies of the com-
ing of Christ, his life, his death and his resurrection ? Did
it not contain types clearly pointing to him? Had not
these prophecies and types been recognized by New Testa-
ment writers, nay, by Jesus himself ? Did not his life cor-
respond to the prophetic picture? Had he not claimed to
be the Messiah and been declared by God to be his only Son ?
Were not the miracles he wrought a ratification of his
claims? And must he not have been very God to accom-
plish the work of man 's redemption, to abrogate the law, to
satisfy the demands of infinite justice, to offer an accept-
able sacrifice for the sins of the world, and to open the gates
of paradise to all believers ? Only a being who was at the
same time true God and true man could restore fallen man
to his original state of purity, heal the mortal wound in-
flicted on him in the garden of Eden, overcome the devil's
power, and conquer death itself.

While thus the Christ-conception authoritatively pre-
sented by the church appeared to be fully verified by the
recognized standards of divine revelation, an even more im-
portant ratification of the doctrine came from Christian
experience. This divinely human being was not simply a
historic personage belonging to the past. Nor was he a
mere abstraction, a product of idle speculation. He was a
present reality, the object of love and worship. He was a
living source of spiritual blessings. Communion with him
gave power to overcome the bondage of sin, to endure the
ills of life, to face courageously even the last enemy. It
flooded the soul with a joy that the world could not give,
a boundless hope, and a sympathy that reached down to
earth's little ones, the weak, the ignorant, the debased. It
was a refuge in all hours of need. The believer knew that
his Eedeemer lived, and that no words could adequately ex-
press his supreme worth, from an experience that was more
real to him than were the shifting scenes and sensations of
earth-bound life. Affection, as well as thought, centered
upon him and demanded to know what he was. The def-

6 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

inition was a work of adoring love not less than of profound
meditation. There were other forces at work. The shad-
ows fall wherever the sun shines. But the chief factors in
the construction of Christological dogma were an honest in-
terpretation of the Scriptures and an equally honest inter-
pretation of the facts of Christian experience.

This Christ-conception has been perpetuated by the same
forces that gave it existence. If it owed its finally prevail-
ing form to ecclesiastical authority, by ecclesiastical author-
ity it has been upheld. Men have sought to make it their
own because of this authority, from love or fear of conse-
quences, or unreflecting conformity. The resources of ec-
clesiastical power have been employed to discourage men
from adopting different views. Yet this external pressure
has probably contributed much less than is generally sup-
posed to the longevity of dogma.

Of greater and more permanent significance is the au-
thority ascribed to the Scriptures. As the Christ of the
creeds would not have become what he was but for the au-
thority of that divine revelation which, as it was inter-
preted, outlined precisely such a personality in prophecy
and fulfilment, in type and antitype, so he has remained un-
changed through the centuries in no small measure by vir-
tue of the authority accorded to these Scriptures which, it
was felt, bore witness of him. But even the assertion of
infallible authority would not secure such a recognition as
this conception has had.

Only a genuine personal conviction can explain the long
and general acceptance of the Christ of the creeds. This
conviction has, to a great extent, been formed by a consci-
entious study of the sources. Starting with certain primal
assumptions, the student cannot easily reach any other con-
clusion : and these assumptions are so natural that it does
not readily occur to him even to question them. If the tra-
dition that ascribes the Gospels to immediate followers of
Jesus is accepted, and the correctness of their use of the Old
Testament is taken for granted, the result cannot be doubt-
ful. The early narratives in Genesis will then be regarded

THE CHEIST OF THE CREEDS

as historical; the political hopes of Israel as Messianic
prophecies; personalities, events and institutions of the
chosen people as types of Christ; the sayings reported in
the Gospels as the very words of Jesus; the lofty claims
that some of these utterances contain in connection with the
miracles recorded as evidence of a double personality, hu-
man and divine, not unfittingly described in the terms of
the great creeds. On the other hand, why should not eye-
witnesses have written down the story of Jesus ' life ? And
who would be better fitted for interpreting the divine reve-
lation of the past than the immediate recipients of the
crowning revelation in which the old found its fulfilment ?

Even the most enlightened and truth-seeking of men, pro-
ceeding from such general assumptions, would naturally see
in the New Testament authority for seeking in the Old Tes-
tament a prophetic description of Christ, in the fulfilment of
prophecy in the New Testament evidence of the authority of
the Old Testament, and in the dogma of the Church a legiti-
mate statement of the most essential teachings of both. A
different estimate is precluded by modes of interpreta-
tion that receive their sanction from apostolic use. The
allegorical method draws attention away from gram-
matical sense, literary form, and historic setting, to a hidden
meaning organically connected with the body of accepted
doctrine. It finds the same unchanged ideas everywhere in
the Scriptures. Its legacy is a certain inability to distin-
guish between things that differ, an often unconscious ten-
dency to overlook inconsistencies and contradictions, a
proneness to view ideas scattered through a literature ex-
tending over a thousand years as integral parts of one sys-
tem of thought, a lack of historic sense. The very looseness
of an interpretation that cannot quite emancipate itself
from these effects of the allegorical method may add strength
to conviction, since it removes all obstacles and allows sub-
jective faith to see its own reflection in the Bible.

But the most powerful influence tending to perpetuate
the Christological dogma is, without question, the associa-
tion, in the mind of the believer, of the statements of the

THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

creed with the experiences of his own soul. A nature foul
with inherited evil proclivities and acquired sinful habits is
cleansed and filled with holy aspirations, love of goodness,
and spiritual power by contact with the Son of God. In-
stead of doubt and perplexity, moral weakness and an aim-
less drifting with the fashions of the world, a fruitless search
for pleasure and a cheerless labor, a dull indifference to fate
or a constant fear of death, there are the light and power of
an all conquering faith, the strenuous effort to realize a high
ideal, the joy of work for noble ends, and the hope of an
immortal life. The dangers that beset man 's life no longer
terrify, no earth-born happiness can enthral, the tenderest
ties have no power to bind to earth the citizen of a heavenly
Jerusalem who lives in mystic union with his Lord. This
stream of life points to a living fountain, a source never
contaminated with impurity. As the believing soul draws
nearer to the Christ, he breathes a purer air ; the atmosphere
of holiness surrounds him, and he feels more keenly his own
sinfulness. The more completely he surrenders his will and
heart to his divine Master, the more manifest is his grace.
What the Christ is to-day he must have been yesterday.
How could he have been born of "the will of the flesh"?
Can the pure come from the impure ? How could he be the
Saviour from sin that a redeemed nature with its every
fibre proclaims him to be, unless his life had been an abso-
lutely sinless one? Were the miracles performed by the
lake of Galilee more wonderful than the miracles unques-
tionably wrought in the inner life of many a soul? How
could God's Holy One be left in the clutches of death?
Must he not be the first-fruits of a resurrection whose power
does not wait for death to manifest itself ? He whose life
is hid with Christ in God is led by his own experience, and
no longer because others have told him about the Son of God,
to confess that in him the divine that men must worship
blends indistinguishably with a humanity that men cannot
behold without emulating its supreme virtues.

The Christ of the creeds has thus maintained a hold upon
the most advanced nations of mankind chiefly through the

THE CHEIST OF THE CREEDS 9

study of the Scriptures and the concurrent testimony of
Christian experience. The methods pursued in the study of
the Bible rendered its interpretation in all essential points
more certain from age to age. The type of Christian experi-
ence and character produced under the influence of Christian
dogma brought conviction of the essential soundness of this
interpretation home to generation after generation of men.
This does not imply that the conception has been the same in
all minds. In point of fact no two minds have ever conceived
of the God-man in precisely the same manner. The world
of thought in which a thirteenth century scholastic, or a
sixteenth century reformer, moved was in many respects
different from that familiar to a Greek father of the fourth
century. But the great currents of thought seem to have
largely swept past the domain of Christology, and the com-
mon formulas represent a' considerable similarity of view.
It is impossible to contemplate this wonderful conception
that has exercised an influence so vast and uplifting in
human history without the deepest reverence and gratitude.
A long procession marches down the ages bearing trophies
to this Christ. Among them are men of genius and men of
faith, evangelists and martyrs, thinkers and reformers,
knights and statesmen, missionaries and philanthropists.
There are rare and radiant spirits of whom the world was
not worthy, pure, high-minded, self-forgetful, rich in faith
and hope and charity. And there is an innumerable host of
men and women rescued from sensuality and greed to lives
of purity and gentle service. These all proclaim him Sa-
viour, Lord and God. In his name they have fought the good
fight, borne their burdens gladly, fed the hungry, clothed
the naked, freed the slave, lifted up woman, educated the
child, brought peace to the earth. If in his name men have
also perpetrated deeds of darkness, it has only been neces-
sary to look more closely into his face, even as tradition
painted it, to see the look of disapproval. Through him the
divine has come very near to the human, time has been
lapped in the bosom of eternity, life has received a new
meaning.

10 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

Perhaps no man ever felt the intrinsic worth of the
prophecy, the psalmody, the legislation of the Old Testa-
ment as deeply as he who, having looked upon the face of
the heavenly Christ, saw the glory vanish from the cove-
nant of the letter. So it may be that the beauty of the Christ
is best seen, the grandeur and power of the celestial Son of
God are most fully appreciated, by him whose eyes have
been entranced by the surpassing glory of the new concep-
tion that is destined to take its place, the ideal suggested
by the life of Jesus of Nazareth, as a critical study of the
records is able to restore it.

CHAPTER II

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA

Parallel with the process through which the collective
creed is authoritatively formulated and permanently fixed
runs the tendency of individual creed-making to sap its
foundations and to produce divergent types of belief. The
ethical and religious impulses of primitive Christianity,
while furnishing the material for dogma, prevented its crys-
tallization. "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is lib-
erty." Where liberty reigns, uniformity is impossible.
This liberty, however, in the first period, largely resulted
from the predominance of practical interests. Seeing that
the world would soon pass away, and the Master return on
the clouds as the Messiah, what manner of men ought the
disciples of Jesus to be ?x This was the great question. The
emphasis was on conduct.

When, subsequently, reflection upon the character and
source of the new life tended to produce a common creed, it
remained sensitive to the influence of powerful personalities.
Such was the force of the spiritual impact, such the convic-
tion wrought by a deep experience, that these men could not
refrain from asserting their right to be heard. Such was
their sense of the inexhaustible riches of the truth as it was
in Jesus, such their joy in the new world of thought that had
been opened to them, that men were inclined to welcome
with broad hospitality ideas of different provenience and
value. There was indeed no doctrine of toleration, no rec-
ognition of the necessity of divergence, or of the right to dif-
fer. Dissenters were anathematized. The radicalism of
the Pauline epistles claimed for itself a freedom that it was
not quite willing to accord to the conservatives. The ad-

1 2 Peter, ii, 11. This formulation is late, but the thought is early.

11

12 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

vanced theology of the Johannine literature handled the ele-
ments of tradition with sovereign independence, and its
deep spiritual intuition pointed to love as the essence of
life; yet it could not quite refrain from basing fellowship
upon doctrinal agreement. But the fact that so widely di-
vergent types of thought as those found in the Synoptic,
Pauline and Johannine writings could develop at all, and
secure recognition side by side among the treasures of the
Church, is none the less significant. It shows that dogma
could not crystallize in such an atmosphere.

The allegorical method of the Alexandrian rhetoricians
and the epoch-making philosophy of Philo, while supplying
the instruments for the development of dogma, were dan-
gerous allies threatening its life. This method, however,
saved the Old Testament in its conflict with Greek thought.
This philosophy rescued the Messiah. By allegorizing it is
possible to see the invisible, to discover behind the literal
sense a meaning not intended by the author but demanded
by the interpreter, to explain all contradictions and to re-
move all difficulties. Philo 's keen intellect perceived many
of the facts that have forced ancient and modern critics to
a different estimate of the Bible. But these very facts con-
vinced him of the accuracy of his method. He was per-
suaded that the world could not have been made in six days,
that the first woman was not fashioned from a man's ribs,
that serpents cannot speak and fruits cannot give knowl-
edge, and that God is neither subject to fits of passion nor
in need of repentance. The words of the Bible could not,
therefore, mean what they seemed to mean. They were
symbols of deeper spiritual processes. There is no dishon-
esty in this reasoning, as long as it is sincerely felt to be the
only rational way of accounting for certain facts that are
frankly admitted. Armed with this method, the Church
was prepared to resist the attacks of Gnostic teachers and of
such men as Celsus and Porphyry.

The Messianic idea could not thrive except in the soil of
Palestine. Here was the throne of the coming King ; here
was the home of the eschatological speculation that threw

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 13

such a glamor about his person. In the rarefied air of Alex-
andria it was difficult for either the Messianic hope or the
apocalyptic frame of mind to survive. Philo's Messiah is
a mere shadow that has no place in his system of thought.
The hope that a deceased teacher, once known and loved,
would come back to earth as the Messiah might fill with en-
thusiasm the men of Galilee, but not profoundly affect
either Greek or barbarian. In the Hellenistic world this
exotic plant would have drooped and died but for Philo's
thought. The influence of his mind is already felt in the
Pauline literature. The political idea has vanished; the
apocalyptic conception is gradually disappearing. It is the
celestial, archetypal man, the medium of creation, revela-
tion, and redemption, the image and effulgence of the in-
effable glory, the Son of God in a Greek metaphysical sense,
that dominates. In the Fourth Gospel the Logos of Philo
has become flesh ; the Messiah is transformed into ' ' the only
begotten Son ; ' n the pageant in the sky gives place to a mys-
tic fellowship ; the resurrection is a spiritual experience.

1 This reading in John i, 18, is found in Codex Alexandrinus, a
number of late uncials, all cursive MSS. but one, the Latin versions,
the Curetonian, the Philoxenian, the Palestinian Lectionary, the
Georgian, the Armenian, the Slavic, the Anglo-Saxon, some MSS. of
the Ethiopic and the Arabic, Athanasius, Chrysostom and the Latin
fathers. It is without a rival in the Occident and practically so in
the Orient until the fifth century, while it is known in Alexandria in
the days of Origen. On the other hand, an important group of wit-
nesses to the text give the reading ' only begotten God. ' Among these
are Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Par-
isianus 62, the cursive MS. 33, the Peshita, the margin of the Phil-
oxenian, the Coptic, some MSS. of the Ethiopic and a host of patristic
writers from Clement of Alexandria on, Arian as well as orthodox.
Bousset may be right in thinking that all of these represent the same
Egyptian text edited by Hesychius ( Theologische Rundschau, October,
1903, p. 436) and that in Egypt the original 'son' was corrected into
'God.' Unfortunately this passage is lost in the Sinaitic Syriac.
Modern editors and commentators are of divided counsel. The sug-
gestion of Semler and Schultz that the text originally read simply
'the only begotten' has not won any recognition. Tregelles, Hort,
Westcott, a majority of English revisers, Harnack, B. Weiss, O. Holtz-
mann and H. J. Holtzmann have argued in favor of the reading

14 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

It was important that the Old Testament should be saved,
and the historic continuity preserved. But the cost was
great. The infallible authority of the Scriptures might be
strongly maintained. But a method that allows the inter-
preter to read into the Bible the theistic speculations, the
psychology and the ethics of Greek philosophy, shifts in re-
ality the seat of authority. Ultimately it is no longer the
thought of the Biblical writers that is to him authoritative,
but the thought that he himself, with undoubted sincerity,
has imported into the text. Under ecclesiastical pressure
this thought may be the officially recognized system of doc-
trine. Where a deeper religious experience loosens the hold
of hierarchical power, and leads the thirsty soul to the foun-
tains of living water in the Scriptures, it finds there pre-
cisely what, on other grounds, it believes to be true. The
highest authority of the mystic is his own inner conscious-
ness. But this subjectivity is the eclipse of dogma.

It was the transformation of the coming Messiah into a
god that rendered the Christ cult possible. Without a com-
plete apotheosis, the world would not have been won. It
was nothing less than a god that the worshiping heart de-
manded. The second person of the Trinity, the divine be-
ing through whom the universe was made and the redemp-
tion effected, met this need. The episode of his humanity,
the earthly life of Jesus, sank into the background. It was
but the temporary manifestation in the flesh of a divine
personality to overcome the powers of evil. His battles
with them became a spectacle. At sacred seasons the suf-
ferings of the new deity were set forth dramatically, as had
been those of Osiris, Tammuz and Dionysus in the past.
Yet even in a god it is the human qualities that are most
fascinating. The very cult led the worshipers back to a
manhood that invited imitation. The more earnestly this

'God.' (See especially Hort, Two Dissertations, 1876, pp. 1-72).
Alford, Teschendorf, Ezra Abbott, Scrivener, Schaff, Nestle, Bousset
have accepted the reading 'only begotten son.' (See especially Ezra
Abbott in Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1861, and Unitarian Beview,
June, 1875).

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 15

was undertaken, the more real became the fellowship of his
sufferings, the more marked was the return from the Christ
of dogma to the Jesus of history.

Among the independent movements of Christian thought
that were finally suppressed, none, perhaps, was of greater
importance than Gnosticism. Large were the contributions
that the Gnostics made to the growing Catholic church. Al-
ready the epistolary literature of the New Testament and
the Fourth Gospel reveal the attraction and influence of
Gnostic thought as well as an unmistakable attitude of hos-
tility and fear. Some of the works of Gnostics on which the
Church set its seal of approval were the selection of a canon
of Christian Scriptures, the enriching of the cult by hymns,
formulas and new sacraments, the establishment of a cate-
chumenate, and the development of a philosophy of emana-
tion. Many of the contentions of the Gnostics rejected by
the Church were truer than the views it adopted. Men like
Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion and Ptolemy were right in
holding that there is a vast difference between the concep-
tion of God in the Mosaic legislation and that presented by
Jesus, that a god who fashions man out of clay, repents of
his work, betrays ignorance, becomes angry, eats flesh, de-
sires animal sacrifices, and fights for Israel against other
nations, is more truly designated as "the god of the Jews"
than as ' ' the father of mankind. ' ' If, for want of such a
training as the synagogue provided, these thinkers some-
times failed to understand the Hebrew records, their own
education fitted them to see more clearly than even the most
radical Jewish Christian the moral and religious differences
between the Law and the Gospel. It is possible that the loss
of critical insight the Church sustained by adopting a less
discriminating view of the Old Testament was made good
by a greater freedom from moral excrescences. Although
the denunciations in the Pastoral Epistles and the accounts
in Irenaeus should no doubt be taken with considerable cau-
tion, and such works as the Pistis Sophia, the Books of Yeu,
and the hymns betray no laxity of morals, it is not improb-
able that this movement, like the Pauline, had an incidental

16 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

tendency to lead to lawlessness. But its eager search for
knowledge and its spirit of independence, shown in numer-
ous sects, precluded fixity of doctrine.1

"What is true of the Gnostics, applies in many respects to
all the dissenting bodies condemned as heretical. Their
strength lay in a courageous protest against doctrinal stag-
nation, and a demand for a deeper knowledge and a holier
life, their weakness in an asceticism that could not be en-
dured, a censorious and schismatic spirit, or an exaggerated
independence. It is to be regretted that the doctrinal views
of men like Theodotion, Noetus, Paul of Samosata, and Sa-
bellius should be so imperfectly known. Whether Arian-
ism, if unchecked, would have led to a monotheism like the
Jewish or Muhammadan, with an Ebionitish Christology, or
developed into a polytheism more marked than the practical
tritheism of the Church, is a question not easily answered.
It was a significant protest against the doctrine that was
destined to win the palm of victory, and it forced a defini-
tion of the "three persons" and the "two natures" bearing
in itself the germs of destruction.

It is a serious misfortune that the attacks upon Christian
dogma by outsiders, such as Celsus and Porphyry, have
come down to us only in fragments. What has been pre-
served shows the truly scientific character of many of their
arguments. How widely they won the approval of thought-
ful men within the Church, we cannot know. But it is not
likely that they would have caused such consternation among
the apologists, had there been no signs of danger. The time
had not arrived, however, for the acceptance of such critical
results without jeopardizing more valuable possessions.
The negative truths they perceived were of less importance
than the positive convictions they combated. The Chris-
tian system survived, not by virtue of the errors these phil-
osophers pointed out, but because of the larger truths they
failed to see. It was not expedient for the world to go back

1 On the significance of the Gnostic movement and the history of its
gradual recognition, see Excursus A.

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 17

from the worship of Christ with what it held of future good
to the gods of Hellas and Rome.

The Middle Ages were not a period of the upbuilding of
dogma. This product of the Greek spirit working with
Jewish material was completed. But the creed-making con-
tinued. Kelt and German and Slav, even though converted
to Christianity, could only see the articles of faith through
their own eyes. No baptismal water could wash away the
thought of ages. Their Christ naturally bore many a fea-
ture borrowed from Hesu, Balder, or Bogh. The most dili-
gent and skilful indoctrination was not able to erase the in-
fluence of foreign religious conceptions. From his heaven
the new god must descend to fight his people's battles, as
had the gods of their fathers. This Christ was as dif-
ferent from the Eternal Son of the Symbolum Nicaenum, as
were the metaphysicians presenting their subtle arguments
for or against the homoousion in the streets of Alexandria
from the rough and valiant knights going forth, sword in
hand, to conquer lands and nations for their celestial king.
The claims of his vicegerent on earth were in keeping with
this martial spirit.

Through this spirit the Christian nations were brought
into conflict with another aggressive religion, and into con-
tact with a civilization in some respects decidedly superior.
From the great centres of Muslim learning at Toledo and
Seville, Kairwan and Fostat, Baghdad and Damascus,
streams of new intellectual life issued forth. Through vis-
iting scholars and returning crusaders, through the court of
Frederic II at Palermo, through the mediation of the Jews,
Christian Europe became to some extent acquainted with a
highly developed science of nature, a philosophy often
wholly emancipated from the bondage of dogma, and a his-
torical investigation clinging closely and critically to the
facts. Perhaps the most important response to this enliv-
ening touch was the philosophy of nominalism. It drew
the mind away from the conception of universal terms as
real, and bade it look upon reality as inherent in the things
themselves. Classes and categories were declared to be mere
3

18 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

abstractions of thought; the things that can be seen and
made objects of study were proclaimed to be the realities.
A heaven full of imaginary objects, types and patterns, was
shattered; an earth full of unobserved individual things
challenged attention. If this philosophy was in a degree
the fruit of the scientific spirit engendered through Muslim
influence, it became even more markedly the cause of the
further development of science. For historical criticism
the time had not yet come. The veiled efforts of Abraham
ibn Ezra, the Jewish philosopher of Toledo, proved abortive.

The danger to dogma from nominalism was only equalled
by that threatening from mysticism. If Francis of Assisi,
Tauler, the author of Theologia Germanica, and Thomas a
Kempis still moved within the sphere of the accepted sys-
tem, many of "the brethren of the common life" not only
appealed, as Gerhard Groote had done, from patristic and
scholastic authority to that of the Gospel itself, but went so
far as to reject the doctrine of the Church on essential
points, as in the case of the sacraments. The abandonment
of external authority is the inevitable result of any deepen-
ing of man's religious life.

Erasmus and Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, all show the
influence of mysticism and its tendency to undermine estab-
lished doctrines. They indeed left untouched the Christ of
the ecumenic creeds, and the authority of the Scriptures was
made the formal principle of the reformation. But this
formal principle was seriously affected by the material prin-
ciple, justification by faith, which Luther applied as a stand-
ard of canonicity ; and the great reformer, with his warm
human heart, who dared to approach the divine without
priestly mediation, found in his Christ a richer humanity.
His noble independence has left in German soil a legacy of
incalculable worth. Calvin, easily foremost among the re-
formers as an exegete, accepted the Catholic Christology,
but his more literal method of interpretation, his desire to
put the legislation of the Bible to a practical test in polit-
ical life, his lack of faith in salvation by sacramental magic,
and his broad historic outlook from the view-point of eternal

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 19

decrees blazoned the path of rational Bible study, historical
criticism and social progress.

The fullest development of these tendencies was reached
in the Baptist churches. Here a conscious spiritual experi-
ence, not a creed or a sacrament, was made the basis of fel-
lowship. The supreme authority of the inner light was rec-
ognized. Absolute liberty of conscience and non-interfer-
ence by civil society in matters of religion were demanded,
and the principle of voluntary association was maintained.
How subversive of dogma this general attitude was, is well
seen in the case of Johannes Denck,1 one of the profoundest
thinkers of the sixteenth century. He argued the greater
authority of the inner light, the immediate vision of truth,
from the fact that only a small part of the human race had
any knowledge of the Scriptures; he believed in the final
salvation of all men and freely proclaimed this conviction ;
he rejected the piacular conception of Jesus' death and de-
clared him to be a prophet. His views were widely adopted
and he was held in highest esteem in all the churches. In
1550 sixty delegates from about forty Baptist churches in
Italy, Switzerland and Austria met in Venice to settle the
question whether Christ were God or man. Thrice during
the meeting the Lord's Supper was celebrated. After forty
days of earnest discussion an almost unanimous decision
was reached against the deity of Christ, against the reality
of good and evil angels, against the immortality of the god-
less and a place of future punishment, in favor of soul-
sleeping, and against the propitiatory nature of Christ's
suffering.2 Others, like Balthasar Hubmaier, no doubt ad-

TCf. especially Ludwig Keller, Ein Apostel der Wiedertdufer, 1882;
also Richard Heath, Anabaptism, 1895.

2 See copies of the records of the Inquisition published by Comba,
Bivista Christiana, 1885, and the accounts given by Benrath, Studien
und Kritiken, 1885, p. 20, and by Comba, I nostri protestanti, 1897,
II, 488 ft". A popular account is given by Newman, A History of
the Baptist Churches in the United States, 1894, p. 34 f, and a fuller
statement in A History of Antipedobaptism, 1899. Unfortunately
Newman does not quote his sources in a manner that makes it possible
for the reader to verify his statements, and some of the most remark-

20 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

hered more closely to traditional lines. But there was no
dogma. Liberty prevailed. It produced a gentleness and
dignity of language and demeanor that contrasted agree-
ably with the vulgarity of speech and harshness of judg-
ment that mar the memory of so many great men of the
period. Nor can those who without a murmur suffered
martyrdom at the stake or by drowning be charged with
want of firm conviction. Affiliated with this radical move-
ment were Michael Servetus, burned by Calvin for his views
on the Trinity and infant baptism, and Andreas Bodenstein
Carlstadt, the great literary critic.

The mighty spiritual impulses of the reformation seem
to have gradually spent their force. An apparently barren
orthocloxism adorned itself with Luther's name, without
possessing the power of his faith ; an estimate of the Bible
more fictitious than ever, and a new incrustation of dogma
temporarily obscured the liberalizing tendencies of Calvin's
thought ; the abuse of liberty at Minister cast discredit on a
fair name, and scattered the precious possessions once held
together in the bond of peace among many sects. Yet the
apparent retrogression was probably the only way of pre-
venting the new type of religious life from flowing back into
the channels of the re-invigorated rather than thoroughly
reformed Catholic church, and of gathering ethical vigor
for future advances.

A vantage-ground for critical work was discovered in the
mother-church in her recognition of a sifting process
through a long succession of living authorities. Where
Rome had not yet spoken, critics might speak. The author-
ity of the Church, while never at variance with the true sense
of the Scriptures, was above every human interpretation of
them; and they might be freely examined so long as her
authority was not infringed. Thus members of the Society
of Jesus, like Bento Pereira and Jacques Bonfrere, felt free
to suggest post-Mosaic material in the Pentateuch; and
fathers of the Oratorio in Paris, like Jean Morin, Richard

able facts showing the critical insight of the Italian Baptists are en-
tirely overshadowed or omitted.

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 21

Simon and Charles Francois Houbigant, went far in ad-
vance of Protestant scholars in textual and literary criti-
cism. How circumscribed the freedom of even eminent
scholars in the Reformed church was in the beginning of
the seventeenth century, the history of Johannes Piscator
(Fischer) shows. The often remarkably sane exegesis of
the Herborn Bible found toleration only in Nassau, where
heretics in mathematics, physics and astronomy also were
safe.

A new conception of the universe, of incalculable signifi-
cance for the destiny of dogma, developed through the dis-
coveries of Copernicus, Brahe, Bruno, Galileo, Huyghens
and Newton. In England the new science found its most
generous welcome and exercised its widest influence. Its
bearing on theology became manifest in the works of
Thomas Hobbes and of the deists. Among these Charles
Blount, John Toland and Anthony Collins probably did the
greatest service. Blount pointed out the inconsistency of
the Biblical cosmogony with the Copernican theory ; Toland
called attention to the radical differences of thought in the
apostolic church; Collins proved the Maccabeean origin of
the book of Daniel, and searchingly examined the supposed
Messianic prophecies. A curious instance of how a new
view of the world may be read into the Bible by the alle-
gorical method to the utter extinction of dogma was pre-
sented by Thomas Woolston. The real merits of these Eng-
lish thinkers should not be denied. A fatal inability to ex-
plain the growth and maintenance of the Christian system
except by priestcraft and deception, and a consequent acer-
bity of temper, degenerating into cynicism in Bolingbroke,
constituted their greatest weakness, and limited their capac-
ity to gain permanent recognition for the truths they so
clearly perceived. On the other hand, its very freedom
from the characteristics of deistic warfare and its profund-
ity of thought prevented for some time David Hume V con-
tribution to religious thought from receiving an attention
commensurate with its intrinsic importance. Meanwhile the
1 The Natural History of Religion, 1757.

22 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

leaven of mysticism was at work. The Baptist churches in
Poland were quietist and Unitarian. When they were
driven out, they found refuge in Holland and in England.
They helped to create the atmosphere in which Arminianism
grew up. They contributed largely to the Socinian, Uni-
tarian and Universalist movements, and paved the way for
Quakerism. The latter was perhaps the most potent spirit-
ual force of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
While the quietism of Jean de Labadie, Anna Maria van
Schurmann, Madame de Guyon and Fenelon, and the piet-
ism of Spener, Francke, Dippel, Edelmann and Zinzendorf,
may ultimately have had an independent origin, not due to
the missionary zeal of the Quaker, the impact of the Eng-
lish movement is plainly visible, and its effect on the Anglo-
Saxon world was very great.1 It was largely through the
faith and patience of her Quaker saints that England
learned the principle of religious toleration ; it was William
Penn, the Quaker, and Roger Williams, the Baptist, who es-
tablished in America a still broader religious liberty.

Deism and pietism alike tended to undermine the dog-
matic structure. rJean Leclerc, already affected by Spi-
noza's Tractatus Religio-politicus (1670), came under the
influence of Newton, Locke and Collins, and left an impres-
sion upon the susceptible remonstrant body too deep to be
removed by tardy caution. In the ~W olf enbuttler Frag-
mente, published anonymously by Lessing, after the author 's
death, in 1774 and 1777, Hermann Samuel Reimarus, a man
of vast erudition and keen insight, but somewhat lacking in
delicacy and vital religious interest, revealed the influence of

1 Cf . Bruno Bauer, Einfluss des englischen Quakerthums auf die
deutsche Cultur, 1878. This exceedingly thoughtful work suffers
somewhat from a too violent reaction against the narrow sectarianism
that twenty-five years ago characterized most church historians,
whether their sect was large or small. If at times he exaggerates the
influence of individual mystics, his estimate of pietism is in the main
as just as it is generous. It was particularly needful at a time when
theological thought began to be dominated by Eitschl, who had no
eye but for the eccentricities of mysticism, and so signally failed
to appreciate its ethical and religious value.

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 23

the English school. Poets like Lessing, Herder and Goethe,
and philosophers like Wolf and Kant also contributed pow-
erfully to the broadening of the religious outlook. In
France, Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and others expounded
the tenets of deism. Voltaire, who knew most intimately
English life and thought, unfortunately copied some of the
most objectionable features of the deistie polemics. His
famous phrase, E erases I 'in fame! was indeed not hurled
against Christ, but against the Catholic church, and it may
even appear mild in comparison with the intemperate lan-
guage in which Protestant theologians were wont to indulge
when speaking of this church. But there seems at times to
be a malice in his satire and a lack of fairness in his judg-
ment that could not but affect his own vision, and prevent
men from accepting even the truth he offered. A deeper
earnestness and a loftier purpose, though with serious de-
fects, characterized Thomas Paine, whose "Age of Reason"
did so much, on both sides of the Atlantic, to destroy the
foundations of dogma.

More or less consciously pietism marched to the same goal.
When ' ' The Lord has revealed this to me, " or "It seems to
me," takes the place of "It is written," rationalism is un-
avoidable. How shall a man determine, whether a convic-
tion in his mind is the authoritative utterance within him
of a spirit not himself, or a subjective judgment reached by
processes of ratiocination ? When truth is no longer meas-
ured by external standards, how can reason be prevented
from ultimately proclaiming its supreme authority? The
transition may be watched in Nicolas Zinzendorf, in Carl
Friedrich Bardt, in Johann Salomo Semler, "the father of
criticism," in Johann David Michaelis. The rationalism of
H. E. G. Paulus still hesitated to touch traditional views
concerning authorship or to resort to mythology; it was a
consistent, and therefore onesided and mistaken, effort to
explain all miracles as based on actual occurrences.1 His

x The greatest weakness of the rationalistic school was its lack of his-
toric sense. It wanted to find its own ideas in the Bible. Historic
objectivity is an easier virtue to-day, however, than a hundred years

24 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

pupil, W. M. L. De Wette, who applied both literary criti-
cism and a mythical theory to the Old Testament, yearned to
harmonize a living faith with a scientific method.1 Schleier-
macher drew from Herrnhut his warm piety, his conviction
that "it is the heart that makes the theologian, ' ' his inclina-
tion to pour the new wine into the old bottles, and his recog-
nition of the rights of criticism. Similarly a deep mysti-
cism, an immense wealth of ideas, and a luminous haze of lan-
guage characterized Hegel. To this trio of Berlin teachers
the emancipation of religious thought in Germany is largely
due. Among their disciples were C. P. W. Gramberg, Wil-
helm Vatke and J. F. L. George, who first drew the outlines
of the now generally accepted course of Israel's religious
development ; David Friedrich Strauss, whose epoch-mak-
ing work2 recognized the unhistorical character of the
Fourth Gospel and the mythical element in the New Testa-
ment; Ferdinand Christian Baur, who discerned the con-
flict between Jewish and Pauline Christianity and the his-
torical background in the second century for a large part
of the Pauline literature ; and Bruno Bauer, who sought to
establish a relation of the entire Pauline literature to Home
analogous to that of the Johannine literature to Alexandria.
In the Hegelian philosophy the principle of development
according to ascertainable laws was enunciated. But the
laws as yet most clearly recognized by natural science were
those of mechanics. Their application to the movements

ago; and the ordinary treatment of rationalism itself shows that it is
by no means too abundant. Hermann Midler's articles Zur Wiirdi-
gung des Bationalismus in Protestantische Monatshefte, July and
August, 1901, are encouraging.

1 The influence of Eichhorn and De Wette was felt even in America,
where George R. Noyes published a critical essay on the Messianic
prophecies in 1834. John G. Palfrey wrote some excellent "Lectures
on Jewish History and Antiquities" in 1840. Theodore Parker trans-
lated and annotated De Wette 's Introduction to the Old Testament
in 1840, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his famous address to the Har-
vard Divinity School in 1838 and through his later essays, presented
the best thought of the period.

2 Das Leben Jesu, 1835.

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 25

of life in human society, however justifiable, could not at
first escape a certain erudeness and avoid leaving the im-
pression of artificiality. The day was fast approaching
when the laws of evolution in the realm of organic life
should be more distinctly1 seen and formulated by Darwin,
Huxley, Haeckel and Spencer, and the discovery fertilize
every field of human research. But before it came a reac-
tion set in. The results must be tested. Not only apolo-
gists for traditional views, but also firm believers in literary
and historical criticism, addressed themselves to the task.
The vigorous and uncompromising defense of tradition by
Hengstenberg, Havernick and Keil was not without effect,
and the conservatism of Neander, the subtle and allegoriz-
ing exegesis of J. C. K. Hofmann, and the mystical inter-
pretation of J. T. Beck exercised a wide influence. More
important, however, was the rejection of many positions
held by De Wette, Gramberg, George, Vatke and Reuss on
the one hand, and Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Strauss and
Bruno Bauer on the other, by men who were their peers in
independence of thought as well as in learning. Heinrich
Ewald, a disciple of Eichhorn, but his superior as an Orient-
alist, and gifted with a finer poetic appreciation, protested
against the submergence of personality in the struggle of
forces and tendencies. He restored the order of "the Law
and the Prophets, ' ' and threw back the Fourth Gospel into
the apostolic age. August Dillmann, great as a philologist

1Buffon, in his Histoire naturelle, 1749-1804, had thrown out im-
portant suggestions, and Lamarck, in his Philosophie zoologique, 1809.
had already formulated one of the most important laws of evolution.
It is interesting to observe that in the same year a pastor in DobbelD
in Brunswick, G. Ballenstedt, published in Henke's Museum fiir Be-
ligionsivissenschaft, 1809, p. 570 ff, an article entitled Umriss einer
auf Thatsachen und Naturgesetze sich griindenden Geogonie, in which,
following Spallanzani and Blumenbach, he not only affirmed a belief
in spontaneous generation, but laid down a remarkable system of or-
derly development of life on the planet. Among the earlier forerun-
ners none was greater than Lamarck. Herbert Spencer in some re-
spects anticipated Darwin, but Darwin's Origin of Species, 1859, was
epoch-making.

26 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

conscientious as an interpreter, continued the protest, in
new surroundings, suspicious of " an evolution along straight
lines," though yielding point after point to love of truth,
and even Theodor Noldeke, the most eminent Semitic
scholar of the century, and an acute literary critic, main-
tained for some time, against Graf and Kuenen, the pre-ex-
ilic origin of the priestiy legislation. Karl Hase leaned
again, though somewhat doubtfully, on the Fourth Gospel
as a historic source, and C. H. Weisse found it necessary
to assume at least a post-mortem appearance of the spirit of
Jesus to account for the doctrine of the resurrection. Such
masters of New Testament exegesis as Theodor Keim,1 Carl
Weizsacker, J. H. Scholten, Adolf Hilgenfeld, Otto Pfleid-
erer and Heinrich Holtzmann adhered indeed faithfully to
all that was essential in the position of the Tubingen school.
But on literary questions they surrendered many of the con-
tentions of Baur, and opposed some of the characteristic
views of Strauss and Bruno Bauer. Not seldom their devi-
ations from Baur marked decided steps forward, as when
some of them discarded the Johannine authorship of the
Apocalypse. Yet this rejection of a chief corner-stone of
the Tubingen structure appeared to these scholars them-
selves and others less significant than the fact that they
deemed it possible to assign to Paul three or four more
epistles than Baur had been able to do. The differences on
details of criticism between the school of Ewald and the
school of De Wette, between the present survivors and the
founders of the Tubingen school, were of little moment in
comparison with the underlying unity of method, mental
attitude and even results. But the impression of a reaction
was important, as it tended to increase confidence in the
carefulness and integrity of Biblical scholarship and to cre-
ate a more generous hospitality to critical study among the-
ologians in different lands.2

1 Keim 's GescMchte Jesu von Nasara, 1867, is perhaps the most
learned Life of Jesus that has been published. It is written in an
admirable spirit.

2 While the influence of the "rationalists" and De Wette scarcely

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 27

A significant movement, also heralded as a sign of reac-
tion, proceeded from Albreeht Ritschl. Ritschl was funda-
mentally opposed to mysticism, sought to eliminate philos-
ophy from religion (though not without the aid of Neo-
Kantianism), pointed to the objective revelation of God in
Christ, and insisted upon a practical transformation of in-
dividual and social life by Christian ethics. He brought
James, I Peter, I John, Hebrews and Luke1 back to the begin-
nings of Christian literature, caused an Essene Ebionitism
to spring up after the fall of Jerusalem, and fixed a great
gulf between Paul and the Gentile Christianity of the sec-
ond century degraded by Greek philosophy. His system
was chiefly elaborated by Herrmann ; his criticism was par-
ticularly carried on by Harnack. The strength of Herr-
mann's contention for a Christo-centric theology lay in the
feeling that a human ideal is the greatest need of the wor-
shiper ; its weakness, in the uncertainty concerning the ac-
tual life of Jesus and the ideal which it suggests, when his-
torical criticism is admitted. Harnack, with admirable
mastery of the material, examined the external evidence of
the New Testament literature, rejoiced in the slender threads
by which it seemed possible to hang it to its traditional au-
thorship, made less confident use of internal criteria, and

affected any theologians in England and America except the Unitari-
ans, that of Ewald extended to teachers of theology and representa-
tive exegetes in the most conservative Protestant denominations. It
is sufficient to refer to Samuel Davidson, J. W. Colenso, Eowland
Williams, Robertson Smith and T. K. Cheyne in England, Augustus
Briggs and C. H. Toy in America. An influential writer closely in
touch with German scholarship, yet independent, was W. E. Cassels,
the long anonymous author of "Supernatural Religion." The im-
press of German thought may also be traced to some extent in the
Scandinavian countries. But more frequently the reaction against
dogma led men of genius into lonely paths. This independence may
be seen in Lindgren 's and Myrberg 's treatment of the Old Testament,
in Viktor Rydberg's Biblical criticism, in Bostrom's idealistic ration-
alism, in Pontus Wikner's realistic mysticism, and in Soren Kirke-
gaard's liberalism.

1 Cf . Die Christliche Lehre von der Bechtfertigung und Versohnung,
1882, 11, p. 320.

28 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

earnestly endeavored to clear up such important matters as
the early history of Gnosticism and the origin of the mon-
archical episcopate. His desire to vindicate the earliest
possible date for the New Testament books is so manifest
that his conclusions become, on this account, all the more
significant. The "eye-witnesses," James and John, Peter
and Jude, are once more deported into ' ' second century ex-
ile;" interpolations on a large scale are assumed to save
fragments of Pauline letters ; the unhistorical character of
the Fourth Gospel is fully recognized; and the story of
Jesus, from virgin birth to resurrection and ascension, is
emptied of its miraculous content. Harnack is quite as far
removed from the theology of the ecumenic creeds as was
Baur. The differences between the two critics concern
matters of wholly subordinate interest. The "reaction"
could not effect the rehabilitation of dogma.

In the meantime, the evolutionary hypothesis had won its
way into every branch of science. If the successive strata
of the earth's crust furnished external testimony to the rel-
ative age of their fossil inclusions, the discovered genetic
relations of palaeontological forms supplied internal evi-
dence as to their place in the chain of development. If, in
the vastly increasing archaeological and documentary ma-
terial, landmarks of priceless value were here and there set
up by actual dates, the historian learned for the most part
to determine chronological position by relying on the ob-
served tendencies of life and thought. In the light of palae-
ontological research, it became impossible for liberally edu-
cated men to believe in the Biblical account of man 's origin
and nature. When the principles of criticism that had
gained ascendency in other realms of historic investigation
were applied to the Old Testament, the traditional author-
ship of its books, the accepted course of Israelitish history,
Messianic prophecy, in any strict sense, and typology dis-
appeared. Many of the conclusions reached on the basis of
Hegelian philosophy found their triumphant vindication.
This was not merely due to the genius and learning of such
men as Kuenen and Wellhausen, Stade and Duhm, Robert-

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 29

son Smith and Cheyne. Their results were gained and won
general acceptance, because the spirit of the new time de-
manded a rational explanation of Israel's life on the theory
of evolution that had opened so many other doors. It was
found that the philosophy of evolution did not ignore the
element of personality. In fact, the prophets, legislators,
chroniclers, sages and apocalyptic seers of Israel had never
before been such living and essential factors of history. The
superstition was dispelled that, in order to appreciate an
author's worth, it is necessary to know his name. The
merging of the personality of Hebrew patriarchs in Hebrew
tribes bearing their names was more than compensated by
the light thrown on a thousand years of growth in Palestine.
The eclipse of the miracle rendered it possible to discover
the dominancy of ethical forces. And the new estimate was
introduced without serious injury to the religious sentiment.
It is a significant indication of the religious vitality of the
Church that in a measure she was able to adjust herself to
a conception of Israel's life that demolished the very foun-
dations of Christological dogma. The religious sense, as
well as the scientific consciousness, found a deeper satisfac-
tion in the new view than the old could afford.

But the movement could not stop at the Old Testament.
Under its influence Ernest Eenan, the great Orientalist,
wrote his Life of Jesus.1 This work suffers from an in-
discriminate use and an insufficient critique of the sources,
and it draws too freely upon a rich and artistic imagina-
tion. But its fundamental attitude is that of Strauss, and
it adds a new emphasis on the physical environment and an
earnest attempt to trace the complication and denouement
of the tragedy of Jesus' life. The tragic element was nat-
urally discovered in his Messianic consciousness. How,
without infringement upon his humanity, this conscious-
ness could originate and grow within him, was persuasively
described by Baldensperger.2 Fed by apocalyptic litera-
ture a Messianic hope of a highly spiritual type had devel-

1 Vie de Jesus, 1863.

'Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu,2 1892.

30 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

oped in the circles whence Jesus came forth. This position
is still maintained in the most modern treatment of the life
of Jesus. The admirable work of Albert Reville,1 coming
from a milieu than which none can be more conducive to
truly scientific study of religious phenomena, is sympathetic
in spirit, accurate in method, and adequate in critical appa-
ratus. But unverifiable and improbable assumptions re-
main. In spite of the abundant labors of Hilgenfeld, Volk-
mar, Dillmann and Charles, the most vital questions in apoc-
alyptic literature are still sw& judice; and there is not a
tittle of evidence that such a conception of the Messiah as
the composite Parables of Enoch present was known to
Jesus. That ' ' son of man ' ' was a Messianic title, and that
Jesus used it as such a designation of himself, can no longer
be maintained. When the recorded sayings of Jesus are
translated back into his own Galilean dialect of the Ara-
maic, as they must be, the impossibility of both of these as-
sumptions becomes evident. But with them goes the only
ground on which it can be supposed that Jesus regarded
himself as the Messiah. An earlier strand of apostolic
tradition, as Lagarde discerned, still preserves the memory
of a prophetic career averse to Messianic pretensions. The
investigations of the phrase "son of man" by Eerdmans,
Schmidt, Meyer, Lietzmann and Wellhausen, the searching
examination of the passion week by Brandt,2 and the inci-
sive study of the secret of the Messiahship by Wrede3 have
tended to remove the last remnant of the traditional con-
ception.

But the scientific instrument itself by which this change
has been effected prevents the dissolution of the personality
of Jesus into a symbol and a name, and points the creed-
making tendency into new paths. Nothing can more con-
vincingly prove that Christianity ultimately owes its origin
to a living Galilean prophet than the preservation in the
written records of a tradition radically at variance with the

1 Jesus de Nazareth, 1897.

2 Die Evangelisclie Geschichte, 1893.

3 Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien, 1901.

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 31

estimate held by the authors of these biographies. This tra-
dition cannot have been invented. Every motive for such
a creation is wanting. It can only be the reflection of his-
toric fact. Its persistence in Palestine explains the silence
of Philo and Josephus. When Philo died, Hellenistic
Christianity had not yet risen above the horizon. When
toward the end of the first century Josephus wrote his An-
tiquities, the distinction between those Aramaic speaking
Jews who looked for the return of Jesus as the Messiah and
those who expected the coming of a Son of David, preserved
in heaven for the time appointed, was not sufficiently
marked to warrant a special mention of the former as a
party or a philosophical school. The precious seed lay
buried in the ground longer than has been supposed, imper-
ceptible to eyes surveying only the salient features of Jew-
ish life. Ritschl rightly felt that between the death of
Jesus and the Pauline literature there was a period in which
a less advanced type of doctrine, a somewhat modified Juda-
ism, was proclaimed by the immediate disciples.1 He erred,
however, when he looked for this teaching to the epistles
ascribed by tradition to the apostles, just as the Tubingen
school was mistaken in making the Apocalypse a representa-
tive of this primitive Christianity. As yet we possess no
literary document from the immediate disciples of Jesus
bearing testimony to their faith. Whether any of them
ever wrote a line, or the earth still holds any fragment of
the first written Aramaic record, the future may reveal.
Meanwhile we cannot be sufficiently grateful for the possi-
bility of disentangling an early and reliable tradition by
means of literary and historical criticism of the Greek gos-
pels and a translation of the sayings ascribed to Jesus into
the language which he spoke.

The very facts that most unmistakably show the historical
character of Jesus, are at the same time precious indications
of his distinctive spirit and peculiar genius. They furnish
the basis for constructive work. By a judicious sifting of

1 Die Christliche Lehre von der Bechtfertigutig und Versohnuiig, II,
1882, p. 320.

32 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

the material on the vantage-ground thus gained, and a care-
ful testing of each logion in the closest possible restoration
of its original Aramaic form, the general trend at least of
the teaching of Jesus may be ascertained. In separating
later accretions, not only the influence of the intellectual
environment but also the reaction against it of a mighty per-
sonality, not only the organizing principles on which the
emphasis falls but also the unassimilated survivals of older
conceptions, must be considered. Otto Schmoller, Johannes
Weiss and Wilhelm Bousset have well maintained that the
kingdom of heaven must have been even to Jesus an eschato-
logical idea : the prophet 's eyes are always turned toward
the future. But if the coming kingdom was conceived by
him as a social order whose laws were of permanent validity,
he may have regarded it as present wherever those laws
were observed, and his ethics cannot be interpreted as merely
provisional in view of an impending catastrophe. It is a
most delicate task to determine Jesus' attitude on social
questions. The temptation is very strong to cover with his
authority one or another view in economic science. But it
is more honest to differ than to force the interpretation.
If a man believes that retaliation, warfare, usury, inordi-
nate wealth, oath-taking and divorce are essential to the
maintenance of civil society, he may see in some real or im-
aginary inconsistencies a support for his own philosophy,
but he must not on this ground obscure or obliterate the
fundamental opposition of Jesus to these things. Let him
express his dissent, as Renan and Reville have done in re-
gard to wealth. If, from a democratic standpoint, such and
similar positions may appear of necessity to imply a social-
istic programme, it is not justifiable to assume that the far-
reaching principle of service taking the place of authority
must have been thought out in all its political and economic
bearings, and to throw doubt upon the famous "Render
unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." In view of the pre-
suppositions of the time, the rugged honesty of Albert
Dulk 's1 criticism of Jesus for his ambition to become a king
1 Der Irrgang des Lebens Jesu, 1884.

THE DECLINE OF DOGMA 33

makes a more favorable impression than the defense by A.
Matthes,1 from substantially the same point of view, of his
shrewdness in taking advantage of a position ' ' in the centre
of the world's history. ' ' It should be recognized that Jesus
was not cognizant of the conditions of modern life, with its
peculiar problems, its larger experience and observation,
its social theories, and its methods of testing them. Yet
there can be no question that the toiling masses of mankind,
seeking a more equitable distribution of the wealth drawn
from nature 's bounties and produced by common labor, and
a mode of existence more in harmony with the dignity of
manhood, are quite right in feeling that by the substitution
of the Jesus of history for the celestial King of dogma, they
have won a friend whose teaching, life, and death will ever
be an inspiration in the struggle for justice and for mercy.
Jesus looked forward to the kingdom of heaven. He also
looked upward to the Father in heaven. This conception
was not new. But he gave it a majesty and a tenderness
never approached before. His thought of God manifestly
came from a rich inner experience, a deep and holy mysti-
cism. Not from books or teachers, but from immediate con-
templation of reality, did he gain his marvelous assurance.
As he reflected on the infinite goodness of the divine Being,
he realized that neither he, nor any other man, could be
called good. But he seems to have had no morbid sense of
sin. His consciousness of imperfection was swallowed up
in the sense of divine love. He looked into the Father's
face, and they were one forever. With a conscience void of
offense, he whispered Abba! and leaned with childlike con-
fidence, obedience and joy upon the Unseen Arm. This at-
titude toward the infinite mystery in which our human life
is imbedded is religion pure and undefiled. This is eternal
life. To whom should we go to hear words instinct with this
life but to the Prophet of Nazareth ? The Christ of dogma

1 Das Urbild Christi, 1897, p. 260 f . This is a thoughtful and sug-
gestive work, written from an independent standpoint in a reverent
spirit, and should not be passed by because of its somewhat artificial
arrangement.
3

34 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

had much to give. "Of his fulness we all received, and
grace for grace. ' ' But this he could not give. For he was
not true man. Therefore dogma must pass away, setting
the scientific instinct free to search for the historic reality,
and leaving the moral and religious impulses to find a new
ideal in the life of Jesus.1

1 This passing of Christological dogma is but an incident in the
process of evolution by which a more adequate estimate of the uni-
verse has been formed and takes the place of the corruption prevalent
among the civilized nations of antiquity. The conflict between the
old view of the world and the new has been described, with amplest
knowledge, by Andrew D. White, A History of the Warfare of Science
with Theology in Christendom, 1896.

CHAPTER III

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS

The chief contributions of the Old Testament to the de-
veloping Christology of the Church were the Messianic
prophecies and types discovered in its various books by late
Jewish and Christian exegesis. This exegesis was inti-
mately connected with, and largely rested upon, a peculiar
conception of the world, of man's origin, nature and des-
tiny, and of his fall and redemption. The universe was re-
garded as having been brought into existence through the
fiat of a supra-mundane divinity. The first man was sup-
posed to have been fashioned from clay by the hands of the
deity, and the first woman to have been made of a rib taken
from man. By their disobedience this couple was thought
to have made the whole race subject to death, brought all
their descendants into the power of the devil, and plunged
them into the everlasting torments of hell. Such a com-
plete ruin of a being made in the image of God was consid-
ered as having occasioned a divine scheme of salvation. As
the utter helplessness of man 's condition and the need of re-
demption could only become apparent in the course of his
history, his depravity was allowed to increase until "the
fulness of time," when the Saviour should appear. Mean-
while, however, the divine plan — so it was thought — had
been gradually revealed to men, partly through the sure
prophetic word, shining as a lamp in a dark place, partly
through a series of divinely ordained types pointing to the
coming Redeemer and his reign on earth.

According to this interpretation of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures, Messianic prophecy furnished also a present means
of salvation to those who did not live to experience its fulfil-
ment, but, seeing it from afar, believed and were justified

35

36 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

by faith. Since without a knowledge of Christ man must
utterly perish, this knowledge was thus mercifully supplied
from the very beginning, and grew more plentiful from age
to age. Like a golden thread, the story of Jesus Christ was
supposed to run through every book of the Hebrew Bible,
his life and death, his teaching and miracles, his resurrec-
tion and return to earth being indicated so plainly that only
an obdurate heart, a blind unbelief and a dull understand-
ing could fail to recognize even the details of the marvelous
picture, while good men in every generation were brought
through it to a living faith in Christ, and the apostles were
enabled to find the Messiah when he finally appeared.

In a similar manner, it was supposed that a system of re-
ligious facts, experiences and practices had been gradually
introduced, whose sole value lay in its esoteric meaning, its
suggestion of things to come. The law of Moses was con-
ceived of as a school-master leading men to Christ. Sur-
rounded on all sides by adumbrations of the great reality to
come, a member of the chosen people might, it was thought,
by looking at the type, divine the antitype, and approaching
in the right spirit the divinely appointed sign, draw near
to the infinite grace itself and receive spiritual life. While
it was felt by some Christian interpreters that the divine
choice of a certain object or fact as a type could not be abso-
lutely manifest until an inspired writer in the New Testa-
ment proclaimed its typical significance, it was generally
held that the same spirit which revealed to the apostles what
were the true types of Christ had already opened the eyes
of many who were looking for the consolation of Israel to
the hidden meaning of the ordinances of God.

The substance of Messianic prophecy, as understood by
orthodox theologians, may be briefly summed up as follows :
Ere yet man's disobedience and the fall had closed to him
the gates of paradise, the protevangel was proclaimed by
God himself. In the curse upon the devil, he gave the bless-
ed promise that woman's seed, that is the Christ, would
crush the serpent's head, destroy the power of Satan.1

1 Gen., iii, 15.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 37

When Noah, disgraced by his son Ham, pronounced his
curse upon Canaan, he united with it a promise that Japhet
should dwell in the tents of Shem, thus predicting the time
when the Gentiles should become fellow-heirs with Israel of
the Messianic blessings.1 Having left Ur of the Chaldees
to go he knew not whither in obedience to God's command,
Abraham received the assurance that in his seed, that is, the
Christ, all nations should be blessed.2 This pledge was re-
newed to Isaac and to Jacob. Before he passed away,
Jacob, leaning on his staff, prophesied that the scepter
should not turn from between the feet of Judah till Shiloh,
that is the Messiah, should come.3 Hired by Balak, king of
Moab, to curse Israel, Balaam was forced in spirit to bless,
and to foretell the rising out of Jacob of the bright and
morning star, the Christ.4 Having given his people the
Law on Sinai, and led it to the border of the promised land,
Moses predicted that the Lord should raise up from
among his brethren a prophet like unto himself, thus indi-
cating Christ's prophetic office.5 Job, the patriarch, fore-
saw him as the Redeemer who, on the last day, would raise
his suffering saint from the dead.6 In Zion, King David
sang many a hymn concerning his greater Son and Lord.
He predicted his anointment as King, his divine generation,
and his universal reign,7 his humiliation as a man inferior
to the angels,8 his resurrection,9 his divine strength,10 his
cry of God-forsakenness on the cross and his many suffer-
ings,11 his triumphant entrance into the heavenly sanctu-
ary,12 his voluntary assumption of human nature to offer a
sacrifice better than that of bulls and calves,13 his betrayal
by Judas Iscariot,14 his divinity and his eternal reign,15 his
ascension,16 his seating himself on the right hand of the
Father,17 his rejection by the elders of his people.18 Solo-
mon, in Ps., lxxii, spoke of his celestial reign; in Prov.,

1 Gen., ix, 27. 2 Gen., xvii, 3. " Gen., xlix, 10. 4 Num., xxiv, 17.

"Dent., xviii, 15; 8xix, 25. 7 Ps., ii. B Ps., viii. ■ Ps., xvi. 10 Ps.,

xxi. ufs., xxii. "Ps. xxiv. » Ps., xl. " Ps., xli. " Ps., xlv. " Ps.,
Ixviii. " Ps., ex. " Ps., cxviii.

38 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

viii, 22 ff., of his eternal creation; in Canticles at great
length of the intimate union of Christ and his Church.

These announcements of the coming Messiah were con-
tinued by a long line of prophets. Hosea predicted the re-
turn of the Son of God from Egypt1 and his resurrection
on the third day.2 Joel foretold the pentecostal outpour-
ing of his Spirit upon all flesh.3 Obadiah announced the
coming of a Saviour upon Mount Zion.4 Jonah, through
his marvelous deliverance from the belly of the fish, fore-
tokened the resurrection of Christ on the third day. Micah
predicted the birth of the Messiah in Bethlehem Ephrathah.5
Isaiah predicted the Christian dispensation and its exten-
sion from Jerusalem,6 the virgin birth,7 the light that should
appear in Galilee,8 the birth of the child whose name would
be "Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eter-
nity, Prince of Peace, ' ' of whose kingdom there should be no
end,9 the coming of ' ' the shoot of the stock of Jesse and the
branch out of its roots, ' '10 the forerunner crying in the wil-
derness,11 the suffering Servant of the Lord, offering an
atoning sacrifice for many and rising from the dead to see
of the travail of his soul and be satisfied,12 the deliverer
that should come to Zion and turn away transgression from
Jacob,13 and the Anointed One who, endowed with the
Spirit, should perform miracles and proclaim good tidings
to the poor.14 Jeremiah described him as "the Branch"15
and ' ' the Lord, our righteousness, ' '16 foretold the mourning
over the massacred infants at Bethlehem,17 the miraculous
conception18 and the new covenant.19 Ezekiel prophesied
the new covenant,20 the coming of a descendant of David,21
the appearance of "one to whom the right belongs,"22 the
reign of the greater David.23 Daniel not only foretold the
death of the Messiah,24 but also his coming on the clouds of
heaven.25 Haggai referred to him as "the desire of all na-

vi, 2. 3iii, 1. 4vs. 18. Bv, 1, 2. °ii, Iff. Tvii, 14.
ix, 5 If. 10xi, Iff. nxl, 3. "lii, 13-liii, 12. 13lix, 20.
"xxiii, 5; xxxiii, 15. "xxiii, 6. "xxxi, 15. 18 xxxi, 22.
20 xi, 19. axvii, 22 ff. sxxi, 32. ^xxxiv, 23, 24; xxxvii,
9.4.-27 ^vii 12

*xi, 1. 2
"viii, 23. Bix,
" lxi, 1 ff .
18 xxxi, 31. *> xi, .
24 ff. M ix, 24-27. » vii, 13,

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 39

tions."1 Zechariah spoke of him as "the Branch" that
should be crowned,2 the king entering Zion on an ass 's colt,3
the good shepherd who should be betrayed for thirty shekels
of silver,4 and smitten of God.5 Finally, Malachi predicted
the appearance of the forerunner, in the power and spirit
of Elijah, and the coming of the Lord himself to his temple.6

Such was the structure of the Messianic hope found in
the Old Testament. Many other features were naturally
added here and there by an interpretation that regarded
Christ and his Church as the nucleus of the Hebrew Scrip-
tures. The list of supposed Messianic passages is by no
means exhausted. But those mentioned are the most impor-
tant, and have been most widely recognized. Old Testa-
ment Christology stands or falls with them. A recognition
of their true character reveals with increasing clearness the
absence of the Christ-conception in the Hebrew canon, and
the late appearance of the elements out of which it grew.
This insight is the result of a long and painstaking scien-
tific labor that has had no other aim than to discover the
true significance of the language used in the sources, the
exact value of these sources, and the real facts of history.

The story of the Yahwe-garden in the land of Eden is a
myth. Adam is not a historic personality. There is no
reference to the Messiah. The constant struggle between
man and beast, the toil of man, the suffering of woman, the
sexual desire, the use of clothing, the godlike knowledge,
yet the failure to attain perpetual existence, are explained
by the myth as due to the action of a wise serpent revealing,
contrary to Yah we 's intention, the magical virtue of a tree,
and to Yah we 's intervention to prevent further encroach-
ments on the prerogatives of gods. The curse upon the ser-
pent does not contemplate any end to the conflict between
men and serpents. Of the three peoples mentioned in the
old song (Gen., ix, 25-27), Canaan is best known. The de-
sire is there expressed that the Canaanites may become
slaves of the nations represented by Shem and Japhet.
That Shem is regarded as the people entitled to possess the

1Hag.,ii,7. 2 iii, 8 ; vi, 12. 8ix, 9. 4xi, 12. 6xiii, 7. 8 iii, 1.

40 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

territory and to enslave its Canaanitish inhabitants, is clear,
not only from the prayer, "Bless, Yahwe, the tents of
Shem!"1 but also from the concession, "Let him (Japhet)
dwell in the tents of Shem!" Whatever other tribes the
author may have had in mind, there can be little doubt that
he thought in the first place of Israel. His reason for choos-
ing the term ' ' Shem ' ' may have been to appeal to a larger
circle of kinsmen for aid or approval in the subjugation of
Canaan. It is probable that Japhet, afterwards used as a
designation of various peoples in Asia Minor, Greece and
the Mediterranean lands, here denotes the Philistines, whose
Cretan origin becomes increasingly certain. At a time
when the subjection of the Canaanites seemed of utmost im-
portance, and the tribe to which the author belonged was
still willing to share the land with other invaders on con-
dition that they took a part in crushing the earlier inhabit-
ants, this song was first heard. There is no word in it con-
cerning the Messiah, or the Christian dispensation.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are probably the local heroes
of Hebron, Beersheba and Shechem. Their names seem to
indicate that as such they received divine honors in these
places at an earlier period. The legends told of them reflect
the spirit and ideals of the early royal period. When the
Canaanites had been actually subjugated, the question arose
as to the justice of this deed. The right of Israel to the soil
was then established by the fiction of a promise given to the
mythical ancestor.2 Conscience being satisfied, the sense of
national greatness could voice itself by furnishing this an-
cestor also with a promise that his descendants would be-
come such "a great and mighty nation" that other peoples
seeing their glory might wish to be as blessed as they. ' ' All
nations shall be blessed, " is a mistranslation. The verb has
a reflexive force. It should be rendered : ' ' All nations shall
bless themselves with thy descendants." This means that

1 So the text should probably be read. Cf . Gunkel, Genesis, 1901,
to this passage.

2 Cf . Schmidt, article Covenant in the Encyclopaedia Biolica.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 41

they shall invoke upon themselves such blessings, such a
marvelous prosperity, as they see Israel enjoying.

Gen. xlix, 10b, is probably a late gloss. It adds nothing
to the thought of the first half of the verse except emphasis
upon Judah's rightful claim to authority over subject
peoples. While the original poet sang :

"Not turns from Judah the sceptre,"
"Nor the staff from between his feet,"

an annotator seems to have added the couplet :

"Till that which belongs to him come,
"And nations pay him homage."

There is no suggestion here of a Messiah taking from the
tribe of Judah its kingdom.

The ''star" that Balaam is represented as seeing is
evidently the Judaean kingdom. The author of these proph-
ecies lived, as is clear from the historic allusions, in the
Assyrian period. He put his glorification of Judah in the
mouth of a legendary heathen seer whose home tradition
had not firmly fixed, and whose name was borrowed from an
Edomitish king. There is no reference in the songs to the
Messiah.

That Deuteronomy, though it purports to be a work of
Moses, originated centuries after his time, and was not
introduced in Israel, even in its simplest form, until the
eighteenth year of King Josiah, or 620 B. C, is one of the
most certain results of Biblical criticism. The author of
Deut. xviii, 15, looked back upon a long line of prophets like
unto Moses, raised up by Yahwe one after another. He did
not look forward to the Messiah.

The poet by the grace of God to whom we owe the
dialogues in the book of Job did not put upon his hero's
lips, we may be sure, words such as Jerome, in his transla-
tion, imputes to him in xix, 25, 26. Even the Massoretic
text, though unquestionably corrupt, lies no doubt nearer
to the original. Only by conjecture, aided by the ancient
versions and the metre, the text may be approximately re-

TSfeb.

42 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

stored. It seems probable that the two tetrastichs (xix, 23-
24, 25-26) originally read as follows:

"Would that my words were written,"
"Were in a book recorded,
"With lead and iron stylus"
' ' Cut in the rock forever ! ' '

"I know he lives, my goel,
"Upon the dust he rises.
"My witness will avenge me,
"A curse will reach my foemen."1

God is the blood-avenger and the witness. There is no out-
look into a future life. Here, as everywhere else in the
book, the solution of the problem is sought on the earth,
without the relief of an adjournment. There is no thought
of a resurrection, or of a Messiah in the passage.

David was a poet. His lament over Saul and Jonathan
proves this. But he was not a psalm-singer. The Psalter
is the hymn-book of the second temple.2 Many of its songs
may have been written in the Persian and Greek periods.
The bulk no doubt belongs to the Hasmonaean age, as
Olshausen perceived long ago.3 Some of the psalms would
never have been regarded as Messianic had they not been
treated as such by New Testament writers. Ps. viii speaks
of man in general, and not of this or that individual; Ps.
xvi expresses the confidence of a chasid, or pietist, of the
Harmonaean period, that God will preserve his life; Ps.
xiii is a prayer of one who has suffered much, containing
no allusion to the Messiah. In Ps. xxiv, it is God himself
who enters the temple, probably at its re-dedication in 165
B. C., as Duhm has suggested ;4 Ps. xl is the utterance of a

xThe later accretions have been removed by Cheyne, Jewish Re-
ligious Life after the Exile, 1898, p. 169. In his article on Job in
the Encyclopaedia Biblica, he offers a different and less satisfactory
restoration.

2 This was shown with a wealth of arguments by Cheyne in his
Bampton Lectures, 1889.

8 Die Psalmen, 1853.

*Die Psalmen, 1899. Perhaps the most valuable feature of this
commentary is the lucid and convincing exposition of a number of
Maccabaean and Hasmonaean hymns.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 43

soul that has learned, through the study of some prophetic
book-roll, that Yahwe wants obedience, and not sacrifices ;
the experience of the singer in xli, 10, that even a trusted
servant proves faithless, is common enough in every age and
does not refer to Judas Iscariot ; in Ps. lxviii, 19, a victory
of Yahwe on Mount Bashan is described, and not the ascen-
sion of Christ; Ps. cxviii, 22, is a proverb applicable in
many historic circumstances.

Far more natural was it that such hymns as Pss. ii, xxi,
xlv, ex, and also xviii, xx, lxi, lxiii, lxviii, lxxxiv, lxxxix
and exxxii, should be regarded as Messianic. In these
Psalms a "king" is mentioned, and he is sometimes called
"the Anointed." Most of these cases call for nothing but
an ordinary king. As long as it was thought possible that
some pre-exilic songs might have been preserved in the
Psalter, it was accordingly supposed that kings of Judah
were meant. With the recognition of the post-exilic origin
of the Psalter this became impossible. Since in some in-
stances the king, his relations to Yahwe, his victories and
his reign are described in terms that seemed too exaggerated
for any earthly monarch, the conclusion was drawn that
either the holy people itself, or else its coming Messiah, was
intended. Closer examination, however, reveals the fact
that the transcendent conception of royalty is most natural
and best authenticated in the Hasmonaean period. Follow-
ing Egyptian custom, the Ptolemies had assumed divine
titles. The king was "born of gods," "son of Isis and
Osiris, " " god of god and goddess. ' ' There is no reason to
suppose that emancipated aristocrats in Jerusalem hesitated
to accord such titles to an Antiochus III. Even in earlier
times the king had been looked upon in Israel as a god-like
being; (ep. II Sam. xiv, 17, 20, where "angel" is un-
doubtedly a later addition, and Isa. ix, 6.) In Pss. lvii, 2,
and lxxxii, 6, Pharisaic hymn-writers scornfully designate
the Hasmonaean rulers as "gods." There would be no
sting in this sarcasm, if they were not actually designated as
such. That this was the case, is shown by Ps. xlv, where
the poet laureate of one of these princes on the occasion of a

44 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

royal wedding apostrophizes the monarch: "Thy throne,
O god! is forever and aye," and "O god! thy God has
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy broth-
ers."1 The king whose epithalamium this is does not be-
long to the future. In Ps. ii the anointed king on Zion is
represented as proclaiming to the rebellious nations a divine
decree, given on his accession to the throne, by which they
were delivered to him. By this anointment the political
ruler in Jerusalem becomes the ' ' son ' ' of Yah we, his repre-
sentative on earth, whose duty it is to secure recognition
among the nations for the Lord of heaven. Without the
ardent hope that the kingdom of the world would be given
to the saints of the Most High, this bold conception would
not have been possible. But this king is not an apocalyptic
figure. He is on the field. A part of the world has already
been conquered. The rest will inevitably follow. Already
a generation earlier Simon was greeted by a court poet, in
Ps. ex, as Yah we 's vicegerent, the new Melchizedek, ruler,
though not of Davidic descent, high priest, though not of
the pontifical family. As in this psalm, so in I Mace, xiv,
41, the double dignity is conferred upon Simon "for ever,"
which probably means that it was to be a hereditary right.
That the Hasmonaean kings applied to themselves the sup-
posed promises to David in II Sam. vii, is only natural,
and may be clearly seen in Ps. lxxxix. The term "Mes-
siah" is naturally used of the anointed priestly rulers.
But although the language is occasionally strongly tinged
with apocalyptic imagery, there is nowhere a reference to a
future deliverer, a coming Messiah.

Solomon is not the author of any of the works ascribed
to him. Ps. lxxii is a prayer for a living king. The singer

1 All ancient witnesses to the text agree. If there is a corruption,
it must have taken place at a very early time. Bruston has suggested,
Du texte primitive des Psaumes, 1873, that an original yihyeh —
"there shall be" was mistaken for Yahwe and this afterwards
changed into Elohim. Wellhausen and Duhm have accepted this con-
jecture. But that so simple a reading should have been lost every-
where, and one offering such difficulties to later thought adopted, is
not probable.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 45

desires for his sovereign long life, prosperity, wide con-
quests, and an enduring name. There is no necessity for
regarding this king as a Ptolemy. Why should not a
Jewish poet have found it in his heart to wish as good
things for a native ruler as for a foreign potentate ? Nor is
there any need of supposing verses 5-11 to be an interpola-
tion. The description of wisdom in Prov. viii, 22-31, is
generally regarded as a poetic expression of the fact that
wisdom is manifest in the creation of the world. But it
may be doubted whether the conception of wisdom as a
divine child, conceived and born in heaven before the
creation, and playing as Yah we 's nursling in the new-made
world, can have sprung full-fledged from the author's
fancy. It is more likely to have a mythical origin. Ara-
mati is Ahura Mazda's child.1 The role that Wisdom plays
in this passage is most extraordinary. There is no sugges-
tion of an ' ' eternal generation, ' ' and no connection with the
Messianic idea. Canticles is neither an allegory of Christ 's
love for his church, nor a drama exhibiting the steadfast
affection of a country maiden for her shepherd lover amid
the fascinations of King Solomon 's harem, nor yet a descrip-
tion of wedded love for a didactic purpose, but simply a
string of love lyrics portraying the strongest of human
passions.2

Hosea spoke of Israel as returning from Egypt,3 and
rebuked the foolish confidence that looked for a recovery
"in two or three days" from the serious ills of the nation.4
The book of Joel probably was written in the third century.

1 Cf . C. P. Tiele, Geschiedenis van den godsdienst in de oudheid,
II, 1, 1895, p. 138, and E. Stave, Ueber den Einfluss des Parsismus
auf das Judentum, 1898, p. 206; Cheyne, Semitic Studies, 1897, p.
112, thought of Persian influence; Beer, in Theologische Literatur-
seitung, 1899, p. 330, particularly of Vahu Mano. Aramati seems to
the present writer more likely to be the original.

2 Cf . Schmidt, The Messages of the Poets in the series on The Mes-
sages of the Bible, edited by Sanders and Kent, and his article 'Cant-
icles' in the New International Encyclopaedia, 1902-1904.

"XI, 1.
4 VI, 2.

46 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

The author expected that the signs of the coming catastro-
phe would be so numerous as to fill the minds of young and
old in Israel with prophetic premonitions. In a post-
exilic appendix to Amos a copyist or annotator has ex-
pressed the hope that the Davidic dynasty, fallen to the
ground as a tent, may be established again. He no doubt
thought of some surviving member of the royal family as
the means of raising the prostrate tent. Obadiah declares
that "conquerors shall go up from Mount Zion to judge
Mount Esau." The words occur in what is probably an
addition in the Hasmonaean age to a prophecy dating itself
from the Persian period. The marvel of the book of Jonah
is not the story of the fish, which is neither possible in itself
nor in any way suggestive of the resurrection, but its quaint
humor and its warm human sympathy. Micah iv-vii forms
an appendix presenting a marked similarity to Zech. ix-xiv,
and possibly is a product of the second century. The
author looks for vengeance upon the heathen oppressors
and restoration of the kingdom, not to nobles and men of
royal blood in the capital, but to the country. From little
Beth Ephrathah the great ruler of Israel will come forth as
of yore. Is it David himself who will return to earth, or
some descendant of his living at what was supposed to be
the old family residence who will come forth to meet the
present emergency, or a man like David who will step to
the front from some obscure corner of Judaea ? The literal
interpretation is not impossible. If Elijah, Jeremiah, or
any one of the prophets, as it would seem from Matth. xvi,
14, might be expected to return to earth, why not David?
Yet it is perhaps more probable that the writer looked for a
new David, and his eyes may already have descried a new
Beth Ephrathah in little Modem, the cradle of the Hasmo-
naean princes. Micah v, 2, is an interpolation, not neces-
sarily dependent on Isa. vii, 14.

There is no reference to the Messiah in Isaiah ii, 1 ff . This
prophet did not predict in vii, 14 ff. that a virgin would
bear a child, and that the child would be the Messiah. The
word translated "virgin" really means "young woman,"

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 47

married or unmarried. The sign consists in this, that a
woman pregnant at the time the prophet spoke would, when
she had borne her son, call him Immanuel. So quickly would
the much feared Syro-Ephraimitic coalition collapse, that
in less than a year a mother would call her new born child
"With-us-is-God," in characteristic forgetfulness of the
fatal weakness within, and the more formidable foe looming
up in the background. This enemy would soon cover
Judah, as well as Damascus and Israel, and make it a
wilderness where a surviving remnant might learn to
choose the good and reject the evil. And this should be a
warning sign to dynasty and people. There is not a word in
the text about a virgin or a Messiah.1 That Isa. ix, 1 ff. and
xi, 1 ff. are not the work of the great pre-exilic prophet has
been recognized by Stade,2 Hackmann,3 Cheyne,4 Volz5 and
Marti.6 These passages presuppose the fall of the dynasty,
the exile, and the changed attitude of Yahwe to his people.
It is evident that the joyous confidence these poems breathe
is occasioned by the birth of a son in the Davidic family
under especially favorable political circumstances. As the
background is clearly the exile, Sellin7 has thought of the
birth of Zerubbabel, which presumably took place at the
time when the destruction of the Babylonian empire was
threatened by the advancing Persians. But in Isa. xl-
xlviii, written at that period, Yahwe has no king but Cyrus.
It, therefore, seems more probable that it was the elevation
of Jehoiachin from his dungeon, his reinstatement in the
honors at court belonging to his rank, and the birth of his
son, Sin-apal-uzur (or Sheshbazzar), the later governor of
Judaea (ca. 561 B. C), that inspired these hopes. The

*Cf. especially F. C. Porter, A Suggestion regarding Isaiah's Im-
manuel in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 1895, p. 19 ff., and ar-
ticles Immanuel and Isaiah by Cheyne in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

3 Geschichte Israels, I, 1885, p. 596.

'Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia, Gottingen, 1893, p. 130 ff.

* Introduction to the Boole of Isaiah, 1895, p. 44 ff.

'Die Vorexilische Yahweprophetie und der Messias, 1897, p. 57 ff.

• Das Buch Isaia, 1900, p. 95.
'Serubbabel, 1898, p. 37.

48 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

voices that the great prophet of the exile hears ordering the
way to be prepared for Yahwe's return to Jerusalem are
evidently those of celestial agents entrusted with the trans-
formation of historic conditions to this end. Although
many an individual sufferer must have furnished the char-
acteristic features of the Servant of Yahwe in Isa. xl-lv, it
can scarcely be subject to serious doubt that this figure rep-
resents the people of Israel, whose patient endurance of evil
in the exile is felt to have a redemptive value, and whose
reorganized national life, it is hoped, will bring the knowl-
edge of the only living God to the other nations of the
earth.1 The famous section, lii, 13-liii, 12, is retrospective
and philosophical. It does not predict a coming redeemer.
It is Yahwe himself who comes to Zion in Isa. lix, 20, and
in lxi, 1 ff . the prophet introduces himself as clothed with
the spirit of Yahwe to bring the glad tidings of liberty to
his poor compatriots. Nowhere in the book of Isaiah is
there a prediction of the coming in the future of a person
designated as the Messiah.

The author of Jer. xxiii, 5 ff., emphasizes the righteous
character and royal dignity of the "Shoot" to be raised to
David, whose name will be Jozedek.2 As Geiger recognized
long ago, the writer lived in the Hasmonaean period. The
name possibly contains a hint of the pontifical succession;
the Hasmonaeans were naturally regarded as the successors
of David ; the royal title apparently is still a hope. In Jer.
xxxiii, 14-26, a late fragment not yet found in the copy
used by the earliest Greek version, the writer evidently
looks upon the Hasmonaean princes and high-priests as the
legitimate successors of the Davidic dynasty and the
Aaronid family. He rebukes the people that look upon
these families as having been "rejected," coming to their
end with Zedekiah and Onias. To his way of thinking, the
promise to David is manifestly being fulfilled in the pres-
ent dynasty, and there will always be a king sitting on the

1 Cf . especially Budde, Die sogenannten Ebed-Yahwe-Lieder, 1900.

2 E. V. " The Lord is our righteousness ; ' ' the Greek version has
Jozedek.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 49

throne of David, and guaranteeing the continuance of the
priesthood. The little book, Jer. xxx, xxxi, is probably a
product of the first decades of the fifth century, when the
Graeco-Persian conflict stirred new hopes of independence
in Judaea.1 Kachel's lament over her children as dead,
and the reward for her tender care in their return from
captivity, have nothing to do with the story of the massacre
of infants in Bethlehem. Her tomb was at Ramah (1
Sam. x, 2), and her children were Joseph and Benjamin
and their descendants. "Foemina circumdabit virum,"
Jer. xxxi, 22, continues to be to Roman Catholic theology
as important, as a Messianic prophecy, as "Ecce virgo con-
cipiet, ' ' Isa. vii, 14, has until recent times been to Protestant
theology. That "a woman surrounds a man" is understood
to mean that she carries within her a male child. But since
this would be a common occurrence, and not a miracle, the
"woman" must be the Virgin Mary, the "man" Jesus, and
the "new thing" her pregnant condition without the aid of
a man. The passage should probably be read and ren-
dered, ' ' I will create a new thing — men will walk about in a
redeemed land. ' '2 The establishment of national independ-
ence and prosperity, revealing Yahwe's pardoning grace
and awakening a willingness to obey his law, is the new ar-
rangement that the prophet yearns for (xxxi, 31). Ez. xi,
19, speaks of willingness to obey Yahwe's commandments,
and not of the Christian dispensation. The "lofty top of
the cedar" (Ez. xvii, 22), like the "one who has the right"
to the ruined city of Jerusalem (xxi, 32), is evidently
Jehoiachin. Ez. xxxiv, 23, 24, seems to be an interpolation
breaking the context and at variance with its thought. The
same hand has probably introduced "my servant David"
in Ez. xxxvii, 24, 25. Whether the annotator used this
name simply as an appellative, or actually had in mind the
historical David, he appears to have wished that his people
might have a king like David. His ideal was in the past.

xCf. Schmidt, article Jeremiah {the Boole) in the Encyclopaedia
Biblica, and The Boole of Jeremiah in the New World, December, 1900,
* Schmidt, I, c.

50 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

The book of Daniel was written at the time of the Macca-
baean uprising (ca. 165 B.C.), as is now universally ad-
mitted. It never speaks of the Messiah. The being "like
a man ' ' that appears on the clouds of heaven is the celestial
representative of Israel. By many interpreters it is held
to be a symbol of the humane regime characteristic of the
new world power. More probably it is here, as elsewhere, an
angel, and in that case undoubtedly the angel Michael,
Israel's celestial patron.1 The "anointed prince," Dan.
ix, 25, is probably Joshua ben Jozadak, with whom the high-
priestly office begins, and the ' ' anointed, ' ' who is ' ' cut off, ' '
i. e., removed from his place, is either Jochanan-Onias III,
possibly the founder of the temple at Leontopolis,2 or
Joshua-Jason, with whom the legitimate line comes to its
end. Haggai does not speak of a person at all in ii, 7, but
of precious gems as being brought into the temple. If the
references to the "branch" in Zech. iii, 8, vi, 12, are orig-
inal,3 the Davidic descendant Zerubbabel is meant, whose
coronation as king Zechariah expected. The additions to
the book (chs. ix-xiv), made in the second century, allude
to some of the rulers of the people immediately before the
Maccabaean revolt. The shepherd who is no longer willing
to feed the flock, lays down his office, demands payment, re-
ceives the inadequate sum of thirty shekels, and deposits
these in the temple treasury, may well be Hyrcanus, the son
of Tobias, as Wellhausen4 has suggested; and the wicked
shepherd who stands so near to Yahwe, yet is slain by him,
may be Menelaus. The pious and victorious ruler who en-
ters Zion in triumph, and leads the sons of Judah against

1 Cf . Schmidt, The ' ' Son of Man ' ' in the Book of Daniel in Journal
of Biblical Literature, 1900, II, p. 22 ff, and Julius Grill, Untersuch-
ungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums, 1902, p. 55 ff.

2Cf. Hugo Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der MalcJcabdischen
Erhebung, 1895; Wellhausen, Gott gel. Anseigen, 1895, p. 951 ff;
Israelitische und judische Geschichte,a 1897, p. 244 f .

3 Jb\ E. Peiser, Zu Zdkharia in Orientalistische Litter •atur-Zei-
tung, 15 Aug., 1901, col. 313, and Duhm, Das Buch Jeremia, 1901,
p. 181 f, express grave doubts.

* Die Tcleinen Propheten, 1898, p. 196.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 51

the sons of Greece, is probably one of the Hasmonaeans. It
is Yahwe himself, and not the Messiah, whom Malachi de-
scribes as entering his temple to purge the sons of Levi,
that they may offer proper sacrifices ; and it is the real Eli-
jah, who was carried away alive from the earth, that he looks
for to heal the internal dissensions and to render it possible
for Yahwe to dwell in the temple.

The Hebrew Bible contains no prophecy of the appear-
ance upon earth of such a personality as Jesus of Nazareth
seems to have been. Nor does it anywhere predict the com-
ing of such a being as the Messiah of Jewish thought was
in the Roman period. The term "Messiah," or " Yahwe 's
Messiah," is used as a designation of kings, high-priests,
and priestly rulers, who have actually been invested with
their office by anointment. No member of the old royal
family, around whom political hopes clustered in the Chal-
daean and Persian periods, was called "the Messiah." As
a designation of a coming deliverer, this term is not found
in the Hebrew canon. No passage written while kings
ruled in Jerusalem and Samaria even alludes to any future
monarch. When the long-lived dynasty of the Isaidae had
fallen, it was but natural that the hope of national inde-
pendence should center on some descendant of this distin-
guished family. The theocratic interests of the priesthood
tended to check such political aspirations. The Macca-
baean insurrection started among country priests from re-
ligious motives. Through these inspired heroes the faithful
expected the world to be conquered. Patriotic souls, im-
pressed with Israel's moral and religious superiority,
watched the Hasmonaean restoration of the Davidic king-
dom with a sense of manifest destiny. Out of this eschato-
logical mood the Messianic hope in its strictest sense was
born, when the Roman eagles had swooped down upon the
land. This mood had found expression, since the exile, in
many an eager look into the future. It is an abuse of the
term "Messianic," however, to apply it to expressions of
hope for deliverance from oppression, victory over enemies,
great changes in the world, or a good time to come, where

52 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH

these contain no allusion whatever to a Messiah. This is
only a source of confusion. Those who recognize that there
is no Christology of the Old Testament would better avoid a
term properly understood as indicating that a passage
refers to Christ and his kingdom.

Although these utterances of poets and seers in Israel do
not present the life and character of Jesus, and must be
misinterpreted to yield prophecies even of the Messiah his
contemporaries expected, their value is very great. They
breathe the atmosphere of hope. It is not the bracing air
of the great, sad prophets of doom who were before the
exile. But men live by it. It matters little that the star
of Jacob sank in blood, that Heldai's crown1 never adorned
Zerubbabel's brow, that no son of David ever crushed the
nations as worthless vessels. As a fact of history, as a les-
son for the race, it was important that this people should
see its visions, dream its dreams, and rise from repeated
disenchantments to new nights of hope.

A type is a stamp that bears the effigy to be impressed
upon something, e. g., a coin, or, by derivation, the effigy
itself in the stamp. The impression in the coin is the anti-
type. Metaphorically, a type is any object containing an
image, that is an analogy, by which it is fitted to represent,
by the operation of the mind, another object. The type
contributes nothing to the antitype. It only shadows forth
the outlines of the object represented. It suggests it. It
is a sign. But it differs from a sacrament by being transi-
tory in its nature, not permanent, a sign of future, not of
present, grace.

There are different classes of types. They may be di-
vided into the following categories: I, Typical Sacra-
ments; II, Typical Miracles; III, Typical Persons; IV,
Typical Sacrifices; V, Typical Ablutions; VI, Typical in-
struments; VII, Typical Places; VIII, Typical Festivals;
IX, Typical Visions ; X, Typical Enemies.2

1 Zech., VI, 10, 11.

2 This classification has been taken from the great work of Anton
Hulsius, Nucleus Prophetiae, Leiden, 1683. The illustrations of each

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 53

The first type, like the first prophecy, was given to man
in the garden of Eden. The tree of life was a sacramental
type. Not the fruit itself, but the faith that expressed
itself in the act of eating it had the power of giving eternal
life; just as the fruit of the forbidden tree had no virtue
to bestow knowledge of good and evil aside from the dis-
obedience shown in eating it. After the fall, the first typ-
ical sacrament instituted was circumcision.1 This sign of
the covenant was a seal of Abraham 's justification by faith,2
and typified baptism, the sign of the new covenant. Sim-
ilarly, the paschal lamb3 was a type of Christ4 appropriated
in the eucharist.5 Miracles, like the deliverance of Noah
from the flood6 and the Israelites from the Red Sea,7 and
the supply of manna from heaven,8 and water from the
rock9 were also types of the Christian sacraments.10

Adam, the man of earth, was a type of Christ, the man
from heaven.11 Abraham, who looked for the city that hath
the foundations, was a type of the militant and aspiring
church.12 Sarah typified the celestial Jerusalem, Hagar the
terrestrial, Isaac all believers in Christ.13 Melchizedek, the
priest-king "without genealogy," who blessed Abraham
and received tithes from him, was a type of the eternal Son
of God.14 Jacob and Esau typified the elect and the non-
class have also been largely drawn from this source. There is no bet-
ter guide. This Leiden professor was a man of profound erudition
and remarkable keenness of judgment, thoroughly familiar with an-
cient and modern Jewish interpretations and not affected by critical
thought. The value of his work was recognized by Hengstenberg,
who was greatly indebted to it. Fairbairn 's book Typology of Scrip-
ture (6th ed. 1880), is far less comprehensive and satisfactory than
that of Hulsius as a statement of orthodox doctrine, defends it with
less ingenuity and acuteness, and is not a whit more critical. There
is no modern work through which a student can readily learn what
has become of typology, what was its fatal error, and what was the
truth that gave it such a power. Yet it is intrinsically quite as impor-
tant as ' • Messianic prophecy. ' '

1 Gen., xvii. 2 Bom., iv, 11. * Ex., xii. * II Cor., v, 7. B John, vi,
53. 'Gen., vii. T Ex., xiv, 21 ff. 8 Ex., xvi. "Ex., xvii. 10I Pet.,
iii, 17; I Cor., x, 1-4. u I Cor., xv, 45-49. u Heb., xi, 10. » Gal., iv,
26 ff. "Eeb., vii, 1 ff.

54 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

elect.1 Moses, as the mediator of a covenant, was a type of
Christ.2 Priests, prophets and kings were types of Christ
and his people.

Already Abel's sacrifice, acceptable because bloody,
piacular and offered in faith, was a type of Christ 's atoning
death.3 Even more adequately was this death fore-
shadowed in Gen. xxii, where Abraham undertakes to offer
his only-begotten son. The sacrificial system ordained by
God through Moses, by constantly emphasizing the thought
that without the shedding of blood there could be no for-
giveness of sins, pointed typically to the only offering whose
blood could really atone for sin.4 The regulations concern-
ing the animals to be offered and the time and manner of
their presentation prefigured the perfection of Christ's
sacrifice. The ablutions prescribed in the law were types
of the cleansing from impurity in the blood of Christ,
accomplished in the new covenant through the Holy Spirit
by means of baptism. The ark of the covenant, the altar
and the ephod all were types of Christ, his sacrifice, and
his righteousness in which the believer is clothed.

The heavenly temple in which Christ presented his sacri-
fice5 was the antitype of tabernacle, temple and asylum.
The sacred seasons ordained by Moses were types of the
spiritual blessings in Christ, and also of the sacred seasons
of Christendom. Thus the Jewish sabbath on the seventh
day prefigured the Christian sabbath on the day of Christ's
resurrection, the Passover, the Easter festival, and the Feast
of Weeks, the Pentecost celebrating the gift of the Holy
Spirit.

Besides visions concerning the future of their own people,
the prophets were also given visions in which the church
universal and invisible was typically set forth. In such
cases the angel of the covenant, i. e., the pre-existent Christ
himself, appeared and presented his church under the figure
of an acceptable offering,6 angels ascending on a ladder,7 a

1Bom., ix, 11. *Gal., iii, 19. 8 Eel., xii, 24. *Heb., ix, 13, 14.
5 Heb., ix, 24. 8 Gen., xv. T Gen., xxviii.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 55

bush burning yet never consumed,1 or a temple.2 The great
enemy of Christ and his church, the devil, was typified by
Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Antiochus Epiphanes.

Such were the types generally recognized by Protestant
scholars before modern criticism began to cast discredit on
typology. Catholic theologians would have included many
more, and given to some a different interpretation. The
critical study of the Hebrew Scriptures has eliminated these
types. Messianic prophecy still figures in recent works on
the religion of Israel, though the term "Messianic" no
longer conveys its old meaning; but one now looks in vain
for a single word on the subject of typology. We shall find
abundant reason, however, when our survey of the field is
concluded, to recognize beneath all that may have seemed
merely fanciful or fantastic an element of reality. The
successive cycles of experience, as reflected in history, are
not unrelated, they have their similarities and correspond-
ences in their common relation to the unchanging facts of
nature and of life.

No tree of life ever grew on earth. It offered its fruits
of immortality only in the mythical gardens of the gods.
Circumcision was not a custom peculiar to the Jews. It
was practised by Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites, Ca-
naanites, Egyptians, Midianites and numerous other peo-
ples.3 Originally it was a sacrifice of holy blood to the
tribal deity on entering the cult-community at the age of
puberty, possibly regarded as an abbreviated phallic sac-

1 Ex., iii. 2 EseTc., xl, ff .

sCf. Jer., ix, 25; Herodotus, ii, 36; Philo, ii, 210, ed. Mangey;
Diod, Sic, iii, 31; Strabo, xvii, 824; Ploss, Das Kind in Brauch
und Sitte der V biker? 1882, I, 842 f.; article Circumcision by Ben-
zinger in the Encyclopaedia Biblica. In regard to Egypt it is of inter-
est to notice that the man represented on a plaque now in the Louvre,
published by Heuzey in Bulletin de correspondence hellenique, 1892,
p. 307 f. and pi. I, as being gored by a bull, is manifestly circumcised.
That he is an Egyptian and likely to have lived in the days before
Mena, has been shown by Georg Steindorff in Aegyptiaca, Fest-
schrift fiir Georg Ebers, 1897, p. 128 ff. But circumcision is not
likely to have been a novelty in the world even in the sixth millen-
nium B. C

56 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

rifice.1 Later it was transferred to infancy as a dedicatory-
rite. In the New Testament it is not a type of baptism,
but of the removal of a carnal disposition. Unquestion-
ably, baptism, in its development from the immersion of
adults to the sprinkling of infants, shows a marked similar-
ity to circumcision. But the religious bath has a different
origin and significance ; and the later transformation of the
rite to adapt it to the same purpose as circumcision is wholly
foreign to the New Testament where the antitype should
appear. The Pesach, or Leap Feast, as it was called, prob-
ably because of the gamboling of the young animals at the
time when firstlings were offered to Yahwe, gradually be-
came a memorial of the deliverance from Egypt. No Israel-
ite could have thought of the Messiah in connection with
the paschal lamb. It was the death of Jesus and the sup-
posed reference to him in Isa. liii, 7, that led to this remark-
able conception. The idea of a suffering Messiah, with
which even the disciples of Jesus are entirely unfamiliar,
does not appear in Rabbinic writings until centuries later.
If the eucharist is suggested in John vi, 53, the idea of a
material appropriation of Christ therein is clearly rejected
by the assertion : ' ' The flesh profiteth nothing, the words
that I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life," vi, 63.2
The story of the deluge is a myth of Babylonian origin,
ultimately founded on a constantly recurring natural phe-
nomenon.3 The crossing of the Red Sea by aid of a miracle,
the manna falling down from heaven, and the water issuing
from a rock that, in the last version, moves along with the
Israelites through the desert,4 belong to legendary lore.
That the development of such folk-tales should have been
divinely intended to prefigure the services rendered by

1 Cf . Schmidt, article Circumcision in the New International Ency-
clopedia, 1902.

2 Cf . Schmidt, The Character of Christ 's Last Meal in Journal of
Biblical Literature, 1892, p. 20.

8 Cf . Hermann Usener, Die Sintfluthsagen, 1899 ; P. Jensen, Die
Kosmologie der Babylonier, 1890, p. 365 ff.
* I Cor., x, 1-4.

%

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 57

Jesus to the world, or the fictitious values ascribed to ecclesi-
astical rites, is difficult to believe.

Adam is not a historic personality. Abram, the numen
of Hebron, and his consort and sister Sarah1 are not likely
to have walked upon the earth as human beings. Even in
the early legends, Abraham does not look for a celestial city,
and Sarah's character is not suggestive of a heavenly Jeru-
salem. Hagar, in the legend a Muzrite slave, in reality
seems to have been an Arabian tribe.2 Before an allegoriz-
ing interpretation capable of finding any desired meaning
in any text had come into vogue, no person would have
thought of seeing in this figure a mountain in Arabia,3 or a
religious community in bondage to the letter. Isaac, the
benignantly smiling El of Beersheba, or the characterless
hero offered by his father, could not have led men in Israel
to think of the Messiah. The name Melchizedek, signifying
' 'the god Zedek is my king," may have formed a part of
the earlier stratum in Gen. xiv ; the role Melchizedek plays
is generally recognized as one of the latest midrashic crea-
tions in the Hebrew Bible. That a king is also a priest, is
a common occurrence in history, and that a foreign king's
pedigree is unknown, cannot be deemed strange. But when
Simon was proclaimed high-priest and prince in 141 B. C,
a poet was glad to discover a precedent in Melchizedek 's
case for a divinely recognized pontificate and royalty out-
side of the Aaronid and Davidic families, Ps. ex. Not
until the author of Hebrews felt the necessity of vindicat-
ing for Jesus the right of exercising priestly functions, is
it likely that any one dreamed of regarding the fact that
Melchizedek 's parentage was not mentioned as an indication

1In Babylonia, Ishtar is also called sharratu, sometimes sister,
sometimes daughter, of Sin.

2 In Aegyptiaca, Festschrift fiir Georg Ebers, 1897, p. 25 ff., Hom-
mel gives an account of a list of hierodules from different parts of
Arabia and neighboring countries found among Glaser's inscriptions.
Some of the women come from Hagar. Winckler compares the Ha-
garites of I Chron., v, 10, 19, 20, Musri, Meluhha, Main 1898, p. 51, in
Mitteiungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft.

* Gal. iv, 25.

58 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

of the pre-existence of the Son of God, or found in the
priest-king of Salem an intimation of the character and
work of the ascended Christ. Jacob and Esau are the
eponymous heroes of the two nations, Israel and Edom.
That Yahwe of his own free grace had chosen Israel was
the corollary drawn by the author of Isa. xl-xlviii from his
conviction that the only living God, the Maker of heaven
and earth, was none other than the God of his fathers. He
hurled from Yahwe 's presence the gods of the nations as
lifeless statues without making his tribal god large enough
to fill the vacant places. Prom this error a certain form of
the doctrine of election suffers. It does not shadow forth
the larger truth that Jesus touched. The accounts that have
come down to us of the Sinaitic covenant are centuries later
than the time of Moses, and cannot be used as historic doc-
uments.1 Priests, prophets and kings were not peculiar to
Israel. Those pre-exilic prophets whose moral earnestness
made the richest contribution to the religious life of the
nation had indeed much in common with the Jesus of his-
tory, but for this very reason were less suggestive of the
Christ they have been supposed to typify.

Sacrifices are common to all peoples. Whether they are
preponderatingly animal or vegetable, depends to some
extent upon the climate, and even more upon social condi-
tions. Cain's offering (Gen. iv, 3) is no doubt spurned
because of its character, but this character is determined by
a peculiar mode of life. The Kenites had settled down to
agricultural life, and the offerings brought to their Yahwe
sanctuaries consisted of vegetables. On the other hand, the
destroyed tribe Abel followed the nomadic life, and
brought to Yahwe, as did the patriarchs, the firstlings of
their flocks. But if this tribe was crowded out of existence
by the Kenites, they were forced themselves from their
beloved shrines into the steppe, without even recognized
pasture-grounds, and would have been exterminated but

1 Schmidt, article Covenant in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 59

for the Yahwe sign they bore, probably circumcision.1
There is nothing in this story that would have led a Jewish
reader to think of the Messiah.

The story of Abraham's trial is evidently told to show
both the value of human sacrifices and the legitimacy of
animal substitutes for them. The first-born, whether of
man or beast, belongs to Yahwe. They were once sacrificed
before the custom of redeeming the human offspring devel-
oped. No sacrifice could be more precious, no religious
faith perfect that would be unwilling to render it. Yet
Yahwe graciously accepts the will for the deed and is
satisfied with a ram as a substitute. In this case, the human
sacrifice is manifestly not intended as an atonement for sin,
but only as a voluntary offering.

In the earlier parts of the sacrificial legislation, all of
post-Mosaic origin, the centre of the cult is the sacrificial
meal, while in the later portions, dating from the Persian
period, the emphasis lies on the atonement. By this is
meant the restoration of the ability to participate in the
cult after a forfeiture of this privilege by sin. The "sin"
does not always imply moral obliquity, and a changed moral
attitude is not required for the effectiveness of the sacrifice.
An awakening scepticism might question whether the blood
of bulls and goats could really remove sin, but neither the
law nor the temple practice suggested a doubt on this score.
Those who believed the divine assurance that, if they offered
a certain sacrifice, their sin would be forgiven, had no right
to look upon it with misgivings, or occasion to desire a
better sacrifice. If animal sacrifices were divinely ordained
for the removal of sin, the apostolic premise is false. If the
blood of bulls cannot take away sin, such sacrifices cannot
have been divinely ordained for that purpose. If they were
ordained, not to take away sin, but to make men conscious

1 It is the merit of Stade to have suggested the true interpretation
of this story, Das Kainszeichen in Zeitschrift fur Alttestamentische
Wissenschaft, 1894, p. 250. He thinks of a sign on the forehead.
Circumscision, which seems to have been practised with great zeal
among the Midianities, is more likely to be the sign.

60 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

of their inability to do so and thereby to point to a more
valuable sacrifice, the avowed purpose is deceptive, and the
real one concealed. Rather than pointing forward to a
divinely-demanded sacrifice of an innocent human being as
a propitiation for the guilty, the institution of animal
offerings must have led thoughtful minds to look back with
gratitude to the abolition of human sacrifices.

Ablutions, in Israel as among other nations, served the
purpose of washing away the contagious sanctity communi-
cated by touching tabued objects, such as articles used in
the cult, dead bodies (the earthly habitat of beings that
have joined the Elohim-circle), lepers (smitten of God), or
impurity as, in many instances, it was later felt to be. The
lustrations out of which baptism grew no doubt had the
same origin.1 But it is not likely that any Hebrew who
washed himself after touching a corpse was by this act
caused to think either of the coming Christ or of Christian
baptism.

Sacred chests were used in the worship of many gods.
The two stones, supposed to contain a decalogue not
written until long after the ark had finally disappeared,
were probably none else than the oracle-stones Urim and
Thummim2 that were used like the seven arrows of Hubal
in Mecca. All gods had altars. The ephod was originally

1 Schneckenburger thought it probable that even the baptism of
John was a self -lustration, TJeber das Alter der jiidischen Proselyten-
Taufe, 1828, p. 92 f . Brandt is of the opinion that John set the ex-
ample of frequent self -immersions and hence received the name of
' ' Baptist, ' ' Die Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 45 ff . Brandt, like
Schneckenburger, assumes that the baptism of proselytes is later than
the time of John. Arrian 's statement, Disputatio Epicteti i, 9, which
Schneckenburger wrongly sought to invalidate, is probably our
earliest testimony. It is good only for the middle of the second
century. It is likely that proselyte baptism was nothing but the
first sacred bath enjoined upon a convert in earlier times, and would
not differ in character from any other lustration.

2 Cf. Muss-Arnolt, The Urim and Thummim, Am. Journ. of Semitic
Languages, July, 1900, p. 1 ff.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS

61

in Israel a molten image of Yahwe.1 Gideon's ephod at
Ophrah was an idol made of seventeen hundred shekels of
gold.2 Sacred stones, trees, fountains, mountain tops, arti-
ficial mounds, houses and cities are not peculiar to Israel,
or to the Semitic nations. They are found in every race
and nation. The tabernacle in the wilderness is evidently
a work of imagination copied from the Solomonic temple.
This temple itself was built upon Phoenician models by
Tyrian architects and workmen. From first to last this
royal sanctuary seems to have been the home of other gods
beside Yahwe. Zerubbabel's temple, though smaller, was
made more glorious by a purer cult. Yet many felt that
Yahwe had never come to reside in this temple.3 Herod
built temples to many gods, following more or less his own
taste. The only sanctuary declared to have been built ac-
cording to the heavenly pattern probably never existed
except "on paper."4 The cities of refuge were all old sanc-
tuaries where the old gods in one form or another continued
to be worshiped, and safety was sought by murderers at the
horns of the altars.

Where gods are worshiped, there are sacred days. There
are days dedicated to solar, lunar and astral deities; there
are days when the lords of the harvest are praised for their

1 Cf . Oastelli, Storia degV Israeliti, 1888, ii, p. 457; G. F. Moore,
Ephod in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

2 Judges, viii, 27.

•So for instance "Malachi," iii, 1.

* W. Shaw Caldecott in The Tabernacle, London, 1904, has at-
tempted to prove that this pattern existed before Solomon's temple
by the remarkable ruin called Bamet el Khalil, north of Hebron,
which he regards as a sacred enclosure made "to screen an altar, as
the hangings of the tabernacle courts screened its altar from curious
and irreverent eyes," and seeks to identify these "monolithic (sic!)
stone walls" as the Ramah of Samuel. The identification is improb-
able, but the suggestion as to its original purpose deserves consider-
ation. It is impossible to examine this curious structure without
being impressed by its unique character and high antiquity. It is
difficult to believe that it was ever higher than it is. Only excava-
tions can determine its depth. It has no similarity to the sacred
enclosures of the Negeb examined by the present writer.

62 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

bounties. Of lunar origin are the festivals of the new
moon and the sabbath, celebrating the appearance of the
moon-god and the chief incidents of his course. The new
moons were no doubt already observed in Arabia by the
clans, afterwards forming a part of Israel, that occasionally
worshiped at the mountain-shrine of the moon-god Sin
(Sinai). Another survival from the nomadic period was
probably the Passover, or Leap Feast,1 when the first-born
of man and beast were offered. If Yahwe cannot have
these offerings in the wilderness, an early legend tells us,
he will make good his loss by slaying all the first-born of
man and beast in Egypt.2 The three great annual feasts
of Unleavened Bread, of Weeks, and of Booths, had orig-
inally a purely agrarian character, celebrating the ingath-
ering of barley and wheat in the spring, and the vintage in
the autumn. Gradually they were transformed into me-
morials of important events. It is not probable that any
Hebrew ever connected with any of these feasts the thought
of deliverance from sin through the atoning death of a
coming Messiah. Still less were the festivals of the Chris-
tian year suggested by them. Among the early Christians
there were those who looked upon all sacred days, including
the sabbaths, as carnal ordinances no longer to be observed
in the new dispensation.3 The New Testament furnishes no
intimation yet of an intention to substitute the first day of
the week for the seventh as a sabbath, but it was quite
natural that the "venerable day of the Sun," like the
Saturnalia and other Roman festivals, should in course of
time be adopted for Christian use.

Visions were seen by men and women in Israel as in
other nations. These were perhaps for the most part gen-
uine ecstatic experiences. But there is absolutely no ev-
idence that any Hebrew prophet ever saw a being whom he
recognized as the pre-existent Christ, or an object that he
could possibly interpret as representing an invisible and

1 So called from the gamboling of the young.

2 Ex., vii, 16 ; x, 25 ff . ; xi, 1-8.

3 Gal., iv, 10.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 63

universal church. The "angel of the covenant" in Mai.
iii, 1, is the celestial representative of Israel. The "angel
of Yahwe" is, as Gunkel has seen,1 a later substitute for
Yahwe himself in the texts where he occurs, and there is
no reason for supposing that this substitute was understood
as being the Messiah. The "invisible church" was a cre-
ation of sixteenth century theology in its dilemma between
disowning a visible church that cast out heretics but also
held rich treasures of spiritual life, and owning a visible
church that was a voluntary association of persons having a
common religious interest but therefore also excluded the
little ones. This conception might have brought about a
very lofty fellowship, had it not been chained to earth by
an irrational view of "the Word and the Sacraments."
Neither prophets nor apostles ever dreamed of this invisible
church. The latter thought of a heavenly Jerusalem; but
this was a city destined to come down to earth and be seen
of all men, not a church existing only in the souls of
believers. Yahwe was once supposed to dwell in the dark-
ness of the stormcloud, and to reveal his real nature in the
sheen of the lightning. Hence a mysterious fire betokens
his presence in Abraham's sacrifice,2 and in the burning
bush.3 Originally the ladder from Bethel to heaven was
for the use of gods whose abode was in the atmosphere or in
the stars. Such ladders are known to other religions.
Angels are degraded gods. The temple described in Ez.
xl-xlviii is just such a house as the author thought that the
restored sanctuary in Jerusalem should be. There is no
suggestion of anything but a material structure. In the
case of Pharao and Nebuchadnezzar there is no hint that
they were typical of the devil ; and when the author of
Daniel represented Antiochus IV as a beast4 he did not know

1 Genesis, 1901, p. 170 f .

8 Gen., xv, 17.

8 Ex., iii, 2. Cf . Dillmann, Die Biicher Exodus unci Leviticus, 1880,
p. 27.

* Cf . W. Bousset, Der Antichrist, 1895, and Schmidt in Journal of
Biblical Literature, 1900, p. 23 ff.

64 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

that this chaos-monster would later as a dragon be made the
Antichrist and the Devil.

The reason why modern learning has abandoned this once
so flourishing field of typology is readily perceived. It can
find no place in history for many persons, events and insti-
tutions regarded as types. What at one time seemed
unique is now seen to be the common expression of religious
feeling. To an adequately trained historic sense it is quite
obvious that the men whose views of life are revealed in the
Hebrew Scriptures can never have associated with their
religious institutions any such thought of Christ and his
church as the typical interpretation assumes. If this inter-
pretation is modified so as to affirm only the divinely in-
tended typical significance, not the consciousness on the
part of the Old Testament saints of such a meaning, the
redemptive value of a faith that looks beyond the type to
the antitype is surrendered, and the utility of the type both
to those who were ignorant of its importance and to those
who no longer needed it may be questioned.

Yet there is no error that does not contain an element of
truth. Typology observed, compared and classified facts.
It perceived the succession of analogous formations. It
discerned the periodicity of history. It read the future in
the light of the past, the history of earth in the light of
heaven. This was a marked step forward in the direction
of modern learning. "That is not first which is spiritual
but that which is natural" is not precisely the doctrine of
evolution, which affirms that the spiritual grows out of the
natural, but it is the statement of a correctly observed fact
essential to the truth of this doctrine. The division of his-
tory into dispensations absolutely distinct, yet constantly
suggestive one of another, may be artificial, but it is now
generally recognized that, owing to the substantial identity
of physical environment and of mental processes, different
periods show a most remarkable analogy of development.1
It is impossible at present to share the fundamental assump-

1 Cf . the thoughtful address by Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellen-
dorff on Welt-'perioden, Gottingen, 1897.

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 65

tion on which antiquity based its view of the world. Man
considered his dwelling-place, the earth, as a copy of heaven,
the abode of the gods. He looked upon himself as formed
in the image of the gods. His life he regarded as a reflec-
tion of the life of the gods, known through numerous myths.
Particularly in the case of the heroes, this mythical lore
furnished reliable legendary information.1 Not only could
the fate of individuals be read in the stars, but also that of
the world itself. The incidents of the great cosmic year
could be watched from its first moment to its last, or rather
to the point where the circle closes to continue its round
amid similar events. When in Gen. i, 2, man is made in
the form of the gods and in I Cor. xv, 49, the existence of a
man in heaven is proclaimed, whose image men on earth
should bear ; when in Ex. xxv, 9, a heavenly pattern of the
tabernacle is shown to Moses, and in Heb. ix, 23, 24, the
original sanctuary in heaven of which the tabernacle was a
copy is purged by the Christ ; when the model of Zion with
its walls is constantly in Yahwe's presence in Isa. xlix, 16,
and this heavenly Jerusalem comes down to earth in Rev.
xxi, 10, and when the first things, cosmogony and paradise,
reappear as the last things in Revelation and elsewhere,
these ideas ultimately rest upon an astrological conception
of the world. To a more critical view it is sufficiently
apparent that man has made his gods in his own image,
used his acquaintance with the earth in mapping out the

x This has been rightly emphasized by Winckler, Gccchichte Israels,
ii, 1900, p. 275 ff. The secret of the remarkable stability of tradi-
tion does not lie in a miraculously retentive and conscientious mem-
ory but in the unchangeableness of the celestial spectacle and of the
myths it suggests. A limited number of mythical motives were
always at hand to complete, correct or adorn any heroic tale. Valu-
able as this observation is, it may easily be abused. We must guard
against a new typology with its ready-made patterns in heaven play-
ing havoc with our freshly acquired historic sense. The experiences
of men that found their way to the sky in mythology have repeated
themselves often enough in actual history without warranting a sus-
picion that they have each time dropped down from heaven. Our
main interest at present, however, is that this new point of view be
occupied.
5

66 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

sky, filled the heavens with beings whose fortunes were
known to him only from his own experience, and found in
actually observed phenomena of nature 's life answers to the
perplexing questions whence the world has come and
whither its course will lead.

The modern estimate of the universe recognizes a law of
evolution according to which the life that now is has devel-
oped out of the life that preceded it. Hence the similarity
of persons, ideas, institutions and events in different ages.
Baptism and eucharist remind of circumcision and pass-
over; redemption through the blood of a human sacrifice
resembles redemption through the blood of an animal sacri-
fice ; a Messiah who takes vengeance on his enemies, con-
quers the nations, and exercises authority over them is not
unlike a David or an Alexander Jannaeus ; Sunday and
Easter and Pentecost and Christmas are quite suggestive of
Sabbath and Passover and Weeks and Dedication ; angels
and hypostases, mediating between Yahwe and the world,
bring to mind the mediatory offices ascribed to the Christ.
The reason for this is that the later, in part at least, was
the spiritual offspring of the earlier. John the Baptist
and Jesus were the heirs of Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and
Jeremiah. Great men have their forerunners; important
events cast their shadows before them. Times of spiritual
quickening are preludes upon coming epochs.

The periodicity of history does not violate any law of
evolution. If Babylon and Egypt, Greece and Rome, ex-
hausted their creative strength, and younger, or more
slowly maturing nations, taking up their work, had to run
through similar stages of development, this was partly due
to the natural limitations of all social life, partly to the
fact that they entered only gradually into the spiritual
heritage left by their predecessors. New periods are gen-
erally ushered in by a strong civilizing element, like Greek
philosophy or Jewish religious thought, breaking its
national bonds and seeking universal dominion. The
principle of rational selection then comes into play. Nor is
the fact of decline and death an infringement on the laws

THE OLD TESTAMENT BASIS 67

of evolution. Still to some extent under the spell of a
cosmogonic myth earlier evolutionists occasionally spoke of
the universe as developing from a protoplasm, created out
of nothing, into ever higher and more complex forms of life,
even as the acorn grows into an oak. It is well, however,
not to forget that, if the oak comes out of the acorn, the
acorn also comes from the oak, and that the sturdiest oak
will some day pay its tribute to corruption. The nebula
from which our solar system, with all the precious treasures
that it holds, has come, was no doubt an acorn fallen from
some sidereal tree of life. When at some distant day it
shall have run its course, it may well be that it will leave
behind some seed to grow up in its own time and place. It
has not emerged out of nothing, it will not go out into noth-
ing. Like the astrology of the past, the science of the
present time looks steadfastly into the heavens where alone
it can read the origin and destiny of our planet. And in
the new light types appear again. To him that has eyes
to see, each form of life, be it small or great, points forward
to some other thing that is to come.

CHAPTER IV

THE JEWISH MESSIAH

So far as documents give evidence, the expectation of a
future deliverer of Israel, designated as the Messiah, seems
to have appeared for the first time soon after the conquest
of Palestine by Pompey in 63 B. C. It is found in the so-
called Psalms of Solomon. The author of Ps. Sol. xvii,
evidently a Pharisee, looks upon the rulers of the Hasmo-
naean house as robbers and usurpers, to whom the promise
to David did not apply and who were justly deposed and
punished by Pompey. As to Isaiah Assyria was the rod
of Yahwe's anger to be used for the chastisement of his
people because of the sins of the house of David and the
nobles of Judah, and then to be broken, so to this psalmist
Rome is the divine instrument by which punishment is
administered for the sins of the "godless" kings who have
placed themselves on the throne of David, and which is then
to be destroyed. For the rightful King of Israel, the Son
of David, Yahwe's Messiah,1 is coming in the appointed
time to crush the unjust rulers, purge Jerusalem of all for-
eign oppressors, destroy the impious heathen, bring to-
gether under his scepter all Jews, hold the nations under
his yoke, and reign as a guiltless2 and God-fearing prince
over a righteous and holy people. Ps. Sol. xviii praises

1 Thus undoubtedly the author wrote in Ps. Sol., xvii, 36, ed. Swete,
though a Christian copyist made it "Christ Lord." Cf. Kittel in
Kautzsch, Die Pseudepigraphen, 1900, p. 147.

2 That ' ' pure from sin ' ' does not mean absolute sinlessness is
evident from the manner in which the psalmist speaks of the Phar-
isees. There will be no Bathsheba incident in the story of the Son of
David. Though the Chronicler was silent, the Books of Samuel still
spoke, and the blot on the great king's memory was keenly felt. Cf.
Ecclus., xlvii, 11.

68

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 69

him happy who shall live in the days when Yahwe's deliv-
erance shall come. With his rod Yahwe's Messiah will
in justice, wisdom and strength lead all his people in
works of righteousness, through fear of God, and present
them before the face of the Lord.1

The appearance of the Messianic hope at this time is
quite natural. A century of martial prowess, independence
and conquest had raised the highest expectations. The
little people had not only indulged in a dream of empire;
it had imagined itself to be in the midst of the actual con-
quest of the world. From these proud heights it had been
hurled into the valley of humiliation. It had been rudely
awakened from its dream to hear the tax-gatherer's voice.
But this cruel disenchantment could not quench the spark
of ambition. It flared up a-new, fanned by a fresh hatred.
The persecuted Pharisees well knew the cause of the calam-
ity. It was the Hasmonaean usurpation of the throne of
David. To conquer the Eoman power a genuine son of
David was needed. Only to such an one could the divine
promise in 2 Sam. vii, 12, apply. But while princes of
the spurious house of David were numerous, real descend-
ants of the old dynasty could not easily be found. In the
beginning of the second century A. D. two Christian writers
tried, both in vain, to discover the branches of David's
family tree.2 It was not so easy to find a living prince of
this royal blood as in the days of Jehoiachin, Sheshbazzar,
and Zerubbabel.

But God would provide in his own good time. What he
had promised, he would surely fulfil. And had he not
promised? The sacred writings were searched to discover
promises of the Messiah. Many Hasmonaean psalms had
been incorporated in "Davidic" hymnbooks. If at one
time "David" was used as an appellative to designate the
king who took the place of David, it is not impossible that
the ascription in some instances originally intended to

1 The king is responsible to God for the righteous conduct of every
citizen.

2 Matth., i, 1 ff . ; Luke, iii, 23 ff.

70 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH

characterize the songs as referring to Yahwe's Anointed,
his actually reigning vice-gerent on earth. But the Phar-
isees would naturally interpret these psalms as productions
of the great king in the past. The question would then
arise, Did he speak of himself or of another ? In most cases
the answer could not be doubtful. He spoke of a Messiah
who was to come.

Nor were there lacking passages in the prophetic rolls
that seemed to describe this future Messiah. Zechariah's
Zerubbabel never sat upon the throne of his father David ;
the prophet therefore must have had another descendant of
David in mind when he spoke of "the Shoot." If this
obvious case of a frustrated national hope connected with
a prince of the old dynasty, so common in the beginning of
the reign of Darius Hystaspis,1 could be pressed into serv-
ice, it is no wonder that utterances of a similar origin and
tenor that ultimately found their home in the great pro-
phetic rolls lent themselves to the same use. A poem like
Isa. ix, 1-6, celebrating the birth of a child destined for the
throne of David, at a time when the people, living in a land
of darkness, are under an oppressor's yoke and forced to
bear his burdens, and the native kingdom needs to be set up
and made strong, could no longer be seen against its natural
background in the exile, since it had secured a place among
the oracles of Isaiah. It was supposed to refer either to
Hezekiah or the Messiah ; and as the name that describes the
new-born king in spe as ' ' a counselor of wonders, a god of a
warrior, a father of a multitude2 and a prosperous prince"
did not seem to harmonize with the history of Hezekiah, the
preference was given to the Messiah. It was readily seen
that in Isa. xi, 1-8, the fall of the dynasty is presupposed ;
the tree is down, the roots are left under ground. But this
only showed that "the shoot from the stock of Jesse" did
not belong to Isaiah's own time. He was a prophet, and
could look from any given point in the future into a still

1 Cf. Ed. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums, 1884, i, p. 613 ff., Die
Entstehung des Judenthums, 1896, p. 82 ff.
!!Kead eddh.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 71

more distant future. Wherever a hope was expressed of a
change in the fortunes of Israel, of better things to come,
straightway it was imagined that the author thought of the
Messiah and his reign. Thus the Messiah was given a
place among eschatological conceptions that had grown up
without any reference to him.

Out of the needs of a distressful time and the eager search
in the Scriptures for the solace of divine promises, the idea
of the Messiah as an eschatological magnitude seems to have
been born. It was the culminating point where several
independent tendencies in the life of Israel met. There
had been a tendency to attach much importance to the
anointment of rulers. From Saul to Zedekiah, from Joshua,
son of Jehozadak, to Jason or Menelaus, from Jonathan
to Aristobulus II, the rulers of the state, whether kings,
high-priests, or priest-kings, had been consecrated with oil.
Originally unction was an application of sacrificial fat.1
The pouring of oil upon the sacred stone, in which the
numen dwelt,2 was a sacrifice. At Medina a pre-Islamic
worshiper washed and anointed his idol.3 The king was a
holy being to whom this offering was made. He was like
the Elohim knowing good and evil. With the anointment a
spirit had entered him.4 He was sacrosanct; his body
must not be touched.5 He was gradually removed from
the gaze of the people, and seen only by his officials.6 The
high-priest was the head of the state in post-exilic times.
He was Yahwe's Anointed, a "son of oil,"7 having access
to the celestial court.8 In the Hasmonaean age, the priest-
king was regarded as Yahwe's Messiah, his "son," a

1 Cf . W. Bobertson Smith, 'Religion of the Semites, 1894, p. 384.

2 Gen., xxviii, 13 ; xxxv, 14.

8 Ibn Risham quoted by W. Robertson Smith, 1. c, p. 233.
4 1 Sam., xvi, 13. Cf. Weinel, Mashach und seine Derivate, 1898, p.
55 ff.

B I Sam., xxiv, 10.
8 II Kings, xix, 15.
T Zech., iv, 14.
8 Zech., iii, 7.

72 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

"god," sitting on his throne.1 It is easy to surmise
whither this tendency alone would have led. Had the
dream of Daniel been realized, and the dominion over the
nations been given to the saints of the Maecabaean period,
the king of Israel would have been worshiped as a god,
and Jerusalem rather than Rome would have become the
seat of the imperial cult.

There was also a tendency to repose an extraordinary
faith in the dynasty founded by David. The reason for
this was of course its remarkable longevity. A duration of
four hundred and fifty years would have been a noteworthy
achievement of a royal family in any age or nation. In
view of the trying historical circumstances and the quick
succession of dynasties in many of the surrounding nations,
it must have appeared quite wonderful. It is not strange,
therefore, that even when Judah was finally threatened
with destruction by the Chaldaeans a writer should have
expressed the confidence that the house of David would
continue to reign forever.2 Nor is it a cause of astonish-
ment that, as long as princes of this family lived and even
received signal honors at the hands of Chaldaean and Per-
sian kings, as was the case with Jehoiachin, Sheshbazzar
and Zerubbabel, the hope of national independence should
connect itself with these shoots from the old stock. The
gradual disappearance of prominent members of this fam-
ily no doubt gave room for independent aspirations. San-
ballat may have been right3 in declaring that prophets in
Jerusalem had announced as the coming king of Israel
Nehemiah,4 the governor, ca. 385-373 B. C.5 In the next

1 Pss., ii, xlv, lviii, lxxii, ex.

2 II Sam., vii, 12, 14. Va. 13 is an interpolation. Cf . Wellhausen,
Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Biicher des
Alten Testaments, 1889, p. 257.

8 Neh., vi, 7.

4 Cf . Cheyne, Jewish Beligious Life after the Exile, 1898, p. 46 ff.,
Schmidt, Nehemiah and his Work in the Biblical World, 1899, p. 338.

6 For the date of Nehemiah in the reign of Artaxerxes II. Mnemon,
cf. Marquart, Fundamente israelitischer und jiidischer Geschichte,

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 73

century Simon became prince as well as high-priest, and
Aristobulus I king, without belonging to the Davidic fam-
ily. But the strength of the legitimist feeling may be
seen both in the fiction by which the actual occupant of
the throne was designated as David's descendant, and in
the indignant protest of the Pharisees against this fiction.
This loyalty to the legitimate line, with the increasing dif-
ficulty of finding a leader who should also be a real descend-
ant of David, necessarily tended to remove into the future
the Messianic king and to enhance the scope of his work.
Of even greater importance was the general tendency to
look beyond present conditions for better things or for
worse. This had always been strong in Israel. To the
mass of the people in earlier times the "day of Yahwe"
probably meant the day of God-given victory and pros-
perity. The majority of prophets no doubt shared the
same view. There were more Hananiahs than Jeremiahs.
A few of Yahwe 's spokesmen, however, looking into the
future, could see nothing but darkness. They were sooth-
sayers, as were their colleagues. It is a strange misappre-
hension of their character that seeks to disguise this fact.
Their eyes were constantly turned toward the future.
They watched for the footsteps of their God; they looked
for the coming of the day of Yahwe. But the approach of
this day filled them with terror ; the signs of the times indi-
cated to them that he was coming to sit in judgment on his
people. Why must he come to his people with chastise-
ment? Because he loved and would save his own. For
this reason, too, they must wield the scourge, laying bare
the social iniquity for which no sacrificial cult could atone.
Jeremiah recognized no true prophets except the prophets
of doom.1 Such collections of oracles by Amos and Hosea,
Isaiah and Micah as were known at the time contained as
yet no glowing descriptions of future happiness with which
Hananiah might have confronted his critic. Men like Han-

1896, p. 31 ff. ; Torrey, The Composition and Historical Value of
Esra-Nehemiah, 1898, p. 8, 49 ; Schmidt, I. c, p. 334 ff.
1 XXVIII, 8.

.i*»^»_

74 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

aniah, who proclaimed good tidings to the people, and intro-
duced their oracles with a "Thus saith Yahwe," were
unquestionably quite sincere, and derived their information
from the same source, the inspiration of Yahwe.1 But their
diagnosis of the disease and their appreciation of the his-
toric situation were more defective. History justified the
gloomier forebodings. The pre-exilic prophets had proved
to be genuine sooth-sayers. To this fact they owed the high
regard in which later generations held them,2 and we owe
the preservation of their oracles.

After the deportation of parts of the people in 597, 586
and 581 B. C, the prophecy of coming evil naturally ceased
among the exiles, and the old, popular hope of the day of
Yahwe revived. While some attached much value to the
re-establishment of the dynasty,3 others put the emphasis
entirely on the overthrow of the present world-power, the
return of the exiles, and the vengeance upon and authority
over certain nations, and the prosperity to come. Perhaps
the most influential writer of the period, the remarkable
genius to whom we owe Isa. xl-xlviii, did not concern him-
self about the Davidic family when Yahwe had plainly
raised up a king (an anointed one) to accomplish his pur-
pose, to destroy Babylon, send the exiles home, build the
temple, and allow Jacob to lord it over his enemies. The
same spirit prevails in the Songs of Zion in Isa. xlix-lv.
Even when the future came to be seen in more somber
colors by the authors of "Malachi," Isa. lvi ff. and Joel,
eschatology developed without including any Messianic
idea. The translated Elijah was indeed to come back from
heaven before Yahwe could return to his temple, but for the
Messiah there was as yet no place. The coming of Elijah

1 On the artificial distinction between false prophets and true, cf .
J. C. Matthes, Be pseudoprophetismo Hebraeorum, Leiden, 1859;
Kuenen, Be profeten en de profetie onder Israel, Leiden, 1875, and
the criticism of certain positions in this work by Pierson, Een studie
over de geschriften van Israels profeten, Amsterdam, 1877.

2 Zech., i, 6.

8 Ez., xvii, 22 ff.; Isa., vs.., 1-6, xi, 1-6; Amos, ix, 11 ff.; Hag., ii, 23;
Zech., iv, 6 ff . ; Jer., xxx, 8.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 75

is also referred to in Ecclus. xlviii, 10, without any sugges-
tion in regard to the Messiah.1

This is also true of the apocalyptic literature that flour-
ished in the Hasmonaean period. In Daniel, God estab-
lishes his kingdom on earth without a Messiah. In heaven
the Most High judges, the beast is slain, and the angel rep-
resenting Israel receives the kingdom of the world; this
angel (Michael) fights with the angel of Greece, and stands
up in the end victoriously for his people. On earth
Antiochus Epiphanes meets his death, the Jews obtain do-
minion over the nations, and some martyrs and their perse-
cutors rise from among the dead to long lives of glory and
of shame. The celestial patterns have grown richer. But
there is among them no Messiah. Next to the Ancient of
Days, who alone exercises judgment, Michael, the dragon-
killer, the judaized Marduk, figures prominently. In the
terrestrial copy, the drama of history, the succession of
world powers, with their allotted periods of time, and the
participation of saints raised from the dead are new fea-
tures. But no king has anything to do with the founda-
tion of the new empire any more than with the resurrec-
tion of the dead.

It is natural that the disposition to map out the future
should have been encouraged by the stirring events of the
Maccabaean insurrection, and also that there should have
been no reason for putting into the future a Messianic
king while Yahwe's anointed was actually sitting on the
throne of David and engaged in restoring the kingdom
and conquering the world. The atmosphere of the Psalter
is saturated with the desire for divine judgment upon the

1 A comparison of the Hebrew text with the Greek and, in this place,
especially the Ethiopic version, suggests that the last lines should be
read:

"Blessed is he who saw thee (Elijah) and died for love of thee;
As for us we shall surely live through thee. ' '

The passage is apparently an interpolation in ' ' The Praise of
Famous Men," a work written by Simeon, the son of Jesus, son of
Eleazar ben Sira, as the colophon in the Hebrew indicates. See
Schmidt, Ecclesiasticus, 1903, p. 174.

76 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

heathen nations, and breathes a pathetic confidence in the
dynasty occupying the Davidic throne.1 Even among
the Jews of Egypt this mood prevailed. Around the tem-
ple at Leontopolis built by Onias III several colonies
seemed to have settled, in which the language of Canaan
continued to be spoken. An older prophecy against
Egypt was here given an appendix written in apocalyptic
style.2 The present condition is predicted, and the future
is also prophesied. It is evident that the recognition of
Jonathan by Alexander Balas on the occasion of his mar-
riage to Cleopatra 150 B. C. inspired the author's hopes.
Jonathan is probably the deliverer of vs. 20 ; the smiting
and healing of Egypt and the triple alliance of Syria,
Egypt and Israel belong to the future. The Alexandrian
Jews also looked eagerly into the future. Some fruits of
their apocalyptic speculation they put into the spacious
lap of the Sibyl. In the reign of Ptolemy VII Physcon
(145-117) the author of the larger part of Book III of the
Sibylline Oracles prophesied to the nations what had
already happened to them, that they might believe the
more implicitly in the disclosures of things still to come.
Having turned from Hellas, where Corinth has been des-
troyed in 146 B. C, to the temple of the great God and his
people, he describes how God sends from the sun a king
who puts an end to the bad war, killing some and mak-
ing sure treaties with others, following not his own coun-
sel but the decrees of the great God, and in whose reign
the people is prosperous and the earth fruitful.3 After this
the kings of the nations assemble against Jerusalem, God
himself destroys them and finally establishes his kingdom
for all time over all men.4 The king "from the sun," like

1 This eschatological mood has been well described by Stade, Die
Messianische Hoffnung im Psalter in AJcademische Eeden und
Abhandlungen, 1899, p. 39 ff. The political background of the
Psalter is most satisfactorily depicted by Duhm, Die Psalmen, 1899.

* Isa., xix, 16-25.

8 Oracula Sibyllina, III, 652-660, ed. Ezach.

4 III, G60 ff.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 77

the king "from heaven,"1 is an Eastern monarch from the
standpoint of the Sibyl whose home is at Erythrae oppo-
site Chios. The former is no doubt Simon, as the latter
is Cyrus. That the Messiah cannot be meant2 is clear
from the fact that this king completely disappears when
the author's real eschatology begins and plays no part
whatever in the last things, while the description admir-
ably suits the great contemporaneous leader of the chosen
people.

The supply of prophecy was quite equal to the demand.
When Simon was appointed hereditary high-priest and ruler
of the people, this action was made subject to prophetic
ratification.3 A psalmist in Jerusalem4 and a Sibyllist in
Alexandria soon furnished the necessary oracle. A highly
advanced eschatology without the slightest suggestion of
a Messiah meets us in Isa. xxiv-xxvii. In the original
apocalypse, written ca. 128 B. C.,5 the judgment of the
world begins with the incarceration of the great powers
in heaven and on earth, whereupon Yahwe appears in
Zion, and offers a festive meal to all nations. The Jews
are then hidden while the judgment goes on, and when
the great trumpet blows the scattered Israelites come to-

1 III, 286.

2 Already in the edition of Koch (Opsopaeus), Paris, 1599, a note,
possibly from the hand of Chateillon, in the margin opposite III, 286,
indicates that the king "from heaven" is "Christus," though the
next lines are seen to refer to ' ' the restoration of the temple after the
Babylonish captivity." The Messianic interpretation is generally
abandoned in this place, except possibly by Hilgenfeld, Jiidische
ApoTcalyptik, 1857, p. 64. It is the great merit of Hilgenfeld to have
determined the date of these apocalyptic sketches. But Vernes has
convincingly shown that Cyrus is referred to in III, 286; Eistoire des
idees Messianiques, 1874, p. 59 f., and Colani, Jesus Christ et les
Croyances Messianiques de son temps, 1864, p. 25 ff., as well as
Vernes, I. c, p. 64 ff., has proved that III, 660, probably refers to
Simon.

3 1 Mace, xiv, 46.
*Ps., ex.

B The situation was first recognized by Duhm, Das Buch Jesaia,
1892. Cf. also Marti, Das Buch Jesaia, 1900.

78 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

gether to Zion. An interpolation describes the resurrec-
tion of faithful Yahwe-worshipers through the dew of
healing.1

Somewhat later in the reign of John Hyrcanus the earli-
est part of the Book of Enoch seems to have appeared.
In Eth. En. i-xxxvi a description is given of the judgment
of angels and men. The angels who sinned with women,2
are imprisoned and finally punished; wicked men either
remain forever in Sheol to be punished there, or are trans-
ferred to Gehenna, where their spirits are slain; the
righteous rise to eat of the tree of life in the new Jerusa-
lem, where they will beget many children, have plenty of
food, and grow old in peace. Neither in connection with
the judgment nor in the new kingdom is there any Mes-
siah. Between Daniel and this book the tremendous step
has been taken of making Sheol a place of conscious exist-
ence, where some are punished for ever, and consequently
need not be raised to life again to get their deserts. Eth.
En. lxxxiii-xc, written ca. 106 B. C, presents an outline
of Biblical history in which the antediluvians figure as
cattle, the nations living after the flood as various kinds
of beasts, and the Israelites as sheep. The characters
are very plainly portrayed, however. One of the sheep,
Elijah, is carried on high to be with Enoch.3 Seventy
shepherds, the angels of the nations, originally their gods,
are in charge of the sheep during the period of foreign domi-
nation. This comes to an end when upon the lambs (i. e.,
chasids) horns begin to appear (the sons of Mattathias).
Particularly on one of these sheep (no doubt, John Hyr-
canus) a great horn grows out that cannot be broken by
the ravens (the Syrians under Antiochus VII). Michael,
as scribe in the role of Nabu, ascertains that the last
twelve shepherds have destroyed more than their prede-
cessors, and a sword is given to the sheep. A throne is
erected in Palestine, the final judgment is held, the new

1 So the Greek version seems to have read.

2 Gen., vi, 1 ff.
SLXXXIX, 52.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 79

Jerusalem is set up, martyrs are raised, all are invited and
Jerusalem is filled with white sheep. The picture is ap-
parently completed, when the figure of a white bull
appears that is feared by all beasts and, when all other
animals have become white bulls also, is changed into a
buffalo with black horns.1 It is generally understood
that this bull is the Messiah and also admitted that he has
nothing to do here. His appearance when all is done is
accounted for as "a literary reminiscence,"2 or a piece of
"the official traditional dogmatic repertoire of the syna-
gogue."3 Vss. 37 and 38— except "the lord of the sheep
rejoiced over them" — are probably an addition by a later
hand. In Eth. En. xci-civ, probably written ca. 70 B. C,
the description of the eighth and following weeks (xci, 12-
19), before the first week (xeiii, 3 ff ) is manifestly due
to a displacement. But this is itself most naturally ex-
plained, if it originally was a marginal annotation, as it
has the appearance of being. If this conjecture is correct,
the eschatology would not differ essentially from that
of sections already considered. There is no Messiah in
this booklet.

It will be seen that a system of eschatology had devel-
oped before the Roman period, including such features as
the judgment of angels and of men, and their punishment
in hell, the great banquet in Zion, the resurrection of at
least some of the dead, and the establishment of the king-
dom of heaven, but as yet no personal Messiah. The rea-
son is obvious. It is Yahwe himself who judges the
world, prepares his meal for all nations, raises the dead
and reigns on the earth.

Veneration for the anointed ruler of the state, loyalty
to the old dynasty, and speculation about the world's
future, prepared the way for the Messiah. Roman op-
pression caused a fusion of these elements. An anointed
king of Israel was needed. But he must be a genuine son

1 XC, 37, 38.

1 Charles, The Book of Enoch, 1893, p. 258.

* Beer, in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, 1900, p. 298.

80 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

of David. As no claimant to the throne of the legitimate
line was known, he necessarily belonged to the future.
But even as an eschatological magnitude his functions
remained for a long time purely political, and the Mes-
sianic hope was cherished only by some fractions of the
people. This fact renders it difficult to believe that the
Messiah conception developed under the influence of Per-
sian thought. The Mazdayasnian Saoshyas had no polit-
ical character. He was expected to raise the dead and to
renew the world.1

The Egyptian Jews participated, if at all, to a very lim-
ited extent in the new hope. That the translators of Isa.
ix, 5 and Ps. ex, 3 (cix, 3 in the Greek) had the Messiah
in mind, is not certain. In rendering the first three words
of the name "angel of great counsel," the former followed
the common custom of substituting "angel" for "god";
in translating "from the womb before the dawn I have
begotten thee," the latter slavishly followed the text word
for word.2 It may have been during the second triumvi-
rate (before 30 B. C), that a Jewish Sibyllist predicted
that Rome's conquest of Egypt would be succeeded by the
kingdom of "the immortal God," "the great king," by
the coming of "the holy ruler," whose reign would extend
over the whole earth and last for all times. This holy
ruler is supposed by some interpreters to be the Messiah ;
but the context rather favors the view that none else is
intended than the "immortal God" and "great king."3

*¥asht, xix, 92 ff. Cf. N. Soderblom, La vie future dans le
Masdeisme, 1901.

8 Whether "he is the expectation of nations ' ' was the original ren-
dering in Gen., xlix, 10, may be doubted. In Num., xxiv, 17, the Davidic
house is meant. On the change of Agag into Gog, cf. Geiger, Ur-
schrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel, 1857, p. 366, and also Schmidt,
article "Scythians" in Encyclopaedia Biblica. The originality and
age of either rendering are uncertain.

30racula Sibyllina, iii, 46-62, 75-92. It is possible, however, that
Otho, Galba and Vitellius are meant rather than Antonius, Octavianus
and Lepidus, that vss. 53, 54 refer to the eruption of Vesuvius in 79
A. D., and that the widow is not Cleopatra but Eome, vss. 75 ff. So
E. Preusehen, Paulus dls Antichrist in Zeitschrift fiir die Neutesta-

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 81

The Book of Wisdom, written about the beginning of our
era, contains no allusion to the Messiah. Philo (ca. 20
B. C.-50 A. D.) describes the return of the Israelites to
Palestine "led by a divine or more than human appari-
tion."1 He also declares that, if enemies should attack
the future kingdom of peace, they would be scattered,
since in that case a man would come, according to the
promise, who would subdue the nations, God granting to
the pious auxiliaries in psychic power and bodily
strength.2 The "apparition" is probably the divine
glory, the Shechinah. Briggs3 may be right in judging
from the context in the latter passage that Philo thought
of deliverance through manly qualities rather than
through a man. A second reference to Balaam's proph-
ecy4 is not decisive. That he interpreted Zech. vi, 12 as
an allusion to the Logos, which he never identified with
the Messiah, is significant. The Slavonic Enoch, prob-
ably written in Egypt before 70 A. D.,5 knows nothing of
a Messiah.

Even in Palestine the Messianic hope expressed in the
Psalter of Solomon was manifestly far from common.
In the circles whence the book of Ecclesiastes proceeded
(ca. 30 B. C.) there naturally was no sympathy with such

mentliche Wissenschaft, vol. II, 190, p. 173 ff . Under all circum-
stances it is Simon Magus that is meant by the Beliar who comes
from the Sebastenes. This name for the Samaritans is not possible
before 27 B. C, and vs. 63 ff. must have been written by a Christian.
This makes the context also doubtful. Bousset has recently sug-
gested a reflection of ' ' pagan-Messianic ' ' hopes in III, 47 f . Die
Religion des Judentums im Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1902, p. 212.

1 Be Execrationibus, ed. Mangey, III, 437.

2 Be proemis et poems, II, 421-428 (ed. Mangey).

8 The Messiah of the Gospels, 1894, p. 38.

4 In Vita Mosis, II, 126.

"So Charles, The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, 1896, p. 26. The
only real reason adduced is the references to sacrifices in lix, 2. But
they are so slight and so easily explained by the author's guise that
there can be no real assurance as to this date.
6

82 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

illusions. But neither the Book of Jubilees1 nor the As-
sumption of Moses i-vi;2 written in the beginning of our
era, mentions the Messiah, though there were natural
occasions for doing so. The original Testaments of the
Twelve Patriarchs may have received their first Jewish
interpolations in the same period. There is no reference
to the Messiah in them. But Michael is described as "the
mediator between God and man."3 In an apocalyptic
fragment of Jewish origin incorporated in the book of
Revelation,4 and dating, as "Wellhausen has seen,5 from the
siege of Jerusalem, a woman in heaven, clothed with sun,
moon and stars, brings forth a man child that is immedi-
ately carried to God, and the dragon is cast by Michael
from heaven to earth, where he pursues the woman, who
escapes, and her kin for three years and a half. Ulti-
mately this figure of a queen of heaven with her celestial
child no doubt belongs to the realm of mythology as much
as Michael and the dragon.6 The earthly events that the

1 ' ' And one of thy sons ' ' in Jubilees, xxxi, 18, is clearly an inter-
polation. It may refer to David, as Charles thinks, Doctrine of a
Future Life, 1899, p. 246.

2 The Assumption of Moses consists of an original part i-vi, and
an appended passage that probably dates from a much later period
when the rebellion of Simon bar Kozeba had already been crushed.
The description of fearful persecutions does not give the impression
of being a work of imagination based on the sufferings under Antio-
chus Epiphanes. The crucifixion of Jews is a peculiarity of the later
persecution. The Taxon, ix, may be Jehudah ben Baba, who fled
with his seven disciples. The second cruel punishment at least pre-
supposes the destruction in 70 A. D. Probably that and the one in
135 A. D. are meant.

3 Dan., vi.

* XI, 1, 2 ; xii.

5 SMzzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, 1899, p. 225 ff.

•Ninib, Ishara's son, is the rising sun and also the planet Saturn;
Jensen, Die Kosmologie der Babylonier, 1890, pp. 136 ff., 242, 457 ff.
Yaldabaoth, "Bau's son," the god of the Jews, is also Saturn.
Origen Contra Celsum, vi, 31, Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., xxvi, 10. Bau
seems to be the counterpart of Gula, Ninib 's consort (Jensen); but
Bau has apparently also taken Ishara's place. Was either of these
goddesses ever identified with Ishtar? Epiphanius relates (ed. Dindorf,

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 83

author desires to symbolize are in the main clear. Deliv-
erance will come after the short but trying time prophe-
sied by Daniel. Rage as it may, Rome will not be able to
destroy the remnant that has escaped its clutches, nor to
touch the sanctuary itself in Jerusalem, nor to prevent the
coming of the Messiah. This Messiah has been born in
the Jewish community, but has already as a child been
translated. A similar idea appears in the Babylonian
Talmud,1 where the Messiah is a deceased descendant of
David, who rises from the dead to accomplish the deliv-
erance of Israel.2 Both of these notions were due to the
conviction that God would provide a genuine son of David.
A translated hero would naturally return on the clouds of
heaven. Thus in the Apocalypse of Baruch, written after
the fall of Jerusalem, the Messiah is "revealed,"3 and
"returns in glory"4 to rule until the world of corruption
is at an end,5 sparing some and putting others to death.6

The Fourth Book of Ezra, written in 97 A. D., exhibits
similar Christological conceptions. In vii, 28 ff., God de-
clares that his son, the Messiah, will be revealed during
four hundred years, and then die together with all men,
whereupon the present aeon will close and the new age

ii, 483) that on the day of the winter solstice the virgin Chaamu and
her son Dusares were praised, and that the same was done in Elusa
on that night. In Elusa the goddess Chalazath, or Venus, had her
temple. The celestial virgin is probably Ishtar — Venus, and the
solar deity (Ninib, Yaldabaoth, Dusares,), is her son. Cf. Baethgen,
Beitrage zur Semitschen, Eeligionsgeschichte, 1888, p. 107. On
Yaldabaoth, see Lipsius, TJeber die Opliitischen Systeme in Zeitschrift
fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1863, 460; Baudissin, Studien sur
Semitischen Beligions-geschichte, 1876, p. 231 ff.; Dietrich, Abraxas,
1891, pp. 6, 46.

1 Sanhedrin, 98 b.

2 Cf . the discriminating observations of Louis Ginzberg, Monat-
schrift fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 1898, p.
541 ff.

8 XXIX, 3 ; xxxix, 7.

4 XXX, 1.

6 XL, 3.

6 LXXII, 2-6,

84 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

begin after seven days of silence with the resurrection of
the dead and the appearance of the Most High on the
judgment-seat. The woman,1 who brings forth a child,
loses him as she is about to give him a wife, and flees into
the wilderness, is none else than the woman of Rev. xii;
the presumption is that originally the son was also the
Messiah, though the present text of x, 44 ff. explains him
to be the city itself, or the temple. The lion that rebukes
the eagle is declared to be the Christ who has been pre-
served for the end from the seed of David, and will appear
to annihilate the wicked enemy and to give the remnant
of the people joy until the judgment comes.2 Finally, the
man-like, or angelic, being that rises from the sea, and
flies with the clouds of heaven destroying an army with
the fire that issues from his mouth, is explained to be the
son of God, through whom creation will be redeemed and
a new order established.3 It is emphatically stated that
God is not to judge his creation through any one.4 While
this apocalypse in other respects shows the influence of
early Christian thought, it still protests against ascribing
judgment to the Messiah.

This step had apparently been taken, not indeed in the
apocalypse ascribed to John, but in two other works of a
similar character that probably appeared, like it, in the
reign of Domitian, viz. : Ethiopic Enoch xxxvii-lxxi and
The Wisdom of God. The former designates itself as the
second vision of Enoch. It is composed of three hortatory
discourses and an appendix. This work has not come
down to us in its original form. We possess only an Ethi-
opic translation of a Greek translation, or of the prob-
ably Aramaic original. How accurately these translators
did their work, and what changes may have been intro-
duced by copyists, cannot be determined. It would be
a miracle, if a piece of writing that offered such peculiar

1 IX, 43 ff .

2 XII, 31 ff.
8 XIII, 1 ff.
«V; 56; vi, &

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 85

temptations should have escaped the common fate of
books. Yet it is not likely that the universally admitted
longer interpolations were made by the Greek translator
or subsequent to his time. It has long been recognized
that En. xxxix, 1, 2a, liv, 7, lv, 2, lx, lxv, 1-lxix, 25 are ex-
tracts from a lost Apocalypse of Noah. Charles is probably
right in assuming that xli, 3-8, xliii, and xliv, have come
from the same source. He also rightly regards xlii, 1, lxx
and lxxi as later additions. But what remains is not the
work of one hand. The original vision probably con-
tained xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, 3-13, xl, xli, 1, 2, xlv, 1, 2, 5,
6, xlvii, xlviii, 8-10, liii, 1-5, liv, 1-6, lv, 3, lvi, lvii, lviii (lxiii,
lxiv). In this work God alone is the judge, and there is
no Messiah. This book seems to have been annotated and
expanded by a writer who looked forward to the revela-
tion of a chosen instrument, not merely for the punish-
ment of the nations, but for the judgment of 'the world, a
man destined to sit upon a glorious throne to judge angels
and men (xlv, 3, 4, xlvi, li, liii, 6, lv, 4, lxi, 8, 9). There
can be little doubt that this writer had in mind the Mes-
siah, and that he understood the being like a man in
Dan. vii, 13, to be the Messiah. Yet the manuscript, as
he left it, cannot yet have contained any unmistakable
Messianic term, since the author of ch. lxxi evidently
regarded "the man who has righteousness" of xlvi, 3, as
Enoch. Israel's celestial representative in Dan. vii, 13,
had not been mentioned by name. Originally he was no
doubt Michael. But there was room for conjecture: he
might be the Messiah, or a translated hero like Enoch.
The conception of the Messiah as judge of the world may
be due to Christian influence, but the author of these
interpolations is not likely to have been a disciple of
Jesus. In that case he would probably have referred to
the sufferings of the Messiah. A Christian hand may
have cautiously retouched the picture in chs. xlviii, lxii
and lxix, 26 ff .

In Luke xi, 40, a work called "The Wisdom of God"
is quoted. In this book the esoteric wisdom of the apoca-

86 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

lyptic seer is personified and predicts the future. Strauss1
has convincingly shown that not only the prediction of
vengeance for the blood of martyred prophets from Abel
to Zechariah the son of Barachiah, slain during the siege
of Jerusalem (Jos., Bellum jud. iv, 335, 343), but also the
woe upon Jerusalem, so often visited in vain by the divine
wisdom, that immediately follows in Matth. xxiii, 37 ff.,
was drawn from this source. It is altogether probable
that the apocalyptic fragment that follows in Matth. xxiv,
4-36 (Mk. xiii, 5-32; Luke xxi, 8-36), and the ground-
work of xxv, 31 ff. were likewise extracts from the same
work. Strauss assumed a Christian authorship for the
"Wisdom of God." But the statement, "Your house is
left unto you desolate," does not suggest that it must
remain so ; it only mentions what to the author is mani-
festly a very sad fact of experience. There is nothing in
the description of the last days of Jerusalem, the flight,
or the coming of the man on the cloud, that is distinctly
Christian. The revelation of the future given by Jesus to
John on Patmos may have inspired some Christian to use
this material for another Apocalypse of Jesus. The fur-
ther development of certain ideas in En. xxxvii-lxxi and
the Wisdom of God by the disciples of Jesus naturally
caused a reaction against them in rabbinic circles.

Josephus was unquestionably familiar with the Mes-
sianic idea. It is possible, however, that under the influ-
ence of his Essene ( ?) teacher, Banus, and as a result of
the hopeless struggle, he had learned to look forward to
a quiet possession of the land by Israel and a spread of
Judaism throughout the world,2 even though it were
under Roman suzerainty,3 rather than to a personal Mes-
siah. Yet he was far from a consistent quietist, and may
in his heart have cherished hopes with which he did not
care to make Vespasian acquainted. It is a pity that he

1Jesu Weheruf uber Jerusalem in Zeitschrift filr Wissenschaftliche
Theologie, 1863, p. 84.
2 Ant., iv, 125, ed. Niese.
*De beVo jud., vi, 313.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 87

should have remembered that he was nothing but a his-
torian just as he was on the point of explaining what the
" little stone" in Daniel1 signified.2 In describing the
insurrections led by Judas, son of Ezekias,3 (ca. 4 B. C.)>
Judas the Galilaean,4 (ca. 7 A. D.), the Samaritan in Tira-
thana5 (ca. 37 A. D.), Theudas6 (ca. 46 A. D.), the Egyp-
tian (ca. 58 A. D.) and others, Josephus may have inten-
tionally refrained from characterizing them as Messianic
movements.7 It is quite possible that one or another of
these " sorcerers" and "prophets," as he called them, may
have been greeted as the Messiah, and regarded himself
as such. Acts v, 36, suggests that this was the case of
Theudas. Hausrath8 sought to identify the Samaritan
of Ant. xviii, 85 ff. with Simon Magus. The historic
character of Simon Magus is very doubtful; neither II
Mace, ii, 5 ff. nor Ap. Bar. vi, renders it clear that even the
Jews expected the Messiah, rather than some prophet like
Jeremiah, to point out the place of the hidden vessels ; the
late story in John iv, in which the profound philosophy of
the Fourth Evangelist is so beautifully symbolized, fur-
nishes no evidence of Messianic beliefs among the Samari-
tans of the first century; and the age of the Ta'eb concep-
tion cannot be determined with any certainty. Yet it is
not impossible that the hosts that gathered in Tirathana
looked upon their leader as the Ta'eb, or "Revenant,"
come back from heaven, to which he had been translated,
to establish a kingdom greater than Gog's. Judas, of
Gamala, seems to have been the founder of the party of
the Zealots. His sons and a grandson continued his oppo-

1 On the high value he placed upon the book of Daniel, cf . Schmidt,
article Bible Canon, Critical View in the Jewish Encyclopaedia and
article Bible in the New International Encyclopaedia.

• Ant., x, 210.

*De bello jud., ii, 56.
*De bello jud., ii, 118.

• Ant., xviii, 85 ff.
•Ant., xx, 97 f.
''Ant., xx, 160.

• Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, 1879, I, pp. 382-386.

88 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

sition to Rome. But there is no intimation that he was
considered as the Messiah, nor indeed that such a being
had a place in his "philosophy." On the other hand, it
is entirely probable that during the siege of Jerusalem
one or another of the leaders felt himself called to the
Messiahship and fired the enthusiasm of his followers with
Messianic expectations.1

The best authenticated instance of a Jewish Messiah
is that of Simon bar Kozeba.2 Of him alone can it be said
that he was not only recognized by his people as the Mes-
siah at a time when the Messianic idea was fully developed,
and regarded himself as such, but also succeeded in
achieving temporarily the redemption of Jerusalem and
thus in part realizing his ideal. Simon's home may have
been in Modein,3 and he was undoubtedly inspired by the
story of the Hasmonaean insurrection. When circum-
cision had been prohibited and an attempt made to build
a temple to Jupiter in Jerusalem, now called Aelia Capi-
tolina, this heroic soul, like Mattathias of old, felt a divine
call to lead his people against the oppressor. When suc-
cess crowned his efforts, and even the great Akiba greeted
him as Bar Kokeba, "son of the star" (alluding to Num.
xxiv, 17), and as "king Messiah,"4 when Eleazar the
priest stood by his side, and the people recognized him as
"Israel's prince,"5 how could he doubt that God had
chosen him for the deliverance of Zion? He was indeed
no descendant of David. But the title "Son of David"
could be taken in a general sense as denoting a successor
of David, a king sitting upon David 's throne, as well as in

1 Matth., xxiv, 24 f .

2 Bousset thinks that his home was in Kokaba, referring to Julius
Africanus, as quoted in Eusebius Hist. Eccl., I, 7, 14 (Die 'Religion
des Judentums, 1903, p. 211). But this is probably a misunderstand-
ing of the name given him by E. Akiba (Taanith, 68d).

s His uncle Eleazar lived in Modein, cf . W. Bacher, Die Agada der
Tannaiten, 1883, p. 194 ff. Modein is probably the modern El
Medyeh, near Lydda-El Ludd.

* Taanith, 68d.

8 Cf . the coins in Madden, Coins of the Jews, 1881, pp. 239, 244.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 89

the narrower sense of a lineal descendant always affected
by the opposition.1 Concerning the preexistence of the
Messiah opinions differed. Some held that all souls had
existed before their birth, yet no one could remember
such a previous existence. The reaction against thoughts
peculiar to the followers of Jesus had probably removed
some of the transcendental aspects of the Messianic ideal.
The Messiah expected even by an Akiba was just the kind
of man that Simon was. When the rebellion was crushed
by Hadrian in 135 A. D., the fearful disenchantment ex-
pressed itself in curses upon Simon's head. He was sneer-
ingly referred to as the "son of a lie." Had he succeeded,
he would have remained ' ' son of the star ' ' forever. Syna-
gogue and church vied with each other in calling him a false
Messiah, an impostor, a liar. On both sides curious prej-
udices prevailed.2 In one circle, the establishment of a
Jewish kingdom of righteousness by the sword of a
mighty hero whose picture was found on many a page of
the Bible was ardently desired, but patriotism was appar-
ently no longer regarded as a virtue when it failed to
put an end to oppression. In another circle, Simon was
expected to measure himself by the ideal of a lamb will-
ingly led to slaughter, a non-resistant teacher of universal
love, an ideal that the immediate disciples of Jesus never
dreamed of associating with the Messiahship until after
the crucifixion of the Master. Simon miscalculated

aCf. Ps. Sol., xvii, 4, 5, 21. Jochanan ben Torta in Taanith, 68d;
Marie, xii, 35-37 (Matth. xxii, 41-46; Luke, xx, 41-44). The words
put upon the lips of Jesus in the last of these passages show both
that the opponents of the claims made for Jesus by his disciples in-
sisted upon lineal descent and that the defenders did not feel ham-
pered by the fact that Jesus was not a descendant of David and were
at no loss to find Scriptural support for their view. No aspirant to
the Messiahship is likely to have been seriously inconvenienced by his
pedigree. It was a handy weapon, however, of the opposition, and the
genealogists in Matth., i, and Luke, iii, sought to wrest it out of the
hands of the enemy.

2 Cf . the wise words of Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte ,
1879, I, p. 203 f.

90 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

Hadrian's strength, as Kossuth did the combined forces
of Hapsburgs and Romanoffs. But there is something
sublime in the bold defiance of the divine Caesar on the
throne of the world by the hero of a petty oppressed peo-
ple. The Messianic ideal was a political one, but should
not for this cause be condemned.

The hope of deliverance could not perish. It voiced
itself in the Shemoneh Esreh.1 What was needed was a
genuine descendant of David (14, 15), and a restoration
of the cult (17). This expectation also found expression
in a psalm interpolated in the Hebrew text of the Wisdom
of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, between 51:12 and 13. Be-
side the budding of the horn of the house of David the
choice of the sons of Zadok is mentioned. A legitimate
high priesthood was not less important than a legitimate
royalty of the Davidic line. Eleazar is mentioned on the
coins of "Jerusalem Delivered" by the side of Simon, as in
earlier days Joshua by the side of Zerubbabel. But
neither Eleazar nor Simon bar Kozeba could quite satisfy
the sticklers for legitimacy — when their regime had come
to an unfortunate end.2 In the reign of Antoninus Pius
(137-161 A. D.) Trypho told Justin Martyr3 that all Jews
believed that the Messiah would be a man born of men,
and that he would be anointed by Elijah. Celsus (ca. 178
A. D.) puts his arguments against Christianity on the lips
of a Jew. How far the Jew represents Celsus, rather than
Celsus the Jew, is doubtful. But in the main the philoso-
pher probably represents fairly well the average Jewish
opinion of the day. This is also shown by the Targums.
These Aramaic paraphrases by different interpreters no
doubt give a fair idea of the opinions prevailing from the

1 The Palestinian recension of these ' ' Eighteen Prayers ' ' found in
a geniza in Cairo was published by Schechter in Jewish Quarterly He-
view, 1898, pp. 654-659. Together with the Babylonian recension it
has been reprinted by Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, Leipzig, 1898, p.
299 ff., where also a number of other prayers and hymns referring to
the Messiah are given.

2 See Schmidt, Ecclesiasticus, 1903, pp. xxvi, xxvii, 176 ff.
* Dial. c. Try ph., xlix.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 91

first to the seventh century of our era. Unfortunately,
it is impossible to date with accuracy the different tar-
gums. It is significant, however, that the unquestionably
very late Targum Jerushalmi contains a much larger
number of Messianic interpretations than Targum On-
kelos,1 among them the interesting reference to the Mes-
siah, son of Ephraim (to Ex. xl, 11). Other sources des-
ignate him as Messiah, son of Joseph, and indicate that he
will be revealed in Galilee, gather the ten tribes, fight
against Gog and Magog, and die by their sword for the
sin of Jeroboam,2 or that he will be put to death and after-
wards be seen by his murderers, in accordance with Zech.
xii, 10.3 The origin of this conception of two Messiahs is
very obscure. Levy4 thinks that, after the death of
Simon bar Kozeba, the people were told that he had
indeed been the Messiah, but only an auxiliary Messiah,
the real Son of David being in the future. The sugges-
tion of Merx5 that the idea is intelligible only as a compro-
mise of two different Messiah-conceptions is more likely
to be eoreet. With Bertholdt, he thinks of the Samaritan
Ta'eb, and assumes that he was the survival of a Messiah
earlier than the Judaean Son of David. But of such a
Messiah there is no evidence, and the Son of Joseph who
is to appear in Galilee has retained no feature connecting
him with the Shechemite community. Possibly the com-
promise was with the Ebionites, a concession made to the
followers of Jesus before the final separation. "Your
Messiah, Joseph's son, may indeed appear in Galilee, as

1 17 in Targum Jerushalmi to 2 in Targum Orikelos.

2Cf. Targum to Canticles, iv, 5, and the rabbinic literature quoted
by L. Bertholdt, De Christologia Judaeorum Jesu Apostolorumque
aetate, Erlangen, 1811, p. 77 ff.

• In the Babylonian Talmud, SuTcTca, 52a, this passage is referred to
Messiah ben Joseph by B. Dosa, who lived in the second century,
A.D.

* Neuhebrdisches und Chaldaisches Wbrterbuch uber die Talmudim
und Midraschim, III, 271.

5 Ein Samaritanisches Fragment uber den Ta'eb oder Messias, Lei-
den, 1893, p. 20.

92 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

you expect, but only to perish again because of idolatry
to give place to the real Messiah, David's son." Prophe-
cies, like Isa. viii, 23, may have forced this concession.
Joseph and Ephraim being interchangeable, the complex-
ion of the whole idea would readily change, and the forma-
tive Christian influence would be forgotten. Targum
Jonathan to Zech. iv, 7, teaches that the name of the Mes-
siah was mentioned from of old. Whether this implies
a real preexistence from eternity, is doubtful. This Tar-
gum also refers a part of the description of the Servant of
Yahwe in Isa. liii to the Messiah, but the sufferings are
not ascribed to him.

It was a victorious warrior and a just ruler, a king
restoring independence to Israel and giving it dominion
over the world, that the Jews of the Roman period prayed
for and expected. The prevailing thought did not con-
nect with him either the creation of the world or the res-
urrection of the dead and the final judgment, still less a
redemption of mankind through vicarious suffering.
Even the thought of making the conqueror of the nations,
the theocratic king, Yahwe 's son and vice-gerent on earth,
also judge of the world was scarcely conceived under
Christian influence1 before it was finally rejected. A
rigid monotheism rendered it impossible for the Jewish
Messiah to become more than a man. The New Testa-
ment reveals substantially the same beliefs concerning the
Messiah both on the parts of the opponents and the de-
fenders of the Messiahship of Jesus. But in addition to
these, grafted upon this stock, there appear ideas
utterly foreign to the Jewish thought of the Messiah. Such
are the conceptions of a suffering and atoning Saviour, a
Lamb of God taking away the sin of the world, a celestial
and archetypal man, medium of creation, redemption,
resurrection and final judgment, a Son of God in the
Greek metaphysical sense, a Philonian Logos tabernacling
among men. Out of the union of all these elements the

1 Interpolations in En., xxxvii-lxxi, and possibly Wisdom of God.

THE JEWISH MESSIAH 93

Christ of the ecumenic creeds evolved. He had little
more than the name in common with the Jewish Messiah.
Neither was ever dreamed of by the men whose thoughts
are revealed in the Old Testament. Both present ideals
of humanity that contain elements of permanent ethical
value. The Jewish Messiah did not live in vain in the
hopes of those who looked for Israel's consolation; nor
did he die in vain where in the life of a scattered and per-
secuted people he left as an heir the dream of an united
human race,1 and among earth's most progressive nations
a desire for the leadership of Israel's greatest prophet.

1 It falls outside the scope of the present study to sketch the devel-
opment of the Messianic idea in Judaism from the reign of Hadrian
to the present time. But it may be remarked that Jewish and Chris-
tian scholars ought to be able by this time to break the spell of a
name and to accord a fair judgment to those political leaders, social
reformers, mystics and prophets who from Simon bar Kozeba to
Sabatai Zewi have assumed or received from others the title of the
Messiah. Cf. Hamburger, article Messiasse in Beal-EncyMopaedie
des Judentums, and Schmidt, article Messiah in the New International
Encyclopaedia. These Messianic movements should also be more
closely examined in the light of similar phenomena in the East
which is so prodigal with its Saoshyants, Imams, Mahdis, prophets
and revealers.

CHAPTER V

THE SON OF MAN

As long as the Gospels were read in the light of the creeds,
the term "son of man" was naturally understood as indi-
cating the human nature assumed in the incarnation by the
second person of the Trinity.1 When the Biblical books
began to be studied with a view to ascertaining the thought
of the writers, rather than with a more or less frankly
avowed purpose of discovering proof-texts for the support
of an already formulated system of doctrine, a number of
perplexing questions arose touching the origin, use and
significance of the phrase. Did Jesus invent it as a designa-
tion of himself or find it as a Messianic title ? In the former
case, did he use it to intimate that he was the man par excel-
lence, the ideal man, or that he was a mere man, nothing but
a human being ? Did he coin it as an expression of what he
thought the Messiah ought to be, or as a means of distin-
guishing himself from the Messiah currently expected ? In
the latter case, was its source in the book of Daniel, or in
some other place? Was it a commonly understood Mes-
sianic title, or was it known only to a few as a name of the
Messiah ? In either case, was there a special significance in
the word "son" or did "son of man" mean only "man"?

1 Cf . for instance one of the best Mediaeval interpreters, Nicolas de
Lyra, Biblia Sacra, Venice, 1588, Vol. ii, p. 43, to Matth., xii, 8.
This passage is understood to affirm that blasphemy against Christ's
humanity is not as unpardonable as that against his divinity. In
Matth., xvi, 13, Christ is interpreted as confessing concerning himself
the humble fact of his humanity, while his disciples understood his
deity. A curious gloss to "men" in Matth., xvi, 13, is "homines
sunt qui de filio hominis loquuntur, Dei enim qui deitatem intelli-
gunt." For a convenient summary of patristic and Mediaeval opin-
ion see Appel, Die Selbstbezeichnung Jesu, 1896.

94

THE SON OF MAN 95

Might the term have different meanings in different con-
nections? Should the discussion be confined to the Greek
form, or would it be justifiable to look for the actual
Aramaic words used by Jesus, and to inquire as to the man-
ner in which these would naturally be employed and under-
stood ?

The first of these questions to receive serious considera-
tion seems to have been the one mentioned last, though its
importance for the solution of the entire problem has not
been recognized until recently. Gilbert Genebrard,1 com-
menting on Matth. xii, 32, explained "son of man" as
"man" and with great propriety referred to Eli's words in
I Sam. ii, 25 as expressing the same sentiment. Sins
against men may be pardoned, but not sins against God.
Independently Hugo Grotius2 reached the same conclusion.
He also perceived that in Matth. xii, 8 the conclusion evi-
dently must be, ' ' Therefore man is lord even of the sabbath. ' '
Pointing to Mark ii, 28 as giving the more original connec-
tion, he showed that the argument would have no cogency, if
the "son of man" were interpreted as the Messiah, and
called attention to the fact that at the time Jesus had
neither declared himself to be the Messiah, nor been willing
to have his disciples proclaim him as such. The natural ex-
planation he found in the Hebrew phrase ben Adam which
simply means "man." Grotius refrained, however, from
further application of the principle. A third Orientalist,
Johann Adrian Bolten,3 following the hint given by Grotius.
carefully examined the use of this term in Hebrew, Syriac,
Arabic, Samaritan and Ethiopie. His conclusion was that
"son" everywhere in this connection was only a means of
designating the individual of the species, and that in Matth.
ix, 6, xii, 8, xii, 32 the term should be translated "man,"

1 De S. Trinitate libri III, Paris, 1569, quoted by Arnold Meyer,
Jesu Muttersprache, 1895, p. 142.

1 In Critici Sacri, Vol. VI, 1698, cols. 445, 446.

* Der Bericht des Matthaeus von Jesu dem Messia, Altona, 1792,
quoted by A. Meyer, I. c. It is the merit of Arnold Meyer to have
brought to light the testimony of these three Orientalists.

96 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

while in other passages it should be interpreted in the light
of the Aramaic bar nasha as an indefinite pronoun, "one,"
"some one." H. E. G. Paulus,1 as Theodore Beza2 before
him, explained "the man" to mean "this man who stands
before you," a substitute for the personal pronoun "I," like
the Oriental "thy servant," "thy handmaiden." O. P.
Fritzsche3 followed Paulus, but added the important sugges-
tion that a number of passages containing the term belonged
to a later time, when it had taken on a Messianic significance.
Kuinoel4 accepted the interpretation of Matth. xii, 8 given
by Grotius and that of Matth. x, 23 given by Beza and
Bolten.

A theory assuming that Jesus habitually used an indefi-
nite pronoun, or a phrase like "the man," accompanied by
a gesture indicating himself, instead of the simple first per-
sonal pronoun, was too artificial to command respect. The
philological explanation was an apparent failure, and in the
general reaction against rationalismus vulgaris the achieve-
ments of these earlier scholars were completely forgotten.
Much work had to be done in literary and historical criti-
cism before the argument from philology could again be
profitably presented.

It was only a more modern form that Herder5 gave to
the old idea, that the term was intended to teach the human
nature of Christ as distinct from his divine nature, by ex-
plaining it as a designation of the ideal humanity of Jesus.
Through Schleiermacher6 and Neander7 this view gained a
wide recognition. It was defended by C. H. Weisse,8 H.

1 Theologisch-Jcritischer Commentar uber das Neue Testament, 1800,
1812.

2 Quoted by Holtzmann in Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theo-
logie, 1865, p. 217.

3 Commeniatio in Evangelium Matthaei, p. 320.

4 Commentarius in libros Novi Testamenti, 1823, I, 320.
B Christliche Schriften, II, 1796, v, 4.

• Einleitung in 's Neue Testament, p. 479 f .

7 Das Leben Jesu, 1837, p. 129 ff.

8 Die Evangelische Geschichte, 1838, I, p. 325.

THE SON OF MAN 97

Holtzmann1 and W. Beyschlag2 from different standpoints.
Weisse thought that Jesus used it to intimate that his was a
higher type of humanity, hence it was to his hearers a riddle.
Holtzmann held that Jesus did not find the phrase as a Mes-
sianic title but formed it as an esoteric designation for him-
self from Dan. vii, 13, to indicate that he was the bearer of
all human dignity and human rights. Beyschlag found al-
ready in the passage in Daniel the ideal man, the pre-
existent, archetypal, heavenly man, and in Jesus at once
the Messiah and this ideal man appearing on earth.

Against this conception of the term as claiming an em-
phatically high position, Christian Ferdinand Baur3 set a
diametrically different estimate. Having shown that the
passages where the term occurs in the Fourth Gospel cannot
throw any light on its original meaning, he examined the
Synoptics with the result that he could neither find anything
to suggest Dan. vii as the probable origin, nor discover in the
context anywhere a hint of ideal manhood. On the con-
trary, it seemed probable that Jesus invented this self-desig-
nation in order at the same time to claim for himself a Mes-
siahship without which he could not attain to a more univer-
sal recognition and a genuine national work, and to keep
aloof from the vulgar Messianic idea associated with the title
"Son of God." In distinction from a Messiah appearing in
power and glory, he would be a man deeming nothing
foreign to him that belongs to the lot of a human being,
identifying himself with all human conditions, needs and
interests in genuine human sympathy, and accepting all suf-
ferings and sacrifices connected with his work in life. Co-
lani4 maintained that the expression was unknown before

1 Tiber den N.Tlichen Ausdruclc "Menschensohn" in Zeitschrift
fur Wiss. Theologie, 1865, p. 212 ff.

2 Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, 1866, p. 9 ff.

8 Zeitschrift fur Wiss. Theologie, 1860, p. 274 ff . In N eutestament-
liche Theologie, 1864, p. 82, lie assumes a later Danielic significance
for the eschatological discourses differing from the earlier and origi-
nal.

* Jesus Christ et les Croyances messianiques de son temps, 1864, p.
74 f ., 81 f .
7

98 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

Jesus, because it was he who created it ; that by it he desig-
nated himself as a poor child of Adam, and also as the object
of a particular divine love ; that no one saluted him as "son
of man," because this would have been almost an insult,
and that it soon disappeared, because in the faith of the
church the divinity had become more important than the
humanity of Jesus. Like Baur, Hilgenfeld1 regarded the
expression as indicating lowly external conditions and a
humble disposition as associated with the Messianic office,
while he considered Dan. vii to be its source and maintained
its Messianic significance in all places.

Already W. Scholten2 and more clearly D. F. Strauss3 had
looked upon "the son of man" as simply a title of the Mes-
siah drawn from Dan. vii without any intention of describ-
ing by it the character of the Messiah. Bernhard Weiss4
most consistently carried out this idea. Rejecting both the
"emphatically high" and the "emphatically low" concep-
tion supposed to be implied in the title, and refraining from
all analysis of the phrase, he contented himself with showing
that it was everywhere used as an equivalent of the Messiah.
Among those who believe that Jesus actually used the
phrase, this "synthetic" view has been adopted by Balden-
sperger.5

The majority of scholars continued to look to the Greek
phrase itself for the solution of its mystery. But while in
earlier days one fundamental meaning was assumed, various

1 Die Evangelien und die gesch. Gestalt Jesu in Zeitschr. f. Wiss.
Th., 1863, p. 327 ff. Substantially the same view has also been ex-
pressed by Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu, I, 1888, p. 23 f ., and in the
thoughtful article of Holsten, Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Th., 1891, p. 1 ff.

2 Specimen hermeneutico-theologicum de appellatione qua Jesus se
Messiam professus est, 1809.

'Leben Jesu, 1835, p. 463. Later Strauss changed his view under
the influence of Baur.

*Lehrbuch der biblischen Theologie des N. T., 1868, p. 59 ff.

6 Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu,2 1892, p. 169 ff., 182 ff. It is the merit
of Baldensperger to have seriously attempted to explain how Jesus as
a child of his own age and a true-hearted man could have regarded
himself as the Messiah. The house was well built, but its foundations
were insecure and have given away completely.

THE SON OF MAN 99

combinations began to be introduced. This was quite
natural. If the term was at all created by Jesus, or its eon-
tent modified by him, it must reflect in some way his Mes-
sianic consciousness. Thus Carl Wittichen1 maintained
that Jesus changed the current Messianic conception of the
title by infusing into it the idea of a king in a purely ethical
sense, by translating it from the abstract into the concrete,
by uniting with it the notion of a suffering servant of the
Lord, and by introducing the thought of a second glorious
presence on earth of this ideal man. C. F. Nosgen2 saw in
it, not indeed the unique and perfect man, but a combination
of esoteric Messiahship suggested by Daniel, and a phase
of existence through which the Messiah had to pass with its
predetermined humiliation and sufferings. Schneder-
mann3 combined Danielic Messiah, Ezechielic prophet,
ideal man and human sufferer. And R. H. Charles4 held
that the true interpretation would be found ''if we start
with the conception as found in Enoch, and trace its enlarge-
ment and essential transformation in the usage of our Lord ;
in this transformation it is reconciled to and takes over into
itself its apparent antithesis, the conception of the Servant
of Jehovah, while it betrays occasional reminiscences of Dan.
vii, the ultimate source of this designation. ' '

"While Colani5 and Usteri6 most decidedly maintained
that Jesus himself was the inventor of the term, and
Strauss,7 Hausrath,8, Vernes9 and Weizsacker thought of
Ezechiel as its source10, the overwhelming majority of

1 Die Idee des Menschen, 1868, p. 144 ff.

2 Geschichte Jesu Christi, 1891, p. 155 ff.

*Jesu V erkundxgung und Lehre vom Beiche Gottes, II, 1895, p.
206 ff.

* The Boole of Enoch, 1893, p. 312 ff.
6 I. c.

• Theologische Zeitschrift aus der Schweitz, 1886, p. 1 ff.
7 1, c.

8 Neutestamentliehe Zeitgeschichte, 1879, III, p. 980.

9 Eistoire des idees messianiques, 1874, p. 187.

10 This view has recently been carried out most consistently by G. L.
Cary, The Synoptic Gospels, 1900, p. 360 ff., who rejects the idea that

100 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

scholars since the time of the Keformation have looked for
its origin to Dan. vii. The exegesis of this chapter has
therefore naturally had much influence on the view of the
New Testament expression. In earlier times the "one like
a son of man" in Dan. vii, 13 was understood by all to refer
to the Messiah. Hitzig1 recognized the impossibility of this
interpretation. He regarded the man-like being as a sym-
bol of Israel, and gave rise to the now current view that sees
in it a suggestion of the humane regime, the ideal kingdom
of man, that is to be established when Israel comes into
power. Where this interpretation prevailed it could not
but affect the view-point from which the whole question was
examined. If Daniel could body forth in a symbol the
notion of an ideal society, why should not Jesus have found
in it the suggestion of an ideal humanity to be realized by
the individual? Even more pertinent, however, would be
the question, Why should he not have used the phrase in the
same manner to designate the coming kingdom of heaven?
S. Hoekstra,2 W. Bruckner3 and J. Estlin Carpenter4 af-
firmed that this was the sense in which Jesus had used the
term. But the symbolic representation of a "humane
regime," "ein Menschheitsideal" savors more of modern
sentiments than of the concrete conceptions of Semitic an-
tiquity, and may have been wrongly attributed to the ancient
prophet. It is more likely that in this passage, as every-
where else in the book, the author meant by a being like a
man appearing in the celestial realms an angel, and that the
particular angel in this instance was none else than Michael,

Jesus used the term as a Messianic title and maintains that "in
speaking of himself as 'the Son of Man' he intended to announce
himself as a prophet sent to warn his people of the danger which
threatened them if they did not turn from their evil ways. ' '

*Das Buch David, 1850. Ibn Ezra had already explained the one
like a son of man as Israel. Before Hitzig, Hofmann had also made
this suggestion, Weissagung und Erfiillung, I, p. 209 f.

2De benaming "de Zoon des Menschen," 1866.

* Jesus "des Menschen Sohn" in Jahrbiicher fur prot. Theologie,
1886, p. 254 ff.

4 The First Three Gospels, 1890, p. 383 ff .

THE SON OF MAN 101

the representative on high of the Jewish nation.1 At the
end of the first century of our era apocalyptic writers clearly
show that they understand the man on the clouds in Daniel's
vision as an individual, though there is room for difference
as to whether he is the Messiah2 or some such translated hero
as Enoch.3 That Jesus said "the man (of Daniel's famous
vision) will come on the clouds," when he meant "the
kingdom of heaven will come," is after all quite im-
probable.4

Another way out of the difficulty was indicated by the
general course of literary criticism. Through the re-
searches of Bretschneider,5 Strauss, Bruno Bauer and Baur
an insight had been gained into the character of the Fourth
Gospel that not only forbade its use as a historic source but
also revealed a late growth of "son of man" passages.
After the priority of Mark had been maintained by G. C.
Storr,6 C. G. Wilke7 and C. H. Weisse,8 the observation was
made by H. Holtzmann9 that in this Gospel Jesus does not
claim for himself the Messiahship before his visit to
Caesarea Philippi. This tended to put into a separate cate-

1 Cf. Schmidt, The "Son of Man" in the Book of Daniel in Journal
of Bib. Lit., 1900, II, p. 22 ff. Nihil sub sole novum. Three years
later I discovered in Viktor Rydberg's Bibelns Lara om Kristus (5th
ed., 1893) a passage I had never seen, in which this Swedish savant
expresses his view that the "one like a son of man" is Michael and
Messiah in one person not yet separated. This is not my view, as I
do not believe the Messiah is in any way referred to in this passage.
But suum cuique. Was Rydberg the first to think of Michael in this
connection?

2 En., xlvi, 2, 3, 4; xlviii, 2; lxii, 7, 9, 14; Ixiii, 11; lxix, 26, 27, 29;
lxx, 1 ; IV Ezra, xiii, 3 ff .

* En., Ixxi.

4 The view, expressed by the present writer in Journal of Bib. Lit.,
1896, p. 51, that on one occasion Jesus used it in this sense can no
longer be maintained.

B Probabilia de evangelii et epistolarum Joannis Apostoli indole et
origine, 1820.

* Von dem ZwecTc der evangelischen Geschichte, 1786.
1 Der TJr evangelist, 1838.

6 Die evangelische Geschichte, 1838.

" Die Synoptischen Evangelien, 1863, p. 431 ff.

102 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

gory those passages in Mark that contained the term, and
yet occurred in this Gospel before the episode at Caesarea
Philippi. If they could not be removed from their place,1
they would have to be explained. But for this necessity, it
is scarcely conceivable that the theory should have become so
popular that has been maintained by Eitsehl,2 Holtzmann3
and a great number of scholars, according to which Jesus
used the term to half conceal and half reveal his identity,
hiding it, as it were, from the mighty and wise who looked
for a son of David, while suggesting it to the babes whose
faith was nourished by apocalyptic visions. The obvious
improbability of this conjecture was calculated to raise a
question concerning the reliability of the synoptic represen-
tation. The discovery of John's untrustworthiness had led
scholars to lean all the more heavily on Mark, Matthew and
Luke. It is largely the merit of Bruno Bauer and Volkmar
to have applied the same measure to all the Gospels, explain-
ing each as a didactic work written for a definite purpose,
and naturally reflecting the religious thought of the author
and the circle of Christians where he moved. From this
point of view it readily occurred first to Bauer4 and then
independently to Volkmar5 that the title may have been a
creation of Mark and that consequently Jesus may never
have used it as a self-designation. The absence of the title6
in the Pauline literature and the Apocalypse of John gave
added strength to this impression. But was really Mark the
originator of this expression ? Colani7 had recognized that
Mark xiii, 5-32 (Matth. xxiv, 4-36, Luke xxi, 8-36) was "a
veritable apocalypse lacking nothing essential to this species

1This was done by August Jacobsen, Untersuchungen uber die
Synoptischen Evangelien, 1883, p. 57 ff.

2 Theologische Jdhrbiicher, 1851, p. 514.

8 Zeitschrift fiir Wiss. Th., 1865, p. 226.

4 KritiJc der Evangelischen Geschichte, III, 1842, p. 1 ff.

'Die Evangelien oder Marcus und die Synopsis, 1870, p. 197 ff.

• Distinguished as such by the definite article.

T Jesus Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps, 1864, p.
140.

THE SON OF MAN 103

of composition." August Jacobsen1 affirmed that this was
the door through which the expression entered into the Gos-
pels, and that it was still absent in the original form of
Mark. It is in this direction also that Orello Cone2 looked
for the source of ' ' son of man " as a Messianic title, though
he still thought of Jesus as having used it to denote that he
regarded himself as ' ' the man by preeminence. ' ' Brandt V
position was fundamentally the same as Volkmar 's. But he
added the important suggestion that a recent origin and
spreading influence of this apocalyptic figure would
naturally explain why an evangelist should have been
prompted to declare that the man coming on the cloud was
none else than Jesus. In H. L. Oort's4 dissertation on the
subject, the Messianic significance of the term was strongly
maintained, and its origin was sought in Daniel and the
apocalypses whence it was taken by the evangelists to desig-
nate the Christian Messiah. No effort was made to trace
any of the sayings containing the expression back to Jesus,
and the attempt to go behind the written records was dis-
countenanced in principle. The warning against such
curiosity was repeated by Van Manen.5 Thus a deep
chasm was found between the Gospels and the actual words
of Jesus over which no man could pass with any degree of
assurance. The exclusive regard to the Greek gospels tended
to crowd the whole question into the background, as may be
seen in Wrede's important work6 which scarcely alludes
to it.

At this juncture philology stepped in again to throw a

1 Protestantische Kirchenzeitung , 1886, p. 563 ff.

2 Jesus ' Self-Designation in the Synoptics in the New World, 1893,
p. 492 ff.

• Die Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 562 ff. It was probably the
Messianic interpretation rather than Dan., vii, itself that was of
recent origin, as Brandt, following Lagarde, is inclined to think.

*De uitdrulcking ov\q<s rov dvOputirov in net Nieuwe Testament, 1893.

8 Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1894, p. 177 ff. On the other hand, J. A.
Bruins, ibid. 646 ff., in a review of Oort's book saw a defect in this
failure to look for an Aramaic origin in some instances.

* Das Messiasgeheimnis, 1901.

104 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

bridge across the gulf. Already in 1862 C. E. B. Uloth1
had renewed the old question as to what word Jesus himself
is likely to have used. His answer was that it must have
been the Aramaic bar nasha. But this could have no mean-
ing other than "man," "the man." Jesus consequently
called himself "the man," the frail mortal. But even as
such he had a right to assure his fellow men of the pardon
of their sins (Matth. ix, 6). Paul de Lagarde2 had also ob-
served that bar nasha could only mean "man," and inter-
preted it in that sense in Matth. viii, 19 ff. Johannes
Weiss3 had returned to the exegesis of Grotius and Bolten
in the case of Mark ii, 10 and ii, 28. And Wellhausen4 had
declared that the phrase Jesus used could only mean "man"
and consequently imply no claim to the Messiahship. What
was new in the contribution of B. D. Eerdmans5 was a com-
bination of Oort's general position on the meaning of the
Greek term with the assertion that in three places, (Matth.
xii, 8, xii, 32, xvi, 13) a Messianic significance is precluded,
while in two of these, (Matth. xii, 8, 32) a recourse to the
Aramaic bar nasha clearly indicates that Jesus spoke of man
in a generic sense. Eerdmans agreed with those who could
not find in bar nasha a Messianic title. Yet he deemed it
possible that on some occasions Jesus met the desire to see in
him something more than a man with a declaration that he
was a man as well as they. The present writer6 called at-
tention to the fact that a careful critical analysis could on
independent grounds admit only four genuine sayings of

1 De beteelcenis van de uitdrulcJcing ' ' Zoon des Menschen, ' ' Godge-
leerde Bijdragen, 1862, p. 467 ff.

2 Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 1866, p. 26; Deutsche Schriften, 1878,
p. 226 f ., in Gesammtausgdbe Letster Hand.

3 Die Predigt Jesu vom Beiche Gottes, 1892, p. 571; Die Nachfolge
Christi, 1895, p. 33 ff.

4 Israelitische und jiidische GescMchte1, 1894, p. 312.

5 De oorsprong van de uitdruklcing "Zoon des Menschen" als evan-
gelische Messiastitel, Th. Tijdschrift, 1894, p. 153 ff. Cf . ibid., 1895,
p. 49 ff.

8 Was bar nasha a Messianic Title? in Journal of Biblical Litera-
ture, 1896, p. 36 ff.

THE SON OF MAN 105

Jesus containing this term before the episode at Caesarea
Philippi, and that in each of these the generic sense of
"man" was most suitable; that an utterance such as "man
must pass away" may have given rise to the peculiar form
of the prediction of his death ; that bar nasha cannot have
been understood as a Messianic title either in Daniel, Enoch,
Ezra, or the Aramaic source of the logia, while through the
Greek translation of the Synoptic apocalypse it may have
found its way as a Messianic title into the Greek Gospels.
In a discussion of the mother-tongue of Jesus, Arnold
Meyer1 briefly indicated his belief that in Mark ii, 28, ii, 10
and Matth. xii, 32 an original bar nasha meaning "man"
was used ; that in Matth. viii, 20 it stood for " I, " and that
in Matth. xi, 9 it should be translated "some one." The
discussion of the eschatological passages he deferred to a
second part of his work, which has not yet appeared.2 The
value of Lietzmann's contribution lay chiefly in his careful
study of early Christian literature which led him to surmise
that the Greek title may have originated in Asia Minor be-
tween the death of Paul and the year 90 A. D., as ac-
quaintance with it appears for the first time in Marcion.3
In regard to the use of bar nasha by Jesus Lietzmann
reached substantially the same conclusion as Eerdmans, the

1 Jesu Mutter spr ache, 1896, pp. 91 ff., 140 ff.

2 From Die Modeme Forschung iiber die Geschichte des Christen-
turns, 1898, p. 75, and Th. Lit. Zeitung, 1898, col. 272, it may be in-
ferred that Meyer deems it possible that in some eschatological pas-
sages the phrase "the coming of the Son of Man" actually used by
Jesus was identical with the "coming of the kingdom."

8 Der Menschensohn, 1896. Lietzmann's lexical collations rendered
good service. Some of the forms were more accurately explained by
Wellhausen. Why 90 A. D.? Even if Harnack's conjecture (Chro-
nologie Altchr. Lit., 1897, p. 298 ff.), based on an obscure and mani-
festly corrupt passage in Clement of Alexandria, were more trust-
worthy than that of Lipsius, who placed Marcion 's birth at least
twenty years later, and Tertullian's statement that he was a bishop's
son more reliable than Megethius's that he was himself a bishop (cf.
H. U. Meyboom, Marcion en de Marcionieten, 1888, p. 34 ff.), is
there a shred of evidence that Marcion as a child was familiar with
the gospel he quoted in Eome after 140 A. D.?

106 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

present writer, and Meyer. Wellhausen1 indicated his ac-
ceptance of the new view, and subsequently gave a more
extended statement of his reasons. Pfleiderer2 also recog-
nized the correctness of this position; Marti3 adopted it,
with the suggestion that Mark xiii, 26 may have given oc-
casion for putting the expression as a Messianic title on the
lips of Jesus. Bevan4 ably defended it, Noldeke5 indi-
cated his approval, and Staerk6 combined it with Wrede's
position.

This view has naturally met with considerable opposition.
Van Manen, Hilgenfeld, Gunkel, Krop, Schmiedel, Dalman,
Baldensperger, Klopper, Clemen, Charles, Rhees, Drum-
mond, Stevens, Fiebig and Driver have urged objections
and indicated difficulties. Against the tendency to assume
a genuine utterance of Jesus back of every saying in the
Synoptic Gospels attributed to him, and to forget the pe-
culiar character and manifestly late origin of these writings,
Van Manen 's7 protest is quite legitimate. But since even
within the Synoptics it is so often possible to trace a growth
from a simpler form to one unquestionably colored by later
thought, the investigator certainly has the right to assume
that this development did not begin in our present Gospels.
By testing a certain word in an approximation to the
Aramaic form it must have had if uttered by Jesus an en-
tirely different sense is not seldom suggested, that may
readily have been obscured by a natural mistake in transla-
tion or an equally natural doctrinal bias. The more foreign
to the thought of the evangelists the sentiment thus revealed
proves to be, the more importance must evidently be attached
to it. Schmiedel8 is unquestionably right in laying down

1 Israelitische und jiidisehe Geschichte*, 1897, p. 381; STcizsen und
Vorarbeiten, VI, 1899, p. 187 ff.

2 New World, 1899, p. 444 ff.

8 Das Buch Daniel, 1901, p. 53.

* Critical Eeview, 1899, p. 148 ff.

6 Quoted by Drummond in Journal of Theol. Studies, 1901.

• Trot. Monatshefte, 1902, p. 297 ff.

TZ. c.

8 Protestantische Monatshefte, 1898, p. 307.

THE SON OF MAN 107

the principle that "absolute credibility should be accorded
to that which cannot have been invented by a tradition re-
plete with veneration for Jesus because contradicting it, and
most clearly in instances where among the evangelists them-
selves one or another has actually effected a transformation
out of reverence for Jesus." This principle is perfectly
sound, as every historian knows. It has been applied by the
present writer in his study of the life of Jeremiah,1 and will
find the fullest recognition in his treatment of the life of
Jesus. But why this should have led to a protest against the
recourse to the vernacular of Jesus is difficult to understand.
This acute critic has, strangely enough, failed to perceive
that, if the interpretation based on the Aramaic is admitted,
the passages in question furnish some exceedingly valuable
illustrations of his principle.

If we turn to the four passages that report sayings of
Jesus previous to his visit to Caesarea Philippi, we first meet
his assertion that bar nasha, i. e., man, has a right to pardon
sin, (Mark ii, 10) . The question in debate is whether a man
can assure his fellow-man that his sins are pardoned. Jesus
has said, "Child, thy sins are forgiven!" The Pharisees
maintain that God alone can forgive sins. There is no hint
that they thought he was exercising Messianic functions,
and there is absolutely no evidence that the Jews expected
the Messiah to forgive sins.2 Jesus affirms that man has the
power to pardon sins. This thought finds expression again,
when Jesus enjoins upon his disciples to exercise this author-
ity, this blessed privilege of assuring their fellow-men of the
pardon of their sins when their disposition should justify
them in doing so (Matth. xviii, 18). This simple assurance
of forgiveness, flowing from a living faith in a heavenly
Father 's love, was to Jesus no sacerdotal act. Any man had
a right to do it. This was a thought too bold for the early

1 Jeremiah in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.

2 Scholars who quote Bertholdt 's Christologia Judaeorum, 1811, p.
165 ff ., should read the remarkable paragraph on the bearing of the
penalties of sins by the Messiah. All the proof-texts that refer to
the doctrine at all are taken from the New Testament.

108 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

church to grasp. More congenial was the idea that the
Christ could pardon sins. The church asked, "Who is the
man that can pardon sins?" and she answered, "Christ."
It was no doubt because the Greek translator, following the
custom of the Alexandrian version, rendered the phrase
literally "the son of man" rather than in good idiomatic
Greek, "the man," which in English would be simply
"man," that the saying was preserved at all. It is not
necessary to suppose that this utterance was originally con-
nected with a ease of healing, and therefore quite irrelevant
to ask whether Jesus thought that all men could exercise
healing power, even if it were easier than it is to answer
such a question. Wellhausen rightly observes that the em-
phasis is not on man but on may.1

Mark ii, 23 ff , presents an even clearer case. The disciples
have been eating corn as they passed through the field, and
are accused of not keeping the sabbath. Jesus does not seem
to have eaten : the accusation is against his disciples. But
he defends them by quoting the example of David. David
ate of the shewbread that, according to the law, he had no
right to eat, and gave his followers permission to do so. The
point is not that David and ' ' his greater son ' ' may take lib-
erties with God's law which would be wrong for others, but
clearly that so godly a man as David recognized that the sus-
tenance of life was in God's eyes more important than the
maintenance of the temple service. Lest this should be mis-
interpreted, he adds, according to Matth. xii, another argu-
ment. The law permits the priests to work on the sabbath,
thus regarding the commanded cessation of labor as less
important than the maintenance of divine worship. The
thought is not that he and his had priestly rights, for they
had none, and Jesus had no interest in the sacrificial cult,
as the next statement shows. But even from the standpoint
of the law there were things more important than the en-
joined cessation of work. The whole sacrificial system was,
in his judgment, of less significance than the principle of
love violated in this charge preferred against the innocent.

1 1. c, p. 203.

THE SON OF MAN 109

Institutions have their value only as they serve man 's good.
Man was not made for the sabbath, but the sabbath for man ;
therefore man is also lord of the sabbath. The Aramaic
words cannot have conveyed any other sense than this, and
this alone is relevant to the argument.

There is no cogency in the argument, ' ' Man was not made
for the sake of the sabbath, but the sabbath for the sake of
man, therefore the Messiah has authority over the sabbath. ' '
Even on the assumption that by the expression "son of
man ' ' Jesus had from the beginning of his ministry claimed
to be the Messiah, and had been understood by his enemies to
do so, an assumption that Schmiedel does not share,1 there
would be no force in this reasoning. If it were necessary to
prove that the Messiah might break the law or authorize his
disciples to do so, how could so startling a proposition be
established by the general consideration that the sabbath
was made for man's sake? There is, indeed, no evidence
that the Jews expected their Messiah to violate or abrogate
the divinely given law. The very suggestion would prob-
ably have produced a shock. If Jesus really desired to con-
vince his hearers that the Messiah had a right to dispense
from obedience to the law, and that he was the Messiah, he
must have understood that what was needed for that purpose
was a reference to a recognized Messianic passage ascribing
such powers to the Messiah, or a firmly rooted tradition to
this effect, and a straightforward presentation and vindica-
tion of his claims, all the more indispensable if he did not
wish his Messiahship to be taken in a political sense. Were
it possible that the Aramaic word he used for "son of man"
could have been interpreted as a Messianic title, the impres-
sion left on the Pharisees would, after all, be that he had de-
fended law-breaking on the ground that regard for the
lower, the sabbath, must yield to regard for the higher, man,
and had made such a sweeping application of a general prin-
ciple, true enough in certain circumstances, to himself and
followers as would allow any man to set aside any ordinance
of God.

1 !. e., p. 296.

110 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

But Schmiedel thinks that Jesus may have been led to
regard himself as the Messiah by the practical question that
he, as a reformer, was forced to meet, whether the validity
of the law might be set aside. ' ' The law was intended to re-
main forever. If it must be changed, an explicit authoriza-
tion by God was of course necessary. No prophet had pos-
sessed this. It was on the whole conceivable only in
connection with the new order of the world, the coming of
the Messianic age. Consequently only one could be the
divine messenger who would dare to announce it, the Mes-
siah. "* This ingenious line of reasoning rests on presup-
positions that are untenable. Jesus probably believed that
Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. Yet he found in
the prophetic rolls the most pointed criticism of the cult.
Prophets had in the name of God spoken against sacrifices,
temples, sabbaths and other ordinances of the law. The
entire evangelic tradition shows that Jesus was deeply influ-
enced by the prophets, but can at no time have had any great
interest in the law. To a lawyer of the Pharisaic party the
question of the validity of the codes might seem one of life
and death ; the carpenter of Nazareth lived in another world
of thought. To draw a picture of Jewish society in general
at the beginning of our era from the discussion of lawyers
in the Talmuds is not only to read back later ideas and con-
ditions into an earlier age, but to do injustice by a false
generalization to a national life that freely developed in
many directions.2 Whether there was any relation between
the Essenes and Jesus or not, the fact is significant that
these most pious members of the nation did not regard it
necessary to wait for a Messiah to authorize a remarkably
free attitude toward the law and the temple service. It is
doubtful whether the process had more than begun in the

1 l. c, p. 301.

2 In addition to this false generalization, there often appears a
shockingly one-sided and unjust estimate of the type of religious life
revealed by Eabbinic literature. This sectarianism, which can only be
overcome by a sounder historic method and a long training in ob-
jective yet sympathetic treatment of different religious phenomena,
still disfigures many a work of great erudition and liberal tendencies.

THE SON OF MAN 111

days of Jesus, by which the religious books read in the
synagogue were reduced into a canon through the exclusion
of the rolls that a majority of scholars did not consider as
rendering the hands ' ' unclean. ' n Galilee was notorious for
what was regarded in Jerusalem as laxer conceptions. The
man of Nazareth who went forth from his carpenter's bench,
as Amos of old from his sycamore trees, to prophesy unto
Israel is not likely to have scrupled to follow the example of
the prophets that were before him until he could persuade
himself that he was, or was destined to become in the future,
the Messiah some of his countrymen looked for. But this
view of the sabbath that put it wholly into the hands of man
was too radical for the church. By the unfortunate, though
probably unintentional, mistranslation of bar naslia, she
gained the comforting thought that the Christ was lord of
the sabbath, and would no doubt lend his authority to any
change made in his honor.2 The more natural this thought
is, the more value must be attached to the earlier and so
markedly different form revealed by the translation back
into the original Aramaic.

Matth. viii, 19 ff relates how a scribe came to Jesus and
said : ' ' Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest. ' '
Jesus answered: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of
the heavens nests, but bar naslia, i. e., man, has nowhere to
lay his head. ' ' Man 's life is full of danger and uncertainty.
Where will he reside to-morrow ? The beast is not deprived
of home and hearth by his convictions. The saying may be
a proverb quoted by Jesus, or an epigram coined on the spot.
No doubt the scribe saw quickly the hint, without the
thought ever crossing his mind that the Galilean teacher had
in the same breath announced himself as the Messiah, and
had complained that, though he was so great a man, he
neither owned a house nor had a place in which to lodge
over night.

1 Cf . Schmidt, Bible Canon, Critical View in the Jewish Encyclo-
paedia and Bible Canon in the New International Encyclopaedia.

2 This feeling still voices itself in some modern apologies for the
change from the seventh to the first day.

112 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

Of more importance is Matth. xii, 32. The enemies of
Jesus charged him with performing his cures by the aid of
BeeLzebul. In this he saw a blasphemy, because he felt that
his success in curing the sick was due to the spirit of God
that had come upon him ; yet he was careful to distinguish
between an attack upon a fellow man and a denunciation of
the spirit that operated in him, saying: "If any one
speaks against bar nasha, i. e., man,1 that may be pardoned
him, but he that speaks against the holy spirit can have no
pardon. ' ' No one in the audience could have understood him
to say : ' ' You may blaspheme the Messiah with impunity,
but not the Holy Ghost." The distinction is clearly be-
tween the divine spirit and the human instrumentality.
The general principle, that under all circumstances a man
should be willing to forgive what is said against him by his
fellow man, put no emphasis upon the maligned speaker.
To the church it was quite a different thing to speak against
an ordinary man from speaking against the Christ. The
spirit that possessed Jesus was evidently to himself an ob-
jective reality. From this divine spirit he distinguished
himself. For it he cherished the utmost reverence. That
any one should have called this mysterious, energizing,
beatifying prophetic spirit Beelzebul filled him with hor-
ror. How could such a sin be pardoned? The more diffi-
cult it was for the church thus to distinguish between the
man Jesus and the divine spirit that, according to his view,
dwelt in all God 's children, the more probable is the earlier
form that comes to view in the Aramaic original. It is pos-
sible that words uttered on two occasions have been put
together in Matthew 's account.

Matth. xvi, 13 is a conflate reading. The Sinaitic Syriac
has a more original form, "What do men say concerning
me? that is Who is this son of man?" "This" may be set
to the account of the Aramaic translator, as Schmiedel has
suggested. ' ' Who is the son of man ? ' ' may then be a later

1 On the basis of a reading that Marcion seems to have had, Well-
hausen suggests as the original ' ' whatever is said by a man, " "all
that man says," Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, p. 204.

THE SON OF MAN 113

interpolation in the Greek text. To the mind of the inter-
polator Jesus had already designated himself as the Messiah
by the term Son of Man. But the answer in the text seemed
to him to give a fuller insight into the nature of the Messiah.
He was to him the Son of God in a deeper sense. To this
extent Van Manen is probably right.

As to the remarkable silence concerning this title in early
Christian literature outside of the Gospels, it can in most
instances neither be affirmed nor denied that it is due to
ignorance. But it is difficult to escape the impression that
its absence in the Johannine apocalypse1 indicates that it
had not yet appeared as a Messianic title when in the reign
of Domitian2 this book was written. Acts vii, 56 shows that
at a somewhat later date a Christian writer did not hesitate
to put the title upon the lips of the proto-martyr when
speaking of Jesus.3

Hilgenfeld4 has called attention to a translation by
Jerome5 of a passage in his Hebrew Gospel, where he read
that Jesus after his resurrection "took a bread, blessed,
brake it and gave it to James the Just, saying : ' my brother,
eat thy bread because the son of man has risen from those
that sleep. ' The question is, what Aramaic word Jerome
rendered by filius hominis. Hilgenfeld thinks it may have
been bereh de nasha. Thus the Edessene Christians at-
tempted to render the Greek title. But this awkward if

1 In Bev., i, 13, and xiv, 14, the term lacks the article.

2 Cf . the convincing arguments of Harnack, Chronologie d. Alt. Lit.,
1897, p. 245 ff. That earlier material was used is as evident as that
there are many additions that belong to the second century.

8 Schmiedel has also expressed a desire for a more exhaustive pre-
sentation of the renderings of "man" and "Son of Man" in the
different Syriac versions of the Bible. Such a survey, as complete as
the absence of a concordance permits, correcting some unfortunate
errors made by Driver, Lietzmann and others and raising some new
and interesting problems, not, however, affecting the main ques-
tion, will be found in my article Son of Man, in Vol. IV, of the
Encyclopaedia Biblica.

* Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 1897, p. 1520 ff.

0 De viris illust.
8

114 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

not ungrammatical1 form was only created by the dire neces-
sity of translating a Greek expression for which there was
no idiomatic Aramaic equivalent, because it was itself a
slavishly literal rendering of an Aramaic phrase that meant
simply ' ' man, ' ' and under no circumstances could be a title.
The saying is not genuine and throws no light on the subject,
except that it would show how little Christian writers
among the Ebionites hesitated to put the phrase into the
mouth of Jesus, as Lietzmann has well pointed out,2 if we
could be sure that the original reading of the Hebrew Gospel
has been preserved. But this is far from certain, as another
variant exists.3

Against the fundamental assumption of all Semitic
scholars who had dealt with the subject, that at the time of
Jesus bar nasha was the designation of "man" in Galilean
Aramaic, a protest was entered by Gustaf Dalman4 He
pointed out that this phrase does not occur in Biblical
Aramaic, the Palmyrene and Nabataean inscriptions, Tar-
gum Onkelos, and the Samaritan Targum to the Pentateuch,
and maintained that bar nasha was an innovation in the
later Galilean and Christian Palestinian literature brought
in from Edessa. Bevan5 replied, that in the Targums the
translators simply showed their usual tendency to retain the
Hebrew idiom ; that the occasions for using the phrase in the
inscriptions were naturally few; that the various uses of
enash and bar enash which appear concurrently in Syriac
are all found in one or another of the Palestinian dialects,
and that no Palestinian dialect employs any of these forms
in a sense unknown in Syriac. Wellhausen6 found it not in-
credible that the distinctive term for "man," "the human
being," should have been lacking here and there, but

1 Cf . Wellhausen, Der Syrische Evangelienpalimpsest vom Sinai,
1895, p. 12, but also Schmidt in Journal of Bib. Lit., 1896, p. 46.
' I. c, p. 10.

3 See Schmidt, "Son of Man" in Encyclopaedia Biblica.
* Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p. 191 ff.
B Critical Beview, 1899, p. 148 ff.
6 Skiszen unci Vorarbeiten, VI, p. v ff.

THE SON OF MAN 115

pointed to Dan. vii, 13, the Evangeliarium, and the Targum
and Talmud edited in Galilee as evidence of its existence in
Palestine, and considered as arbitrary the conjecture that
it was due to Edessene influence. Dalman no doubt has
indicated a real tendency of Aramaic speech in this respect ;
but the older Palestinian literature is too slight to show at
what time the definite appellative came into more common
use, and there is a strong presumption in favor of its earlier
appearance in Galilee. It is significant that Dalman him-
self can find no other phrase than bar nasha likely to have
been used by Jesus. The idea that he employed this expres-
sion, not in the ordinary sense that it has in all Aramaic dia-
lects where it occurs, and in all the literary remains of the
Galilean dialect, but as an innovation to designate himself
as "the human being weak by nature that God will make
lord of the world," lacks every semblance of plausibility.
Even according to Dalman Jesus used the term bar nasha;
and he has well shown that this cannot be proved to be a
Messianic title either from Enoch, IV Ezra, or any other
source.

The authority of so accomplished a student of Palestinian
Aramaic as Dalman naturally influenced scholars unpre-
pared to pass an independent judgment. Baldensperger1
voiced his premature rejoicing over the final defeat of the
philological explanation, and hinted at undue philosophical
prepossessions. Rush Rhees2 excused himself from consider-
ing the arguments presented by the present writer on the
ground that "Schmidt is manifestly hampered by the pre-
judgment that Jesus cannot have made for himself at the
outset any supernatural claims." This was not the case.
The only prejudgment was that Jesus did not speak Greek,
and that it was incumbent on the student of the Gospels to
use all available means to find out what he actually said.
At the outset it seemed altogether likely that the teaching,
conduct, and tragic fate of Jesus could be best accounted for
on the assumption that he regarded himself as the Messiah,

1 Theologische Rundschau, 1900, p. 201 ff.

2 Journal of Bib. Lit., XVII, 96.

116 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

and made for himself such supernatural claims as this posi-
tion implied. On a priori grounds it is difficult to see why-
it should not have been as possible for Jesus to make such
claims as for a Simon bar Kozeba. It would have been an
easier road to travel than the narrow path he trod. That
he rose above even the desire to become a righteous king, a
world-conquering Messiah, can be explained only by his
peculiar moral disposition and his supreme religious genius.
But this result of a long series of investigations was wholly-
unexpected.

Charles's translation of the Book of Enoch unintention-
ally led a number of scholars into confusion. To argue
from even the best of translations is always a hazardous un-
dertaking. As much stress was laid on the demonstrative
pronoun "this" or "that," the present writer called atten-
tion to the fact that the demonstrative is often used in the
Ethiopic for the lacking definite article, and that therefore
"this son of man" may be the rendering of a Greek "the
son of man. ' n Charles2 has subsequently shown a number
of instances in Enoch of this usage, and drawn the con-
clusion that the Greek text had everywhere "the son of
man" as a Messianic title. But a more careful discrimina-
tion may be necessary. It is generally assumed that the
book of Enoch was translated from the Greek into Ethiopic
by a Christian. If so, it is very strange that he should indi-
cate the article by a demonstrative when the translation of
the New Testament had never done so in the case of "the
son of man. ' '3 Not less peculiar would it be that he should
not have used uniformly the term walda eguala emahyau
("son of the offspring of the mother of the living"), in-
variably employed in the Gospels, but as often other terms.
It is not impossible, however, that the book was translated
by a Jew before Christianity was introduced. This would

1 Journal of Bib. Lit., 1896, p. 48.

2 A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life, 1899, p.
214 f.

3 Flemming in Lietzmann, Zur Menschensohnfrage, 1899, p. 5.
My own collation corroborates that of Flemming on this point,

THE SON OP MAN 117

account for its place in the Jewish canon as well as in the
Christian.1 In that case the same freedom would be natural
as that obtaining in the Old Testament. All passages con-
taining the distinctive form of the expression in the
Ethiopic Gospels may then have been retouched by Christian
copyists. But did the Greek text read ' ' this son of man" or
' ' the son of man ' ' ? The latter is possible. But is it prob-
able? That depends upon what form the translator into
Greek found in his Aramaic original, and what his own
faith was. If he was a Christian, familiar with the Gospels,
and convinced that none else than the Christ was referred
to, he may have written "the son of man," whether the
Aramaic had a demonstrative or not. If he was a Jew,
which is more probable, he would naturally think of Dan-
iel's "son of man," and the ille homo of IV Ezra xiii, 12,
suggests that he may have read "the son of man," bar
nasha with a demonstrative. It is difficult to think through
En. xlvi in the Aramaic without being impressed with the
naturalness of the demonstrative. ' ' I saw one like a man ; ' '
' ' I asked in regard to that man ; " ' ' he answered : this is the
man who has righteousness;" "this man whom thou hast
seen will arouse the kings . . . from their thrones." This
is evidently in good order. "In that hour that man was
named before the Lord of Spirits" (xlviii, 2) follows
naturally. Toward the end of the book it is more difficult
to determine where the Greek translator may have found a
bar nasha in his Aramaic text. That in the original "son
of man" occurred as a Messianic title, is impossible to af-
firm, and altogether improbable.

The most serious objection of Krop2 is derived from the
presence of the title in predictions of Jesus ' death and resur-
rection. How was the title brought from the eschatological
series into so different a setting? It may be answered that
when once utterances concerning the coming of the son of
man had been placed on the lips of Jesus, and the expression

*Cf. the account of James Bruce in Bichard Lawrence's editio
princeps Libri Enoch prophetae versio Aethiopica, 1838, p. xi.
2 La pensee de Jesus sur le royaume de dieu, 1897.

118 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

consequently understood as a self-designation it may readily
have been substituted for " I, " as the vacillating tradition in
many places indicates, and adopted in the creation of new
oracles. It is probable that Jesus actually said, when the
prophet's death began to appear to him as a possible issue
of his career: "man must pass away" (Mark xiv, 21) and
added: "but he will rise again" (Mark ix, 31), as he no
doubt believed in a resurrection of the dead, though his con-
ception of it seems to have approached the Essene idea
(Mark xii, 26, 27). Translated into Greek, such a saying
would almost inevitably have been interpreted as referring
to Jesus himself exclusively.

Gunkel's1 opposition comes from his strong conviction
that "the man" is a mythological figure of Babylonian
origin. So far as the personality is concerned to whom
Daniel, Enoch and Ezra refer, he is no doubt right in assum-
ing an ultimate Babylonian origin. The conflict between
Marduk and Tiamat became in Judaism a conflict between
Yahwe and the great chaos-monster. What was first
ascribed to Yahwe himself was subsequently assigned to an
angel. This angel was Michael. After the destruction of
the beast this celestial representative of Israel in Dan. vii
comes with the clouds to receive the world-empire.2 The

1 Zeitschrift fur Wiss. Theologie, 1899. p. 581 ff . Das Vierte Buch
Esra in Kautzsch, Pseudepigraphen, 1900, p. 347. Gunkel is quite
right in his contention that religious ideas in general, and particu-
larly eschatological conceptions, occurring only sporadically and by
way of allusion in extant literature, may have lived quite a flourishing
life in the thoughts of men and may have had their origin in Oriental
mythology. But it must not be forgotten that a possibility is by no
means a necessity, that for certain knowledge we are wholly dependent
upon the literary remains, that, when these indicate a development of
thought, a corresponding growth is likely to have taken place in the
social milieu whence these expressions come, and that it is safer to err
on the side of a too conservative clinging to the literary documents
than by giving too free reins to speculations as to what may have
come down from immemorial times ("uralt") or from foreign
mythology.

"Marti, in a friendly note to the author, suggests as a difficulty
against supposing Michael to be meant that one would expect the
other nations in that case to be likewise represented by their angels,

THE SON OF MAN 119

development of the Messianic idea led to a transfer of these
functions to the Messiah. But that the celestial being de-
scribed, as every other angel, as having the appearance of a
man, had for his proper name "the human being," lacks all
probability. Hommel1 has called attention to the interest-
ing fact that Adapa, the human counterpart of Marduk, is
spoken of as zir amiluti ("seed of men"). But how zir
amiluti can mean "he from whose seed the whole of man-
kind is sprung" is as difficult to understand as how "spring
of mankind" could possibly be the equivalent of "son of
man." The plain meaning of zir amiluti is "offspring of
human parents, ' ' and there is no intimation that this was a
title, or that Adapa was the first man.

It is important, however, to bear in mind the celestial
origin of this figure. Beings in human shape that move
about among the clouds or at the confines of the deep are not
men but angels. In Dan. viii, 15 the angel Gabriel is intro-
duced as "one having the appearance of a man;" in x, 16
he is like ' ' the sons of men ; " in iii, 25 ' ' four men ' ' are re-
ferred to, yet one of them is like "a son of the gods;" in
ix, 21 the angel is referred to as "the man Gabriel," and so
again in x, 5, xii, 6, 7. In Rev. xiv, 14 "like a son of man"
is manifestly a rendering of kebar enash of Dan. vii, 13, yet
it is, as the next verse shows, a designation of an angel ; in
En. lxxxvii, 2 the four archangels are all ' ' like white men. ' '
The impression left upon an ancient reader of Dan. vii, En.
xlvi, IV Ezra xiii, Rev. i, or the Synoptic apocalypse was

but deems it necessary to put more emphasis than has been done on
the "celestial, angelic character of Israel." However, if the myth-
ical origin is admitted, that would explain the form. The violation
of the chaos-monster by Yahwe (or his representative) was a familiar
thought; so also the identification of the chaos-monster with a
heathen world-power. The slaying of an angel would be quite a
different thing. Daniel speaks with evident shyness about the great
angels of Persia and of Greece. The more earnestly it is attempted
to make an angel out of Israel, the more difficult it will become to
avoid the conclusion that Israel's angel is meant.

1 The Expository Times, May, 1900, p. 341 ff. A. Jeremias had
already briefly suggested the comparison in Eoscher'a Lexicon d.
griech. und rom. Mythologie, III, 586.

120 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

that of an occupant of the celestial world, not of a frail mor-
tal. This meets the weightiest objection of Drummond,1 that
the church would have preferred to invent some higher title.
If Jesus used the term bar nasha, as no Semitic scholar
doubts, he can have been understood to mean by it only
"man" in general. In the passages that on independent
grounds are most likely to be genuine it can have been in-
tended to mean nothing else. When the church identified
him with the Danielic "son of man," it applied to him a
high title. Daniel's celestial being was no ordinary man.

That Jesus chose to call himself "the man" in order to
show that he was the man of Daniel 's vision, rather than the
"son of David" or Messiah expected by the people, as
Kloepper2 seems to think, is well nigh inconceivable. What
moral qualities does Daniel's "man" possess? What
ethical content could men have given to the conception of
one whose appearance meant to them the establishment of
the empire of the Jews that was not also given to the current
Messianic ideal ? Clemen3 asks why bar nasha cannot have
been a Messianic title at the time of Jesus as well as later.
The answer is obvious. There is not the slightest evidence
that bar nasha ever was used as a Messianic title. There is
reason to believe that on some occasions Jesus used it in the
sense it commonly and exclusively has in extant Aramaic
literature. In these instances it has been wrongly trans-
lated in the Greek gospels by a title apparently not yet
drawn from the book of Daniel when Revelation and Fourth
Ezra were written in the reign of Domitian.

But Stevens4 thinks that ' ' the positive and abundant evi-
dence of the Gospels to the effect that Jesus used 'the son of
man' (or its equivalent) to designate an official peculiar-
ity (to claim no more) of his person and work is not to be
set aside by mere conjectures as to the supposed use of
Aramaic words. ' ' One who reads without critical consider-

1 Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1901, p. 539 ff .

2 Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1899, p. 161 fif.
8 Theologische Literatur-Zeitung, 1899, col. 489.

* The Teaching of Jesus, 1901, p. 91.

THE SON OP MAN

121

ations the four Greek gospels and observes that the term oc-
curs not less than eighty-one times1 is naturally impressed
1 As it is of some importance to know which of these occur in three,
in two, or only in one of the gospels, the following arrangement may
be made for convenience sake, involving no judgment as to the num-
ber of times, or separate occasions, when the evangelists considered
Jesus as having used the expression. Eight in Matth., Mark, and
Luke :

1.

Matth., ix, 6

Mark, ii,

10

Luke,

v,

24

2.

<<

xii, 8

">

28

«(

vi,

5

3.

<«

xvi, 27

1 viii,

38

it

ix,

26

4.

tt

xvii, 22a

« ix,

31

<<

ix,

44

5.

ti

xx, 18

' X

,33

ti

xviii,

31

6.

1 1

xxiv, 30&

' xiii,

26

n

xxi,

27

7.

1 1

xxvi, 24a

' xiv,

21

1 1

xxii,

22

8.

< i

xxvi, 64

' xiv,

62

1 1

xxii,

69

Five in Matth. and Mark:

9.

Matth., xvii,

9

Mark,

ix,

9

10.

" xvii, 12

< <

ix,

12

11.

" xx, 28

1 1

x,

45

12.

' ' xxvi,

24b

( i

xiv,

21b

13.

' ' xxvi,

45

< <

xiv,

41

Eight

in Matth. and Luke:

14.

Matth., viii,

20

Luke,

ix,

58

15.

" xi,

19

< <

vii,

34

16.

1 ' xii,

32

1 1

xii,

10a

17.

' « xii,

40

i <

xi,

30

18.

1 ' xxiv,

27

< <

xvii,

24

19.

' ' xxiv,

37

< «

xvii,

26

20.

1 ' xxiv,

39

< <

xvii,

30

21.

' ' xxiv,

44

< i

xii,

40

One in Mark and Luke:

22. Mark, viii,

31

Luke, iXj

2

Nine in Matth. alone:

23.

Matth., x,

23

28.

Matth.,

xix,

28

24.

' ' xiii,

37

29.

< <

xxiv,

30a

25.

' ' xiii,

41

30.

< <

XXV,

31

26.

' ' xvi,

13

31.

< <

xxvi,

2

27.

" xvi,

28

Eight

in Luke alone:

32.

Luke, vi, 22

36.

Luke, xix, 10

33.

" xii, 8

37.

( i

xxi, 36

34.

" xvii, 22

38.

1 1

xxii, 48

35.

" xviii, 8

39.

< <

xxiv, 7

In the fourth Gospel it occurs twelve times, viz.: i, 51; iii, 13, 14
(v. 27), vi, 27, 53, 62; viii, 28; ix, 35; xii, 23, 34 a 6; xiii, 31.

122 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

with "the positive and abundant evidence" of its use. But
the moment he begins to compare the different gospels and
examine their peculiarities the number becomes at once less
significant. If he understands at all the character of the
Fourth Gospel, he knows that the twelve instances in which
the term is used in it only indicate the familiarity of its
author with the Synoptics, or the occurrence of the title in
Asia Minor a century after the time of Jesus. It is quite
impossible to read the sixty-nine passages in the Synoptics
without seeing that there are numerous parallels. Driver1
removes twenty-nine and looks upon forty as representing as
many distinct utterances by Jesus. But this procedure, sim-
ple as it is, implies a criticism that cannot stop there. For
if the doublets and triplets are examined it is manifest that,
though there is sufficient agreement to show a purpose to
report the same saying, verbal accuracy may not be expected,
and a choice must be made on grounds of probability. It is
also seen that in the case of seventeen passages found only
in Matthew or in Luke, some are clearly duplicates of say-
ings already recorded within these gospels, others have
synoptic parallels in which the phrase does not occur, and
others still are manifestly later glosses. Thus Matthew
x, 23, which is not found in the parallel passage, Luke xii,
11 f., reflects the missionary ideas and hopes of the Jewish-
Christian Church. The allegorical interpretation of the
parable of the tares in Matth. xiii, 37-41 is clearly from the
hand of the evangelist. The account in Matth. xvi, 13-20
has evidently suffered from later expansions, such as "the
Son of the living God" in vs. 16, the pontifical diploma in
vss. 17-19, and the second question, "Who is this son of
man" added to the query, "What do men say concerning
me?" in our oldest witness to the text, the Sinaitic Syriac.
In Matth. xvi, 28, the Son of Man coming in his kingdom
has probably taken the place of "the kingdom of heaven,"
as is suggested by Luke ix, 27, where "the kingdom of God"
occurs, and Mark ix, 1, which reads "the kingdom of God

1 Article Son of Man in Hastings' Bible Dictionary.

THE SON OF MAN 123

already come with power." A comparison of Matth. xix,
28 f . with Mark x, 29 and Luke xviii, 29 shows that each
evangelist has considerably modified the original utterance,
which probably had "for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven. " If " the sign of the son of man ' ' in Matth. xxiv,
30a had formed a part of the original apocalypse, it would
no doubt have been preserved by Mark and Luke. Matth.
xxv, 31 is plainly of very late origin, as is the parable itself,
reflecting the existence of the Church among the heathen
nations, and proclaiming the doctrine that the pagans are
to be judged according to their treatment of the Christians.
In Matth. xxvi, 2 the statement of a fact (Mark xiv, 1 f.,
Luke xxii, If.) has been changed into a prophecy. In Luke
vi, 22 the phrase "for my sake," itself a late addition in
Matth. v, 11, has been changed into ' ' for the sake of the son
of man." Similarly "I" in Matth. x, 32, itself secondary,
has been transformed into "son of man" in Luke xii, 8.
Luke xvii, 20-22 is not in harmony with what follows and
the disenchantment of the Church is clearly indicated in vs.
22. Luke xviii, 8b expresses the same disappointment as
regards the second coming, as Juelicher1 has pointed out.
Luke xix, 10 is a homeless fragment, interpolated here as in
Matth. xviii, 11, but contains a beautiful tribute to Jesus.
Wernle2 rightly regards Luke xxi, 34-36 as an exhortation
by the evangelist himself. The same judgment is, with good
reason, passed upon Luke xxii, 48 by Holtzmann.3 In
Matth. xxvi, 50 the text is scarcely sound. Luke xxii, 48
may go back to an Aramaic question, " Is it with a kiss that
thou betrayest a man (bar nash)?" But the tradition is
very uncertain, as the parallel passage shows. In Luke
xxvii, 7 two men in dazzling raiment, evidently angels, re-
mind the women that Jesus had predicted his death and
resurrection. Speeches made by angels are not regarded by
historians as belonging to their proper field. But it is in-
teresting to observe that the quotation made by the angel

1 Gleichnisreden Jesu, 1899, II, p. 288.

2 Die Synoptische Frage, 1899, p. 17.

* Hand Commentar, 2nd ed., 1901, p. 414.

124 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

does not quite correspond to any prediction recorded in the
gospel. So little did Luke care about accuracy. It is im-
possible to study even these passages occurring only in one
gospel without being impressed with the freedom with
which sayings of Jesus were modified as they passed from
lip to lip and new ones were created.

Among the eight passages found only in Matth. and Luke,
Matth. viii, 20 (Lk ix, 58), xi, 19 (vii, 34), and xii, 32a
(xii, 10a) probably go back to original sayings of Jesus, as
we have seen; xii, 40 (xi, 30) is an interpolation, as is gen-
erally recognized; xxiv, 27, 37, 39 (xvii, 24, 26, 30) belong
to the Synoptic Apocalypse, and xxix, 44 (xii, 46) is a later
gloss, as Juelicher1 has recognized. Among the five pas-
sages found in Matth. and Mark, Matth. xvii, 9 (ix, 8) refers
to the vision of the shining heavenly body of Jesus, evidently
an anticipation of some vision confirming the belief in his
resurrection. The Elijah question originally seems to have
had no connection with the transfiguration. The text in
Mark ix, 11-13 is late and confused; that in Matth. xvii,
10-13 may go back to an Aramaic original, "Thus must a
man (bar nash) suffer by them," referring to John the
Baptist. Matth. xx, 28 (x, 45) is probably a comment by
the evangelist on the exemplification in the life and death of
Jesus of the principle laid down by him.2 Luke xxii, 27-30
contains a curious misunderstanding of the thought J^sus
wished to convey. Matth. xxvi, 24b (xiv, 21b) occurs in an
interpolation that breaks the connection, and is probably
without historic foundation. The phrase occurs in Matth.
xxvi, 45 (xiv, 41), but the connection is far better in Luke
where it does not appear. In the single passage found only
in Mark and Luke (viii, 31 and ix, 22) Jesus announces his
death and resurrection on the third day immediately after
Peter's confession. Of this Matthew knew nothing. He
refers to the sufferings of the son of man for the first time

1 Gleichnisreden Jesu, 1899, II, 142 ff.

2 The suggestion that this too might go back to a genuine saying
to the effect that "man {bar nasha) does not come (into the world)

to be served, but to serve, ' ' should probably be withdrawn.

THE SON OF MAN 125

in xvii, 12 (Mk ix, 12), where the allusion seems to have
been to John the Baptist, as stated above.

Among the eight passages found in all the Synoptics
Matth. ix, 6 (ii, 10, v, 24) and xii, 8 (ii, 28, vi, 5) probably
go back to original utterances. Matth. xvi, 27 (viii, 38, ix,
26) is a late addition, still further transformed by the other
evangelists. As for the predictions of his death and resur-
rection in Matth. xvii, 22 (ix, 31, ix, 44) and xx, 18 (x, 33,
xviii, 31), the latter furnishes the most natural situation.
The difficulty of suppressing the political hopes of his fol-
lowers, and the opposition he was sure to encounter in Jeru-
salem may well have filled his mind with evil forebodings.
But he believed in a resurrection from the dead for those
that should be accounted worthy of this privilege. It is
therefore possible that he encouraged his disciples and him-
self with some such a remark as that ' ' man must pass away,
but he may rise again," or "a man may be delivered into
the hands of men and be put to death, yet he may rise
again." Matth. xxvii, 30b (xiii, 26, xxi, 27) belongs to the
Synoptic Apocalypse or The Wisdom of God. In this work
it is altogether probable that ' ' a man ' ' was first introduced
and that subsequently there were references to "the man"
in the same manner as in Enoch xxxvii-lxxi and Fourth
Ezra. In Matth. xxvi, 64 Jesus answers the question
whether he is the Messiah, "Thou sayest it/' in Luke xxii,
69 "Ye say that I am." The meaning is unmistakably,
"Ye say that I am the Messiah, but I have made no such
statement." These evangelists are not willing to put upon
the lips of Jesus an affirmative answer even under oath.
Nothing could more clearly show how deeply they were
under the influence of the theory that Jesus maintained to
the end his incognito, refusing to make known his Messianic
secret. Mark xiv, 62 departs widely from this earlier tradi-
tion by making Jesus admit his Messiahship. A critical
study of the narrative renders it exceedingly difficult to
believe in the historical character of the account of the trial
before the Sanhedrin. Matth. xxvi, 24a (xiv, 21a, xxii, 22)
belongs to an interpolation already mentioned,

126 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

When these passages are closely examined, some facts be-
come very apparent. The evidence that Jesus used the
term, or an equivalent, on this or that occasion is far from
being positive and abundant. In most instances it is ex-
ceedingly precarious. When one evangelist affirms that he
employed it, and the others affirm that he said "the kingdom
of God," or "the kingdom of heaven" or "I," all cannot be
right, and the critic must decide on inner grounds which
evangelist comes nearest to recording the actual fact, or
whether any of them can be trusted. When it occurs, as is
frequently the case, in additions made by a single evangelist
to a common report, even scholars who strongly maintain its
use by Jesus feel little confidence. Even when all the
Synoptics repeatedly assign to Jesus a statement containing
it, like the prediction of death and resurrection, the evidence
can scarcely be regarded as abundant, seeing that the gospels
themselves represent the disciples as absolutely unprepared
for the resurrection, and the risen Jesus as rebuking them,
not for failing to believe his own prediction, but for not
understanding the prophecies of the Old Testament. If
testimonies are to be weighed as well as counted— and in
matters of such gravity it would be inexcusable not to weigh
them,— it must be admitted that the great majority of the
passages that put the phrase upon the lips of Jesus fall very
lightly in the scales. Suspicion would attach to them all,
were it not that sound historical criticism demands, as a
matter of course, that any saying of Jesus reported in a
Greek text be translated back into the Aramaic vernacular
before a final verdict be given. It then happens that just the
passages which critics who never thought of this necessity on
independent grounds were most inclined to accept as
genuine reveal a sense at once so natural and so strikingly
original as to furnish what, in comparison with the "mere
conjecture" of all speculations, however necessary, based
only on the uncertain Greek renderings, may justly be re-
garded as "positive and abundant evidence." It is also of
interest for the Synoptic problem to observe that among the
passages occurring in more than one gospel there are some in

THE SON OF MAN 127

Matthew and Luke, not found in Mark, that may go back to
original sayings of Jesus: that the only passage found in
Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, cannot be regarded as
genuine; that there is no authentic saying preserved in
Luke, that is not also found in Matthew ; that there are pas-
sages in Mark, as well as in Matthew and Luke, that are
clearly of very late origin; and that there are passages in
Mark, as well as in Matthew and Luke, in which the phrase
may go back to an original bar nasha even after the episode
at Caesarea Philippi1

There is a false impression in many circles as to the diffi-
culty of finding the phrase in the Galilean dialect of the
Aramaic which is likely to have been used by Jesus in those
genuine utterances where the Greek translation, "the Son
of Man," occurs. It is true that the literary material of
this dialect apparently does not carry us further back than
to the second century A. D. But the translation in this
case is simplified by the fact that the Greek term can only be
the rendering of a form compounded with bar, "son," and
by the circumstance that of terms that may be considered
bereh de-'nasha, bereh de-gabra, and bereh de-bar 'nasha
must be eliminated. All of these are manifestly Christian
renderings of the Greek term. Bereh de-'nasha has no
natural meaning in Aramaic. An individual of the human
species is called bar 'nasha, literally "son of men," "mem-
ber of the human race. ' ' As the appended article gradually
tends to lose its force, an anticipatory pronominal suffix is
attached to the first noun, if the emphasis is to fall, lightly
or heavily, on the second. Thus bereh de-gabra would mean,
"son of him, viz., of the man," son of the particular man
referred to before. Bereh de-'nasha would mean "son of it,
viz., of the human race" or "son of the well-known human
being." As a matter of fact, it never occurs except as a
rendering of the Greek title, or what is supposed by Chris-

1 The manifest tendency of these facts is to strengthen the observa-
tion made long ago by Hilgenfeld that in spite of its numerous and
extensive later additions the first gospel is likely to be the earliest of
our Synoptics. See further Ch. is.

128 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

tian writers to be its equivalent. It is not a natural product
of the language, but an artificial creation. It seems to have
gradually crowded out the earlier her eh de-gabra, found in a
number of passages in the Sinaitic and Curetonian,1 and
won final recognition in the fifth century in the Syriac Vul-
gate. Its absence in the Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum
probably shows that it never prevailed among the Christians
in Palestine. The objection to the earlier translation bereh
de-gabra (literally "son of him viz., of the man") was prob-
ably that ' ' the man, " " the masculine human being ' ' seemed
to point to Joseph. Bereh de-bar 'nasha (literally "the son
of him, i. e., of the son of man" or "the son of the individual
of the human species") only shows how completely identical
"man" and "son of man" were in some connections, and
how in some sayings gabra was avoided. The only available
term is bar 'nasha. From the second century A. D. on it
was used more freely in Galilean works than in the
Judaean Targums, though Dan. vii, 13 best shows how well
established its usage was even in this dialect. That the
generic use of bar 'nasha was unknown in Galilee only three
generations before its first appearance in extant literature,
is absolutely contrary to all probability. In translating
long sentences back into the original there is always consid-
erable risk. Where the question is only of a word, and
there is practically no choice as here, the margin of error is
exceedingly small.

Fiebig2 has carefully examined both Talmuds, and much
material besides, with the result that the philological con-
clusions on which the theory rests have been thoroughly cor-
roborated. The work is of value, as some scholars had
imagined that a radically different usage might be found in
the parts of the Talmuds not yet examined for this purpose.
Fiebig 's conclusions will perhaps have all the more weight
with cautious students, as he still clings to the idea that
Jesus used the phrase as a mystifying title, and therefore

1Lulce vii, 34 (Sin., Cur.); MarTc, viii, 38 (Sin. [Ev.]); Luke ix,
26 (Cur.) ; Luke, xxii, 48 (Cur.) ; John, xiii, 31 (Sin. [Ev.]).
2 JDer Menschensohn, Jesu Selbstbeseichnung , 1901,

THE SON OF MAN 129

cannot be suspected of an undue bias. He acknowledges
the essential accuracy of the observations made by the pres-
ent writer on the question of the meaning of bar nasha,
though he thinks that the treatment was too brief to allow
a real insight into the facts.1 That depends upon the eyes.
To persons thoroughly familiar with Aramaic speech it was
more than enough. Whether others will be convinced even
by Fiebig's lexical studies of the Talmud, or my own con-
tributions to the concordance of the Syriac Versions,2 when
the consequences are in full view, the future will show.
Fiebig himself seeks in vain to avoid these consequences by
the assumption that the phrase was used by Jesus in an am-
biguous manner so that the hearers might believe that he
was speaking of man in general or of "the man" i. e., the
Messiah as a third person, though in reality he was speaking
of himself. Jesus must then have been willing to have his
hearers infer that he cherished such bold and original ideas
at that man for whose sake the sabbath was made was also
lord of the sabbath, and that any man, not merely a priest,
had the right to proclaim the pardon of sin. Yet it is sup-
posed that in his heart he cherished the narrower and less
logical conception that he alone, as the Messiah, was lord of
the sabbath, and had the right to pardon sin. If he was
capable of the former, why ascribe to him the latter?
There is more than ambiguity of speech in this ; there is
duplicity of character. Is there any good reason why his
character should thus be sacrificed for the sake of preserv-
ing his claim to Messiahship? And is there the slightest
ground for supposing that ' ' the Man ' ' was understood even
in esoteric circles as the Messiah? Designations like "the
Chosen One," "the Just One," "the Restorer," "the Bride-
groom," "the Lamb," suggest character or function, and
are therefore intelligible ;3 ' ' the Man on the Clouds ' ' would

1 1, c, p. 59.

2 In the article Son of Man in Encyclopaedia Biblica.

'This fact is not fully appreciated by Bousset, Die Religion des
Judentums, 1903, p. 254. But it is characteristic of the present sit-
uation that he does not dare to affirm that Jesus used the term Son
9

130 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

point to Daniel vii, 13, and names signifying this, like 'anani
or bar nefele, were formed. But it is not probable that
either in Babylonian mythology or in Jewish apocalyptic
speculation an important personage was referred to simply
as ' ' the man, ' ' " the human being. ' '

Driver1 suggests as a possibility that Jesus employed the
term bereh de-'nasha, since bar 'nasha is likely to have been
commonly used in the sense of man in general. But he
labors under a wrong impression in regard to the use of this
title. He thinks that it is always used in the Sinaitic and
Curetonian Syriac. As a matter of fact, even in their pres-
ent fragmentary condition, both of these texts exhibit the
rendering bereh de-gabra in several passages.2 It is also of
importance that bereh de-'nasha is never used in the so-
called Jerusalem Lectionary, which is the only Aramaic ver-
sion of the New Testament likely to have been made in
Palestine. What phrase the lost Gospel of the Hebrews
contained cannot be determined by Jerome's Latin quota-
tion, the text of which is itself uncertain, and the character
of the book he had before him is very problematic. The dis-
tinguished Hebraist finally gives a qualified approval to
Sanday's theory, that Jesus, who ordinarily spoke Aramaic,
may have introduced the mystic title upon some occasions
when he addressed his Galilean disciples in— Greek. It is
not clear whether Driver would credit Jesus with having
originated the remarkable Greek phrase. Until some new
facts, or arguments not long ago considered and disposed of,
shall be presented, to prove that Jesus regularly or occasion-
ally addressed the fishermen of Galilee in Greek, it is to be
hoped that earnest students will not be diverted from the
path where duty lies, and great rewards for labor are in

of Man. He admits freely that ' ' Jesus did not use the title as a con-
stantly repeated self -designation. ' ' and only cautiously ventures to
state that "it is not altogether impossible that Jesus may have some
time used it. ' '

1 Article "Son of Man," in Hastings' Bible Dictionary.

2 See p. 128.

THE SON OF MAN 131

sight, by the spell of influential names.1 Our manifest duty
is to turn every purported saying of Jesus into Galilean
Aramaic that we may test in his own vernacular the trans-
lations we may be fortunate enough to possess. Our
precious reward consists in coming nearer to the spirit of
Jesus, and of obtaining more abundant evidence of his
transcendent personality. Menzies (Hibbert Journal, Oct.,
1903, p. 187) objects: "If Jesus made no Messianic claim
and was a teacher of humanitarian doctrine, conscious of no
special religious position, how is the opposition of his fellow-
countrymen, and how is the crucifixion to be accounted
for?" Unless it can be proved that Jesus could have used
bar nasha as a Messianic title referring to himself, there is
no evidence that he claimed to be the Messiah. He certainly
was a teacher of righteousness and love. He classed himself
with the prophets and consequently must have been con-
scious of a special religious position. Jerusalem had killed
her prophets before his time. His opposition to the leading
parties, his peculiar ethical teaching and his life explain the
opposition of his enemies. His crucifixion is accounted for
by the false testimony borne against him and the political
interests of Pontius Pilate

The following conclusions would then seem justifiable.
In a number of pregnant utterances Jesus expressed his

*If new evidence on this point should be furnished by the eminent
Oxford divines, it would of course become the duty of scholars seri-
ously to consider it. If they have really discovered fresh proofs, or
hitherto unnoticed considerations, tending to show that Jesus now and
then delivered Greek addresses to his Aramaic speaking countrymen,
a statement of these facts in connection with the conjecture would
have been very welcome. If, furthermore, these discoveries, which
Sanday and Driver owe it to themselves to communicate to the world,
should actually prove that the sayings above considered as genuine
were first uttered in these Greek speeches of Jesus, the view to which
the present writer has been forced by all facts known to him would
have to be abandoned or greatly modified. But the manner in which an
universally discredited theory has been suddenly revived, without the
slightest suggestion of the new grounds that entitle it to reconsidera-
tion, justifies the suspicion that nothing has been found that is likely
to affect in the least the critical study of the gospels.

132 TEE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

convictions concerning man's rights, privileges, conditions
and destiny. These were preserved in faithful memory by
the disciples who had heard them, and hoped that God would
bring back to them on the clouds of heaven his holy servant,
their beloved teacher. In course of time they were probably
also committed to writing in the Aramaic language. The
destruction of Jerusalem naturally gave a strong impetus to
Messianic hopes, both among those who expected the return
of Jesus as the Messiah, and among those who looked for a
genuine son of David. Old prophecies were scanned; new
prophecies were written. The passage in Daniel where the
kingdom was promised to the saints also spoke of a celestial
being who would receive it. Much thought was given to
this heavenly personality. His identity was not clearly dis-
closed. He might be Michael, or Enoch; he might also be
the true descendant of David caught up to heaven to be in
readiness for the appointed time, or the translated prophet
of Nazareth. In Fourth Ezra, Enoch xxxvii-lxxi, and the
original form of the Synoptic Apocalypse, a man is intro-
duced who is clearly none else than the celestial being in
Dan. vii, 13, and is generally identified with the Messiah,
though sometimes understood to be Enoch, and probably at
times Michael. He does not figure yet in the Book of Reve-
lation. But disciples of Jesus were aware that he had
foretold the destruction of state and cult, although not in
the form familiar to us with its apocalyptic accretions to his
prophetic warnings. The time came when an apocalyptic
work, predicting what had come upon Jerusalem for the
murder of her prophets and righteous men, like Zeehariah
ben Barachiah, during the siege of the city, and foretelling
the coming on the clouds of heaven of the man seen in Dan-
iel's vision, was ascribed to Jesus himself. It is possible
that it was translated into Greek under the title, ' ' The Wis-
dom of God." The references in this apocalypse to a man
coming on the clouds would naturally be understood as pre-
dictions by Jesus himself of his second advent. Meanwhile
Hellenistic Jews who had been attracted by the gospel were
influenced in increasing measure by Gnostic speculation.

THE SON OF MAN 133

This was itself the result of a fusion of Indian thought and
Greek philosophy. Among the Indian ideas that seem to
have entered into this composite faith, there was the concep-
tion of the Naravana, "the one like a man," "the son of
man, ' ' a term designating the Purusha, or macrocosmic man.
A distinction is made in the Rig Veda1 between the Purusha
as the absolute being, and Purusha as the first born. To the
latter the name "son of man" was given.2 A reflection of
this idea is found in the "man" and the "son of man" in
the system of the Christian Gnostics, who, according to
Irenaeus, called the primeval light, the father of all things,
primus homo, "the first man," and the first thought eman-
ating from him secundus homo, ' ' the second man, ' ' or filius
hominis, ' ' the son of man. " It is probable that this specu-
lation merged with the idea of the ' ' son of man ' ' in Daniel.
When at the end of the first century our first two gospels
were written in Greek, these ideas were floating in the air.
The little apocalypse was incorporated in part in the two
gospels, as later in the third, and the significance of the
Greek term used in this document as a rendering of bar
'nasha ("the man") referring back to an initial bar 'nash
("a man"), naturally attached itself to passages elsewhere
containing the same term as a translation of the generic bar
'nasha. Some old sayings were thus revealed in a new and
more congenial light. It was not man, but the Christ who
was the lord of the sabbath. It was not a human privilege,
but a Messianic prerogative, to pardon sin. It was not
man 's common lot, but his own unnatural humiliation, that
Jesus had described. It was not sins of man against man
that Jesus had declared to be pardonable, but he had
graciously proclaimed forgiveness even for sins against the
Christ. It was not man's immediate resurrection from the
dead that he had announced, but exclusively his own resur-
rection that he had foretold.

Thus the Aramaic expression, by which Jesus not only

1 X, 90.

2Cf. Grill, Untersuchungen iiber die Entstehung des vierten Evan-
geliums, 1902, p. 348 ff.

134 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

cannot have conveyed any explicit or implied claims to the
Messiahship, but actually seems to have given utterance to
far more original and comprehensive views of life, became
by a natural development a Messianic title. That it may
have been understood in this latter sense by the writers of
our gospels everywhere, is a correct observation of many
scholars. Yet there were elements of truth in both the
"emphatically high" conception of Herder and the "em-
phatically low" estimate of Baur. The Synoptists had
their ideal as well as the Fourth Evangelist. What the
Logos was to the latter, the Danielic "son of man" was to
the former.1 On the other hand, an underlying stratum of
facts was divined by those who found here and there in the
phrase an expression of the universal human sympathies of
Jesus. It was also a correct feeling that led to the affirma-
tion that to the end Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven,
and not himself. But for a positive knowledge of the life
of Jesus no line of investigation has been more fruitful than
that which, based on sound philology, has demonstrated that
Jesus cannot have called himself ' ' the Son of Man. ' '

1 An examination of the meaning attached to the term ' ' Son of
Man" by the Fourth Evangelist is not essential for our present pur-
pose, as it can throw no light upon its possible use by Jesus (See Ch.
xi). But it may be noticed that Fries (Det fjdrde evangeliet, 1898),
who regards the gospel as originally written by the presbyter John
and afterwards expanded by the Gnostic Cerinthus, attributes practi-
cally all the ' ' Son of Man ' ' passages to the latter ; and that Kreyen-
biihl (Das Evangelium der Wahrheit, 1900), who considers Menander
of Kapparetaea as its author, looks upon "Son of Man" in the
gospel not as an exclusive self -designation of Jesus, but as a term
applying to "man," "any man," jeder Christenmensch." The
Gnostic affinities of the gospel can scarcely be questioned, but Grill
(I. c.) is right in tracing to Indian sources the conception of an in-
carnation of a divine being as "the Son of Man," and Jean Eeville
(Le quatrieme Evangile, 1901) rightly emphasizes the paramount in-
fluence of Philo's thought.

CHAPTER VI

THE SON OF GOD

To generation after generation of Christian believers
such expressions as "the Son of God," or "the Son,"
when found in the New Testament, naturally conveyed the
same meaning as they had in the constantly repeated
creeds. They were understood as designating the second
person in the Holy Trinity, and more particularly his di-
vine nature as distinguished from his human nature
assumed in the incarnation. They were regarded as
indicative of the fact that Jesus was not begotten of a
human father, but conceived of the Holy Ghost. These
names were freely given to Jesus in epistles considered
to be of apostolic origin. According to the Gospel of
John, they were frequently assumed by himself, and ac-
cording to the Synoptics they were used by him as a self-
designation on some important occasions. More than
once God the Father proclaimed with an audible voice
from heaven his divine sonship. And the demons them-
selves, when they tremblingly acknowledged his author-
ity, addressed him as the "Son of God." The impression,
therefore, was well-nigh unavoidable that to be the Christ
was the same as to be the Son of God, and to be the Son
of God was to be God the Son. Some men were no doubt
called in Scripture "children of God," or "sons of God."
But such a title, it was felt, must be taken as a figure of
speech, applicable only in a secondary and derived sense.
Even those who by faith were said to become the
"adopted children of God," or "partakers of the divine
nature" could not be thought of as real sons of God.
While in his case the title implied deity, absolute identity
of nature with the Father, in theirs it could only suggest a

135

136 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

new position as men redeemed from the power and pen-
alty of sin and brought into living relations with the Son
of God, a humanity" transformed into moral likeness to
God.

This conception of the Son of God could be maintained
only where the ecumenic creeds were regarded as authori-
tative or the Bible, from force of habit and lack of proper
methods of study, was interpreted in the light of these
creeds. Wherever reverence for the Scriptures, sincere
piety, and personal devotion to the Christ fostered inde-
pendence of the Church and distrust of her creeds and insti-
tutions, there was a decided tendency to adopt anti-trinita-
rian views. Whether or not a historic connection can be
traced between such religious societies as the Passagii, the
Paulicians and the Patarenes1 on the one hand, the Ebi-
onites, the Marcionites, the Theodotians, the Noetians, the
Paulianists and the Sabellians on the other, the direct
resort to the New Testament with its different types of
Christology naturally revived many an opinion con-
demned by the majority in the days of the upbuilding of
dogma. The distinction made by men like Eiipandus of
Toledo, Felix of Urgel, and Claude of Turin between the
eternal Son of God and Jesus as the adopted son of God
tended to place the historic Jesus upon the same plane as
other men who were also regarded as adopted sons of
God. Among the Beghards, the Brethren of the Free
Spirit, the Lollards, the Albigenses, the Waldenses, and
the Brethren of the United Life there were many who
questioned the view presented by the creeds.

But it was among the Baptists of the sixteenth century
that freedom from dogma, a reverent and yet critical
study of the Bible, personal loyalty to Jesus and a high
conception of the worth of human nature, led to the com-
plete rejection of the trinitarian idea of the term "Son

1 There is no good reason for doubting the substantial accuracy of
the story concerning Gerard of Asti told by Ludolph Senior, Historic
Mediolani, II, 27, quoted by Cesare Cantu, Gli Eretici d' Italia 1867,
p. 129.

THE SON OF GOD 137

of God." This is the attitude of Hans Denck, Ludwig
Haetzer,1 Jakob Kautz, Michael Sattler and many of the
Swiss churches, as well as of Tiziano, Francesco Negri,
Celio Secundo Curione, Camillo Renato and the majority
of the Italian churches in 1550.2 While they maintained
that Jesus was not God but a man born of Joseph and
Mary,3 a son of God only in the ethical sense in which
this title may be applied to other men, and a saviour in so
far as men may be morally helped by his example and
spirit, other leaders of this radical party in the Reforma-
tion era still adhered to the doctrine that Jesus had no
human father, and saw in his miraculous birth the justi-
fication of the title Son of God, but insisted that this
natural son of God was a man, though the term "god"
might also be applied to him, if taken in a generic sense.
In this manner the term was explained by Martin Cel-
larius,4 Michael Servetus, Rudolph Martini, Claude of
Savoy, and apparently also by Lelio Sozzini,5 Francesco
della Segga, Giulio Gherlandi, Paolo Alziati, Antonio Riz-
zetto, Giorgio Biandrata, Matteo Gribaldo and Valentino

1 It was only after his contact with Denck in Strasburg (summer
1526) that Haetzer began to deny the deity of Jesus, as Keim has
shown, Jahrbiicher fur Deutsche Theologie I, 1856, p. 265 ff. Already
Heberle recognized that Denck and Haetzer had not been together in
Niirnberg before 1527, when Schlaffer visited them there, Theologische
Studien und KritiTcen, 1855, p. 871. This is of some importance, as
it shows the source of Haetzer 's radicalism, which, however, never
touched the roots of thought laid bare by Denck 's penetrating intel-
lect, and lacked his balance of judgment and sweetness of temper.

2 See Archivo di Stato, Sant' Uffizio, busta 9, found by Benrath
(Studien und Kritiken, 1885, p. 20), published by Comba, Revista
Christiana, 1885, described by Comba, I nostri protestanti, 1897, II,
488 ff.

3 According to Manelfi 's account, of which a copy is preserved in
the State Archive at Venice (see the preceding note), Tiziano main-
tained that Matth., i and ii, were later interpolations.

* The conception of Elohim (God) as a generic name and that of
Jesus as a "natural son," afterwards characteristic of Servetus 's
theology, were already expressed by Cellarius in 1527.

6 See Excursus B.

138 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

Gentile,1 while Melchior Hofmann and his numerous fol-
lowers declared that Jesus as the Son of God did not de-
rive his flesh from Mary, and David Joris seems to have
used the term simply as a symbol of the Christian dispen-
sation. In respect of Biblical exegesis not less than theo-
logical speculation the contributions of Denck and Serve-
tus were unquestionably the most important. In his trans-
lation of the Prophets and his occasional explanatory glosses,
Denck unmistakably shows that he discounts a consider-
able number of the supposed Messianic prophecies.2 Of
great significance is a pregnant passage in his treatise
Concerning True Love. "Flesh and blood," he says,
"would not understand God's love for men, were it not
particularly manifested in some men whom people call
divine men or children of God because they follow God as

1 Men like Valdez and Vermigli have been wrongly classed as anti-
Trinitarians. The attitude of Erasmus is lilficult to interpret. He
seems to have question d the personality of the Holy Ghost and may
have cherished more radical opinions than he cared to express.

2 Alle Propheten nach hebraiseher sprach verteutscht, Hngenau,
1528. I quote my own copy. In Jer., xxxi, 22 b., Denck translates
1 ' das auss eym weib eyn mr,n wirt, ' ' which means ' ' that a woman be-
comes a man." To Zech., iv, 1, he observes "die zwen sun des 61s
seind der hohe priester und der kiinig," the two sons of oil are the
high priest and the king." Zech., ix, 9, he translates "Siehe dein
kiiuig der kompt zu dir der ist der gerecht und eyn heyland, demiitig
und reitet auff eym esel, ja auff eym jungen fiillin der eselin," "he
rides on an ass, yea on the colt of a she-ass, ' ' observing the parallel-
ism and avoiding the absurd "and" of other versions. To this pas-
sage he remarks that ' ' the word nosha, Saviour, means in Hebrew one
who receives help, that is who with his people persists through the
power God gives and overcomes the enemy." Zech,, xii, 8, he ren-
ders ' ' und das hauss David wie gotter, " " and the house of David as
gods. ' ' It may be mentioned that in Daniel vii, 25, and xii, 7, Denck
translated "bis auff eyn zeit und zwei z:it und eyn halbe zeit."
' ' until one time, two times and half a time, ' ' a rendering not found
in the ancient versions nor in the modern translations until Houbi-
gant, though "times" was correctly understood as "two times" by
Minister, Vatble, Piscator and Grotius. "Bis auff eynen gesalbten
fiirsten." "until an anointed prince," Dan., ix, 25, should also be
mentioned. It is to be regretted that Denck did not supply his text
with more annotations.

THE SON OF GOD 139

their spiritual father. The more clearly this love is
manifested, the more clearly it may be recognized by
men ; the more fully it is recognized, the more it is loved,
the nearer is true blessedness. Therefore it has pleased
the eternal love that the man in whom love should find
its highest manifestation should be called a bestower of
blessedness to his people : not that it were possible for a
man to make anyone truly blessed, but that God would be
so intimately united with him in love that all God's work
would be this man's work, and all the suffering of this man
might be regarded as God's suffering. This man is Jesus
of Nazareth."1 In this reverent yet boldly critical utter-
ance Denck adopts the correct method by beginning with
such generic terms as "Gotteskinder" and "goettliche
Menschen," then seeking the real significance of these
figures of speech, and finally estimating the greatness of
the man Jesus of Nazareth without any resort to the tech-
nical terms of Biblical or ecclesiastical usage.

Servetus, on the other hand, endeavored to retain
the terms "Son of God" and "God" as applied to
Jesus by conceiving of him as the natural son of God
through a superhuman birth, and by understanding
God as a generic term. It is of importance, however,
that in arguing the wider use of the Hebrew word Elohim
(God) he quotes among other passages Gen. vi, 2, say-
ing "and Peter calls those angels who in Gen. vi, are
said to be Elohim or sons of Elohim."2 Through

1 Von der waren Lieb, 1527, p. 3 f . In his treatise, Ob Gott ein
Ursach des Bosen set, 1526, p. 9, quoted by Koerich, Essai sur la vie
de Denck, 1853, p. 30, he declares that God is in all his creatures and
continues, "if God is in me then all that belongs to God is in me."
His idea of the divine manifestation is not limited to one man, and
it is not confined to man. His thought is pantheistic.

2 Be trinitatis erroribus, 1531, p. 15. In the margin he remarks
"the Aldine edition is not the Septuagint." As the Complutensian
and the Lonicer edition of 1526 have the same reading as the Aldine
and Servetus cannot have known either the Alexandrine MS. or the
minuscules that give "angels" and not "sons of God," he seems to
have based his assertion on the quotation in the Clementines and

140 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

Fausto Sozzini1 a conception based on that of Servetus
and less radical than the view presented by Denck and
many of the early Baptists became prevalent in Poland,
Transylvania and elsewhere. Giordono Bruno's2 veiled
criticism of the theanthropic conception was valuable in
so far as it tended to direct attention to the general mytho-
logical presuppositions. This line of study was pursued
more fully by Herbert of Cherbury.3 John Toland4 and
William Whiston5 by their studies of the early Ebionitish
form of Christianity were led to the conviction that Jesus
was born of Joseph and Mary. John Locke6 rejected all
other designations of Jesus than the Messiah. Some of
the Pietists, notably Edelmann, sympathized with this
restriction. The emphasis that Edelmann7 put upon the
rationality of the Christian religion led to a more careful
examination of such terms as Son of God and Logos.

The first important monograph of the former title was
written by D. F. Ilgen.8 He quoted numerous examples
from Greek and Roman writings to prove that in antiquity
founders of states and kings in general were regarded as
sons of gods. This he regarded as a figure of speech, and

Justin. Scholars who still quote the Sixtine edition as Septuagint
should take a lesson in criticism from Servetus. Curiously enough he
understands "a god of Israel" to be the name given to Cyrus in
Isaiah, xlv, 3, and looks upon it in the light of the title ' ' God ' ' given
to Moses in Exodus, vii, 1, a text that is now regarded as belonging to
the priestly additions of the Persian period.

1 Fausto Sozzini at first was not admitted into full fellowship in the
Baptist churches of Poland because he would not be baptized. But
subsequently they returned to the broader basis of fellowship pro-
claimed by Denck and welcomed him. In his attitude to Francis
David he showed himself a less liberal attitude.

2 Spaccio della bestia trionfante, ed. Wagner, II, 248 ; but compare
also the sublime passage in Be Honade, p. 151.

8 The Ancient Religion of the Gentiles, 1705.
* Nazarenus, 1718.

6 Primitive Christianity Revived, 1711-1712.
8 The Reasonableness of Christianity, 1695.
T Die GbttlicKkeit der Vernunft, 1740.

8 Be notione tituli fdii Bei, in Paulus, Memorabilien, VII, 1795, pp.
119-198.

THE SON OF GOD 141

looked for its basis in the relation of the king as pupil to
the divinity as teacher. Though Ilgen failed to reach
the real source of the idea, his learned effort rendered a
good service by preparing the way for a more correct ap-
preciation. It called attention to the connection of the
title with the kingship in Israel. Other kings than the
Messiah had been called sons of God. The conviction
spread that Son of God was a Messianic title, current
among the Jews previous to the appearance of Jesus, and
naturally applied to him as the Messiah. In the Tubingen
school, the terms Son of God and Son of Man came to be
regarded as antipodal, representing the exalted rank and
the personal humility of the Messiah, but no longer his
two natures, the divine and the human. The question
was raised, how far Jesus had used these titles concern-
ing himself. While the searching literary and historical
criticism of Bruno Bauer led him to deny that Jesus had
employed either as a designation of himself, Baur and
his school clung to the idea that he had used the term Son
of Man, but were inclined to question his use of the term
Son of God. Schenkel registered the results reached by
critical exegesis in the middle of the nineteenth century
in an able monograph,1 in which he showed that Jesus
spoke of sons of God only in an ethical sense, but never
referred to himself as the Son of God. This conclusion
was possible only after the true character of the Fourth
Gospel had been recognized and the later additions to the
Synoptic Gospels had also been discerned. The subse-
quent study of the term has tended to confirm his view and
to render it more unassailable. Philological arguments
of considerable importance have added to its strength;
and a more comprehensive investigation has revealed,
with greater clearness, the origin and growth of the term.
In one respect the more disinterested exegesis of recent
years has reacted against the attitude of both the rational-
istic and the earlier historico-critical schools, and returned

1 Article Sohn Gottes in Bibellexikon, 1875.

142 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

to a more original and at all times more popular point of
view. It no longer hesitates to accept the essential iden-
tity of the conception "Son of God" and the conception
"God" in many important Biblical passages, or at least
is not disposed to deny that the beginnings of this popular
identification are visible in the Scriptures. If to the ordi-
nary Christian the term Son of God suggests a divine
being, the term bene Elohim, or Sons of God, suggested to
the early Hebrews ' ' gods, " " divine beings. ' ' In the Sem-
itic languages the individual is often designated as the
"son" of the species to which he belongs. Thus "a son
of man" means "a man," and "a son of the gods" (ben
elohim, bar elahin) means "a god." In Gen. vi, 3 ff ., the
bene haelohim, or "sons of the gods," who see that the
daughters of men, i. e., the women, are beautiful, and
therefore go in to them and beget with them children
who become famous giants, are members of the genus
"god."1 Hence the fear that through their aberration
the human race may become immortal. The terms elohim
and bene elohim were evidently once used indiscrimi-
nately. That the gods should have children and that
these should partake of their own nature, is quite an
obvious reflection. "Where is the pantheon that does not
have sons as well as fathers within the divine circle?
When in Israel the term Elohim began to be used without
a plural connotation and applied to the tribal deity,
Yahwe, the term bene Elohim came to have the meaning
of "angels." Thus it was understood in later times in
Gen. vi, 3 ff. But even the angels were originally gods.
As such they had once been identified with certain ele-
ments, or they had presided over the destinies of nations.
These functions they continued to exercise as angels.
They appeared in the fire, the lightning, the thunder
cloud, the wind ; they moved about in the stars ; they were
the guarding angels of the nations fighting their battles

1 See Schmidt, article Angel in the New International Encyclo-
paedia, 1902.

THE SON OF GOD 143

on high.1 They still remained within the celestial sphere,
and were distinct from the sons of men and superior to
them.

But the story in Gen. vi also shows that divine beings
can have human offspring. The idea is found in many
nations. Extraordinary personalities can only be ac-
counted for as the offspring of gods and women, or god-
desses and men. Human beings may therefore be the
sons of gods by virtue of physical divine procreation.
The tendency to make the eponym heroes sons of gods and
women, seen in Greece and elsewhere, evidently existed also
in ancient Israel. The primitive concrete conception has
indeed for the most part been obscured by the later meta-
phorical use. But here and there the original divine
paternity is only thinly disguised, as in the case of Isaac,
and occasionally a phrase still preserves the marks of a
period when it was not yet a figure of speech, as in Deut.
xxxii, 8. "When sometimes Israel is addressed as the son
of Yahwe, sometimes the individual Israelites as his sons
and daughters, the most natural explanation is that orig-
inally the eponymous hero was regarded as a son of
Yahwe and the sonship of the members of the people as
mediated through him.

In Israel, as in other nations, the king was looked upon
as standing on a higher level than ordinary men. He was
called the Son of Yahwe. He was the Anointed One.
Originally the pouring out of oil on his head was a sacri-
fice, an act of worship. It was popularly thought that a
divine spirit possessed him and that his wisdom was that
of a divine being.2 "My lord is wise," said the woman
of Tekoa to David,3 "according to the wisdom of the gods4
to know all things that are in the earth. ' ' Even after the
exile a descendant of the royal house who was expected

1 See especially the BooJc of Daniel, where the angels of Persia,
Greece and Israel figure prominently.

* I Sam., x, 9 ; II Sam., xiv, 20.
8 II Sam., xiv, 17, 20.

* The ' ' angel " is an after-thought.

144 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

to sit upon the throne of David was called "a mighty
god" (el gibbor).1 When in the Hasmonaean age kings
sat again upon the throne and regarded themselves as the
sons of David, they derived comfort from the promise
given by a prophet writing after the exile concerning the
Davidic dynasty. This oracle2 had spoken of Zion's king
as the son of Yahwe. In a similar manner a Hasmonaean
king is addressed in Ps. ii by Yahwe as his son, born as
such on the day of his coronation, whom the nations and
their rulers should obey. It is evident from Ps. xlv, 7, 8,
that court-poets did not hesitate to address these monarchs
as "gods." When their opponents scornfully designate
them as "gods" and "sons of God," this shows both the
prevailing custom and the Pharisaic objection to it.
Both are explained by the court etiquette at Antioch and
Alexandria. The Seleucidae received the title "Sons of
God"; the Lagidae as successors of the Egyptian kings
accepted such titles as "Son of Re," "Son of Helios,"
"Son of Isis and Osiris." It was natural for Hellenizing
Jews to understand in the same manner such titles as
"Son of Yahwe," "Son of Elyon," and to use as a syno-
nym Elohim (theos). Later the terms theos, divus were
used by the Roman emperors.3 An inscription found at
Priene and apparently written for the emperor's birth-
day praises Augustus as a son of God born to bring bless-
edness to mankind, as a Saviour of coming generations.4

In view of these facts it is rather astonishing that there
is so little evidence of the use of the term Son of God as a
title of the expected Messiah. Enoch cv, 2 is probably
an interpolation.5 Fourth Ezra vii, 28 ff., xii, 32, 37, 52,

1 Isaiah, ix, 6. A son of Jehoiachin may have been meant.

2 II Sam., vii, 14.

3 See E. Beurlier, De divinis honoribus quos accepterunt Alexander
et successores ejus, 1890, p. 47, 59. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, I, 1897,
p. 166 ff. Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p. 224. Elaha was freely
used in the East as a title of the emperors.

* Mitteilungen des Kaiserlichen Archdologischen Instituts, Bd. xxiii,
p. 275 ff.

B In this judgment Drummond, Charles and Dalman concur.

THE SON OF GOD 145

xiv, 9, are all subject to grave doubts. The Aramaic
original is lost, and the extant versions in Syriac, Latin,
Ethiopic, Arabic and Armenian have all passed through
Christian hands and suffered many changes especially in
these passages. The uncertainty as to the original text
in these places is greatly to be regretted, since in this work
and the probably contemporaneous Parables of Enoch (in
their earliest form) Jewish speculation concerning the
Messiah unquestionably reaches its fullest development.
"When Celsus learned from Jewish informants that they
looked forward to the coming of God's Messiah, but found
in the Scriptures no prophecy of the coming of a son of
God,1 and when the Aramaic Targums to II Sam. vii, 14
and Ps. ii, 7, labor to avoid the literal meaning of son in
these passages,2 it is natural to suspect a reaction both
against Christianity and against an earlier Jewish mode
of thought. Was the term bar Elaha used at one time as a
Messianic title? There is no direct evidence of this. But
Dalman's objection on the ground of general avoidance of
the divine name is not well founded. Matthew, who ren-
dered most idiomatically the term "kingdom of heaven,"
used by Jesus in the sense of "kingdom of God," employs
the terms "Son of God" and "sons of God" in such a man-
ner as to suggest bar Elaha and bene Elaka in the original.
If Aramaic speaking Jews ever spoke of the coming king of
Israel as a Son of God, they certainly used the phrase bar
Elaha, and not bar elahin, which meant "angel" or "god."
As a human being may become partaker of the divine
nature by having a divine parent or as king by possession
of a divine spirit, so he may become divine by elevation
into the celestial sphere either in the midst of life through
a translation, or at death, or on the last day, through a res-
urrection from the dead. Thus Gilgamish, Enoch and Eli-
jah were translated, and a similar privilege was bestowed
on some Greek heroes. When it is said in Luke xx, 36 :

1 Origen, Contra Celsum, i, 49.

*The Targum to II Sam., vii, 14, renders "like a father" and
• ' like a son, ' ' and to Ps., ii, 7, ' ' thou art dear to me as a son. ' '
10

146 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

"They are the sons of God, being sons of the resurrec-
tion," this is clearly a conception familiar in Aramaic
speaking circles. But even Hellenistic Jews who believed
in the immortality of the soul without a resurrection held
that the godly man was taken up to his abode among the
sons of God to obtain his inheritance among the holy
ones.1

There were, consequently, many lines of speculation that
led to the use of this term, irrespective of the philosoph-
ical Logos-idea as elaborated by Philo. The term might
have found an important place in the Christianized con-
ception of the Messiah as the risen and translated Lord,
particularly after the idea of a physical divine generation
had developed, even if he had not been identified with the
Philonic Logos. Yet without this addition to Christian
thought the peculiar use of the term in the ecumenic
creeds would not have been possible. Philo spoke of the
Logos as "the perfect Son," "the first-born Son of God,"
"the second God," "God" (theos) without the definite
article. This paved the way for the Fourth Gospel and
the symbols of Nicaea and Constantinople.

The term "Son of God" occurs in the Synoptic gospels
27 times, and the term "the Son" 9 times. The former
is found in Matthew 11 times, viz., iii, 17 (baptism), iv,
3, 6 (temptation), v, 9 (name of peace-makers), xiv, 33
(after walk on the sea), xvi, 16 (Peter's confession), xvii,
5 (transfiguration), xxvi, 63 (trial), xxvii, 40 (at the
cross), 43 (alleged quotation), 54 (centurion). In Mark
it occurs 7 times, viz., i, 1 (superscription), 11 (baptism),
iii, 11 (demon), v, 7 (demon), ix, 7 (transfiguration), xiv,
61 (trial), xv, 39 (centurion). In Luke it occurs 9 times,
viz., i, 32, 35 (annunciation), iii, 22 (baptism), 38 (geneal-
ogy), iv, 3, 9 (temptation), viii, 28 (demon), ix, 35 (trans-
figuration), xxii, 70 (trial). "The Son" alone is found
in Matthew 5 times, viz., xi, 27 (three times in hymn to
Father and Son), xxiv, 36 (not even the Son), xxviii, 19

1 Wisdom of Solomon, V, 5,

THE SON OF GOD 147

(baptism) ; in Mark once, viz., xiii, 32 (not even the Son) ;
and in Luke 3 times viz., x, 22 (all in hymn to Father and
Son).

Already on text-critical grounds it may be shown that
in a number of these passages the term is a late addition.
This is the case with the phrase "not even the Son" in
Matthew,1 and probably also in Mark. It is also true of
Matthew xxviii, 19, which originally neither referred to
baptism nor to the three persons, as the quotations of the
earlier text indicate.2 In the only remaining utterance
ascribed to Jesus in which "the Son" alone is used,3 the
uncertainty as to the text does not indeed affect the term ;
but the internal evidence is all the more decisive. In
other instances it is likewise doubtful what the original
text was, but the textual questions have less bearing on
the subject. Where we possess a triple or a double ver-
sion of the same saying, it is occasionally difficult to de-
cide whether the term occurred in the earliest of them,
as in the case of Peter's confession. It is a significant
fact that the term Son of God is never put upon the lips
of Jesus as a designation of himself or in reference to any
one else, except in Matth. xxvii, 43, where his enemies
taunt him on the cross with the assertion, utterly un-
founded in the Synoptic representation, that he had
claimed, "I am the Son of God." The title is ascribed to
him by God and angels, by the devil and demons, by Peter,
the high-priest (questioningly) and the centurion. "Son
of God" in Mark i, 1, is not well supported and
seems to be an addition; in Luke iii, 38, it is Adam who

1In Matth., xxiv, 36. It is lacking in many Greek MSS., in the
Syriac, Egyptian and old Latin versions, and found only in another
group of Greek MSS., and the Armenian and Ethiopic versions and the
Jerusalem Lectionary. On this and Mark, xiii, 32, see Merx, Das
Evangelium Matthaeus, 1902, p. 356 ff.

2Eusebius frequently quoted the passage before the Council at
Nicaea in this form: "Go ye forth and teach the nations in my
name." It is unfortunate that our most important version, the
Sinaitic-Syriac, ends in the midst of xxvii, 7.

3 Matth., xi, 25 ff.

148 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

is declared to be a son of God ; and in Matth. xvi, 16, the
definition of the Messiah as the Son of the living God is
no doubt an after-thought. There is no clear instance,
therefore, of the title being given him by the evangelists.

According to the earliest form of the story of the in-
fancy in Luke, Mary was the wife of Joseph and Jesus
their son. This story was afterwards retouched by a be-
liever in the virgin birth. In i, 32 ff., the angel Gabriel
announced to Mary that the child she was to bear would
be called "the Son of the Most High," because the Holy
Ghost would come upon her. Thus divine sonship was
made dependent upon physical generation. The introduc-
tion of this mythical conception belongs to a secondary
stratum1 and probably has a Gentile-Christian origin.2
The idea that the Son of God was born as such at the bap-
tism is somewhat older. Luke iii, 22, seems to have read
originally, "Thou art my son, this day I have begotten
thee." This rests upon the conception of the king be-
coming a partaker of the divine nature at his accession to
the throne. The appearance of Jesus in a celestial body3
is probably a somewhat later idea, not untouched by
incipient docetic speculation. There is no need to dwell
upon the unhistorical character of these proclamations by
celestial voices.

The Synoptic gospels represent Jesus as having been
repeatedly proclaimed as the Son of God by demons who
knew his real character,4 and describe how Satan him-
self took advantage of his knowledge to tempt him.5
There is no tendency at the present time to accept this
view of the supernatural knowledge and activity of the
demons. But some critics are inclined to the belief that

1 See Conybeare, in Zeitschrift fur die Neu T estamentliche Wissen-
schaft, 1902, p. 192 ff.

2 Cf . Hillmann, in Jahrbiicher fur protestantische Theologie, 1891,
p. 231 ff.

8 Matth,., xvii, 1 ff .

* Marie, iii, 11; v, 7 (Luke, viii, 28),

5 Matth., iv, Iff,

THE SON OF GOD 149

the persons supposed to be possessed by demons actually
uttered the words ascribed to the latter. It is argued
that the intense political excitement, the extraordinary
impression of Jesus' personality, and the successful cures
that he wrought, may have caused some of these unfor-
tunates to see in him their promised deliverer. It is not
hope, however, but fear that the demons express. The
very first demon that Jesus cast out is said to have known
him and been afraid of him. There is no suggestion of a
political character in their words. No unmistakable Mes-
sianic title, such as "Messiah," "Son of David" or "King
of Israel" is ever put upon the lips of the possessed.
Others are said to have hailed him as Son of David, but
no demon apparently ever did. Besides, Matthew knows
nothing about these utterances of demons or demoniacs.
It is peculiar to Mark, though one passage has been taken
over into Luke,1 and seems to be connected with his view
of the secret of Jesus' Messiahship, as "Wrede2 has shown.
His Messiahship may have been concealed from men, but
could not be hidden from the spirit-world, whether good
or bad. The demons must have known, in spite of his dis-
guise, the strong Son of God by whom they were to be
judged. From the standpoint of the beliefs then current
this is perfectly intelligible. The rejection of these al-
leged utterances of the demons does not, of course, imply
a denial that Jesus practised exorcism.

At Caesarea Philippi, Peter probably declared, "Thou
art the Messiah," or "Thou art the Lord's Messiah."3
"The Son of the living God," not found in Mark and
Luke, is probably a late addition. We have really no
authentic information as to what took place at the trial
of Jesus. Matthew and Luke assumed that he must have
been asked whether he was the Messiah, and that he must
have preserved his Messianic incognito to the end, refus-

1 VIII, 28.

2 Das Messiasgeheimniss, 1901, p. 73 ff.

* Heshicha de Yahwe or Meshicha a" Adonai. Cf. Targum to I
Sam., xxiv, 7, and the Psalter of Solomon, xviii, 7.

150 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

ing to answer the high-priest's question.1 Mark, on, the
contrary, assumed that he admitted his Messiahship, when
the Messiah was defined as "the Son of the Blessed." It
is evident that when these accounts were written the
terms "Son of Man," "Christ," "Son of God," and "Son
of the Blessed" were all synonymous, or tending to be-
come so, and that "Son of God" was equivalent to "God,"
so that the blasphemy of making oneself equal to God
could be regarded as the charge brought against Jesus.
Nothing could more clearly indicate the late and unreli-
able nature of this narrative.2 According to Matthew
and Mark, the centurion at the cross, moved by the mir-
acles he had observed, exclaimed "Of a truth this is the
Son of God."3 The miracles recorded by Matthew were
a great darkness, an earthquake, the rending of the veil
in the temple, and the rising of the dead from their tombs.
If such miracles actually occurred, it would still be diffi-
cult to understand how a Roman soldier could have drawn
the conclusion that the Jew who had been put to death
was the Son of God. But there is no reason to believe
that any of these things happened. Mark is singularly
unfortunate in his narrative owing to his habit of abbrevi-
ating the accounts he copied. He mentions only the rend-
ing of the veil in the temple, which the centurion could
not see, and leaves his exclamation without any cause.
The possibility remains that the centurion may have seen
in the unusually speedy release from suffering an evi-
dence that the prophet whom the Jews had crucified was
a righteous man.4

If a cautious criticism of the records renders it certain
that we have no evidence for supposing Jesus to have

1 That is the force of the words ' ' Thou sayest. ' ' Already the
Greek phrase convinced Thayer (Journal of Biblical Literature,
XIII, pp. 40-49) of this. Concerning the Semitic phrase there can
be no doubt. See Merx, Das Evangelium Matthaeus, 1902, p. 384.

2 See also Brandt, Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 53 ff., and
Wellhausen, Slcizzen und Vorarbeiten, 1899, VI, p. 207.

3 Matth., xxvii, 54; Mark, xv, 39.
*Luke, xxiii, 47.

THE SON OF GOD 151

been addressed by any one as the Son of God, or this title
to have been used by himself, a strong presumption is
raised against the genuineness of the utterance ascribed
to him in Matth. xi, 25 ff. (Luke x, 21 ff.). Before this
passage read as it does in our present MSS. with some
variations between Matthew and Luke, it seems to have
read in the Greek "and no one knew the Father except
the Son, and no one the Son except the Father and he to
whom the Son is willing to make a revelation."1 This
has been supposed to refer to the initial discovery by
Jesus, at a given time in the past, of the fatherhood of
God and of his own peculiar sonship. But no other pas-
sage in the Synoptic gospels indicates that Jesus made
the discovery that God is a father, or conceived of his
fatherhood in such a manner as to lead him to the conclu-
sion that he alone stood in the relation to God of a true
son. Ewald2 long ago pointed out that the differ-
ence of the aorist from the present tense in the Greek
would not appear in the Hebrew yada' , and Dalman3
rightly maintains that in the Aramaic text the participle
yada' and the perfect yeda( could not be distinguished. If
nekar was used in the causative, perfect and participle
would indeed be distinguishable, but the perfect would
not necessarily convey the sense of action in the past,
particularly in the case of a verb of this character.
Klopper4 with much force urges the improbability of the
revelation of the son through the son. "No one knows
the Son except the Father" is a somewhat irrelevant
statement that has the appearance of a gloss drifting into
different places. A more original form of the text seems
to have been, "All things (that are hidden from the wise
and revealed to babes) have been transmitted to me by

*For a fuller statement of the textual conditions, see the article
Son of God by the present writer in Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol.
IV.

■ Jahrbiicher fur Biblische Wissenschaft, 1855, p. 160.

• Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p. 233.

* Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie, 1896, p. 501 ff.

152 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH

the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son,
and he to whom the Son is willing to reveal (the Father)."
But even such an utterance is out of harmony with the
admittedly genuine sayings of Jesus, and casts an unde-
served reflection upon his character. His real teaching
concerning God as a father and man as his child is as far
removed from such speculations on the metaphysical rela-
tions of "the Father" and "the Son" as his humble and
well-balanced character is from such assumptions of om-
niscience and Lordship. How can the gentle teacher who
protested against men calling him "Good Master" on the
ground that none is good save one, God only, be sup-
posed to have imagined himself possessed of all knowl-
edge and regarded all other men as ignorant of God?
Language and thought alike show that the author of the
passage was familiar with most, if not all, of the Christo-
logical development from Paul to the Fourth Gospel.
Brandt1 considers it as a hymn constructed of material
that has been to some extent borrowed from Ecclesias-
ticus li.

As to the story of the wicked husbandmen, Matth. xxi,
33-46, Jiilicher2 has in a most convincing manner demon-
strated its allegorical rather than parabolic nature and
the impossibility of regarding it in its present form as an
utterance of Jesus. It differs from all genuine parables in
its lack of verisimilitude, its many assumptions contrary
to fact, and the confusion of the narrative by reflec-
tions upon later historic situations and doctrinal develop-
ments. "When Matth. xxii, 1-14 is compared with Luke
xiv, 15-24, it is readily seen that the latter is more original.
The former has been elaborated in several respects.
Among these is the introduction of the figure of the king's
son. The motive of the transformation is quite obvious.

The present Greek text of Matthew gives the impression

that Jesus made a distinction between his God and the God

of the disciples, his Father and theirs. This impression is

1 Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, pp. 561, 576.
8 Gleichnisreden Jesu, 1899, p. 385 ff.

THE SON OF GOD 153

created by the use of the possessive pronoun. He says
"my Father" and "your Father," but "our Father" only
in a prayer designated for his disciples in which it may be
supposed that he did not join. How far the author of
our Greek Matthew was himself conscious of such a dis-
tinction, is difficult to decide. In the ease of the Lord's
Prayer1 it may be questioned whether he had any thought
of an objection on the part of Jesus to identifying him-
self with his disciples by the use of the pronoun. The
pronoun of the second person plural has scarcely any such
emphasis in itself as it obtains by contrast with the pro-
noun of the first person singular occasionally employed.
Whether the Greek writer thought of this is again sub-
ject to doubt. But the fact that the Synoptic parallels
often fail to give this personal pronoun raises the question
whether in its original form even the Greek Matthew had
it. Thus the whole discussion about the significance of
"our" in the Lord's Prayer becomes futile by the observa-
tion that Luke begins the prayer simply with "Father,"
without any pronoun. Of more fundamental importance,
however, is the fact that in the original Aramaic it is
exceedingly probable that no pronoun was used in any of
the cases in question. This is not only a conclusion from
general custom. Where the Greek Matthew has "my
Father," the Evangeliarium HierosolywAtanum has simply
Abba, "Father" in all extant passages (x, 32, 33, xvi, 17,
xviii, 10, 19, 35, xxvi, 39). The same is true also in Luke
(ii, 49, x, 22 al.). If this Aramaic version was made from
the Greek without the aid of an earlier Aramaic transla-
tion, the absence of the possessive pronoun either indi-
cates that it did not exist in the copy of the Greek text
used, or a very strongly entrenched usage in the Aramaic.
If, as seems probable, an earlier Aramaic gospel was con-
sulted in the preparation of this version, possibly the first
gospel used by Aramaic speaking Christians, the testi-
mony is of utmost importance. Different lines of evi-

1 Matth., vi, 9 ff . ; Luke, xi, 2 ff .

154 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

denee lead to the conclusion that Jesus said neither "my
Father" nor "your Father," but "the Father who is in
heaven" (Abba di bashemayya).

In a series of reported sayings, the genuineness of which
there is no reason to question, Jesus used the term "sons
of God," or an equivalent, in such a way as to imply
moral likeness to God. A figurative use of the expres-
sions "father" and "son" in religious parlance, no longer
involving the thought of physical generation or descent,
may be traced back to the great prophets of the eighth
century. In Isa. i, 2, xxx, 1, the Israelites are called
"sons of Yahwe." Later Deuteronomy declares, "Ye
are the sons of Yahwe your God,"1 and asks, "Is he not
thy Father, thy maker?"2 Yet the words "As a man
chastens his son, so Yahwe,"3 show that the language is
felt to be figurative. In Jeremiah, Yahwe is said to
be a father,4 and asks, "How shall I place thee among
sons, *'. e., make thee a son?"5 In Jer. xxxi, 9, Yahwe
promises, "I shall be a father to Israel, and Ephraim shall
be my first-born." The same thought is expressed in
Exodus iv, 22. In a post-exilic addition to Hosea the
prospect is held out to the Israelites that they shall be
called "sons of the living God."6 In Isa. lxiv, 8, the peo-
ple speak of God as "our father." In Ps. lxxiii, 15, the
Jews are spoken of as "the generation of thy children."
The fatherhood of God is finely expressed in the prayer
found in Ecelesiasticus xxiii, 1 ff. In Ecclus. iv, 11, the
Hebrew reads, "and God shall call thee son," an expres-
sion reminding strongly of the manner in which Jesus
referred to sonship. The same ethical character is given
to the term in the Wisdom of Solomon, ii, 18, "If the
righteous man is God's son, he will uphold him." A num-

*xrv, i.

1 XXXII, 6.

8 1, 31 ; viii, 5.

4 III, 4.

8 III, 19.

9 II, 1 (Eng. tr., i, 10).

THE SON OF GOD 155

ber of passages in this book describe the Israelites as sons
and daughters of God, and in xviii, 13, Israel is said to be
recognized by the Egyptians as "God's son." In Judith
ix, 4, the Jews are God's "dear children"; in Esther vi,
14, they are ' ' the sons of the only true God " ; in III Mace,
vi, 28, they are "the sons of the most mighty and heavenly
living God"; in Oracula Sibyllina III, 702, they are
"sons of the great God"; in the Psalter of Solomon vii,
30, they are "sons of their God"; in the Assumption of
Moses x, 27, they are "sons of God," and in IV Ezra vi, 58,
they are spoken of as "thy people, first-born and only-
begotten." The predominant idea no doubt was that the
Israelites were sons and daughters of Yahwe by virtue of
their connection with Yahwe 's holy people, but even in
this limitation the idea of moral likeness to their God is
largely present. And occasionally the thought of a spir-
itual sonship based on character is expressed.

It is this ethical sense that Jesus seems to have given
exclusively to the term. In Matth. v, 9, he voices his con-
viction that when the kingdom of heaven shall come, the
peace-makers will be recognized as the sons of God, his
spiritual kindred. In Matth. v, 45, those who show a for-
giving spirit, and in this respect are like God, are spoken
of as the sons of God. As there is some moral likeness to
God in all men, all are in one sense his children, and he
stands in the relation of Father even to those who are
themselves evil.1 In fact there is evil in all of God's
children. It is not right to call any man good. Jesus
deprecated this attribute in his own case, as he rejected
such titles as "Rabbi," "Abba," "Moreh"; for "one is
the master," "one is the father," "one is the teacher,"
"one is good," namely God.2 But he knows that there is
a higher realization of ethical likeness to God in some men
than in others, and is not disposed to overlook the dis-

1 Matth., vii, 11.

2 It has been most clearly recognized by Kohler {Jewish Quarterly
Review, XIII, p. 567 ff.) that Eabba, Abba and Moreh all refer to
God in the saying of Jesus recorded in Matth., xxiii, 8 ff.

156 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

tinction. Even when he spoke of the angel-like existence
of those who were raised from the dead and were sons of
God, being sons of the resurrection,1 he associated with
the term an ethical quality. They were persons accounted
worthy of a resurrection, and they lived a life of divine
purity.

It is evident that Jesus derived inspiration, comfort and
strength from the thought that he was himself a child of
the Heavenly Father. His keen sense of the fatherhood
of God created within him a true filial attitude and a feel-
ing of brotherly affection for all God's children, the sons
of men. In reverence and love he sought to enter into
fellowship with God. How richly he was rewarded, he
himself realized, not without a sense of exaltation, but in
marvelous freedom from spiritual pride and selfish am-
bition. It is not for the historian, who can only tenta-
tively and with many misgivings affirm that certain words
may have been spoken by the great prophet of Nazareth,
and that certain events are likely to have occurred in his
life, to presume upon a description of the innermost
thoughts that stirred his mind and the deepest emotions
that filled his heart. Many things which occupied that
pure and lofty spirit were carried forever beyond the ken
of his fellow-men by the cross of Calvary. Yet none tell
more freely their deepest secrets than the truly great.
The vitality of their message and the power of their influ-
ence are largely due to this full and unreserved self-
expression. There can be no doubt that the thoughts and
principles which stand forth most vividly in his genuine
utterances occupied the largest room in his inner world,
that the love of God and man which his message breathes
stamped his ideas and shaped his relations to all things in
heaven and earth. If he conceived of the fatherhood of
God and the sonship of man as universal, and avoided the
temptation of assuming a special and unique relationship
not attainable by others, it was because the genuineness

1 Luke, xx, 36.

THE SON OF GOD 157

of his experience and the righteousness of his moral dis-
position gave him a peculiarly clear vision of truth. So
well did he realize his ideal of man as the child of the
Father in heaven that men, fascinated by the spiritual
beauty radiating from him, have gladly accorded him a
title he never thought of claiming for himself, and have
called him the Son of God.

In proportion as the distance in time increased between
him and those to whom his personality became the symbol
and agency of man's redemption, the term Son of God
assumed a more and more metaphysical significance.
Especially was this true among Hellenistic Jews and con-
verted Greeks and Romans. The tendency may be ob-
served in the Pauline literature : the later epistles— such
as those to the Colossians, Ephesians and Hebrews— show
a more marked influence of Philo's thought. In the New
Testament the climax is reached in the Johannine writings.
The Fourth Gospel uses the term Son of God 10 times, viz.,
i, 34 (testimony of John), 50 (Nathanael's confession),
iii, 18 (belief in him,), v, 25 (dead hearing his voice), vi,
69 (Peter's confession), x, 36 (use in the Old Testament),
xi, 4 (glorification through Lazarus), xi, 37 (Martha's
confession), xix, 7 (equal to God), xx, 31 (purpose of the
gospel). "The only begotten Son" occurs twice, viz.,
i, 18, and iii, 16, and "thy Son" once, in xvii, 11. "The
Son" is found 14 times, viz., iii, 17, 35, 36, v, 20, 21, 22
twice, 23, 26, vi, 40, viii, 35, 36, xiv, 13, xvii, 1. "The Son
of God" is used by John the Baptist, Nathanael, Peter,
Martha, and the evangelist, but rarely by Jesus himself;
"the Son" is as a rule employed by Jesus alone. In the
churches whose Christological conceptions this gospel
reflects the longer form was evidently used in public con-
fessions of faith, and the shorter form had come into
vogue in theological discussions. To the Fourth Evange-
list "the Son" was a divine being who had appeared in
the flesh, a god who had assumed human nature. It was
not blasphemy for him to claim a title felt to be equivalent
to "God," for he had been sent from heaven, since the

158 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

Scriptures called those "gods" who had only received ora-
cles from heaven.1 In this gospel those are praised whose
faith permits them to say "my Lord and my God," with-
out having seen the evidences of Christ's resurrection.2
While the character and date of the Fourth Gospel render
it impossible to use it as a source for the life and teach-
ing of Jesus,3 it is one of the most precious testimonies left
us by the Early Church, not only of an important type of
Christian thought, but, what is more, of the spiritual free-
dom with which Jesus makes those free who are touched
by his spirit.

It is the thoroughness with which Jesus realized in him-
self the ethical content of a filial attitude toward God that
is the ultimate reason for the fact that divine sonship,
both in a physical and a metaphysical sense, has been
attributed to him. This is the secret of the quickening
touch he has ever communicated to the life and the free-
dom of the spirit, and which affects the modern world
no less powerfully than the ancient.

1 X, 33 ff .

2 XX, 29.

3 See chapter ix.

CHAPTER VTI

THE LOGOS

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was
with God, and the Logos was God, " " and the Logos became
flesh and tabernacled among us, and we beheld his glory,
the glory of an only begotten (son) of the Father, full
of grace and truth." These words in the Prologue to the
Fourth Gospel1 are the Scriptural basis of the doctrine
of the incarnation. In the light of the ecumenic creeds
they were naturally understood as affirming that the eter-
nal Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, the
second person of the Trinity, had become a man. The
utterances ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel could not but
appear as in perfect harmony with a divine personality re-
vealing himself in the flesh. And the traditional author-
ship seemed to preclude any question as to the genuineness
of these discourses. If such words were actually spoken by
Jesus, there could be no doubt that he regarded himself
as a being different in his nature from all other men,
standing in absolutely unique relations to the Father,
holding an eternal Sonship entirely out of the question in
the case of a mere man and implying possession of the
attributes of deity.

But there was a time when it had not yet entered into
the mind of any disciple of Jesus to apply to him the
term Logos, to speculate upon the relations of the Father
and the Son, or to assume that God had appeared in the
flesh. "When the idea of an incarnation of the divine
Logos in Jesus was presented in the Church, it met with

1 John, i, 1, 14.

159

160 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

strong opposition on the part of conservative Christians,1
who recognized its origin. They knew that the Logos-
speculation had its source in Greek philosophy, and that
the notion of a divine emanation appearing in the flesh
was characteristic of Gnosticism. Hence they regarded
the Fourth Gospel as a work of the .Gnostic teacher, Cerin-
thus.2 In the Reformation Period Baptist thinkers in
Italy3 revived this attitude toward the teaching of the
Fourth Gospel, though without committing themselves to
the conjecture as to its authorship made by the Alogi in
Christian antiquity. Since the end of the eighteenth cen-
tury careful examination by competent Christian scholars
has rendered increasingly manifest the essential correct-
ness of this view. The sporadic attempts to remove the
Logos-idea of this gospel from its natural place in the
history of philosophical thought in the Graeco-Roman
world and to vindicate for it a different origin have sig-
nally failed. The more thoroughly this history is studied,
the more evident it becomes that the thought of the Fourth
Evangelist is only a link in a chain that extends from
Heraclitus to Athanasius and in fact reaches beyond these
points in both directions, and that the most important
earlier links were furnished by Heraclitus, Plato, the
Stoics and Philo of Alexandria.

The tendencies of thought that found expression in the
Greek speculation concerning the Logos may be observed
in the intellectual life of many other peoples. Man's
great achievement in giving utterance to his thought, and
making it intelligible by means of articulate speech, left a
long-lived impression of the mystery and power of the
word. Many races still preserve the conviction that by
the spell of the word gods can be moved, demons can be
bound, men can be ruled, the sick can be healed, miracles

1Epiphanius (LI, 4) distinctly says of the Alogi "they themselves
seem to believe the same things as we," and neither Irenaeus nor
Hippolytus ever suggests that they were heretics.

2 Epiphanius, LI, 3 ; Philaster, Be haeres, LX.

* See Comba, I nostri protestanti, 1897, II, 488 ff.

THE LOGOS 161

can be wrought. The rhythmical expression, the ap-
proved formula^ the secret term of conjuration, is espe-
cially thought to possess great potency. As among men
there are priests, prophets, diviners, exorcists, magicians
whose word is more powerful than that of others, so
there are, in the world of spirits, prophets, interpreters,
speakers whose voice is especially heard and whose word
is never void of effect. There are gods like Nabu, Hermes,
Mercury, Loke. As the local gods form themselves into
groups, families, organized monarchies, these become the
spokesmen of the divine council or the supreme ruler.
Nabu represents Marduk, Hermes speaks for Zeus, Loke
executes the commands of Odin. One god brings the mes-
sage, or carries out the will, of another. With the growth
of philosophic reflection, the attributes of one god are
given to another; one reveals himself through another;
the universal concept of divinity becomes manifest in
each ; gods are identified. As a god may live in and mani-
fest himself through another god, so he may dwell in a
man and reveal his power and wisdom in him. There is
the hidden and the revealed divinity. A maturer thought
sees in man, whose word expresses his idea and will, a
microcosm reflecting the character of the macrocosm, and
postulates a universal reason expressing itself in the phe-
nomenal world.

There is abundant testimony of such a development.
Our growing acquaintance with the thought of India and
Persia, of Babylonia and Egypt, furnishes evidence of
both its lower and higher stages. How far the earlier or
contemporaneous speculations of some of these nations
supplied original impulses or new directions to the
thought of Greek philosophers, is exceedingly difficult to
determine. The Greeks had the happy faculty of putting
the impress of their own genius so thoroughly upon any-
thing they touched that even what they borrowed has
all the appearance of being their peculiar property. It
would be hazardous to affirm an influence from India
before the Persian wars, and scarcely safe to insist upon
11

162 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

it before Alexander or even the establishment of the
Graeco-Bactrian kingdom and the diplomatic relations
between the kingdom of Pataliputra and Alexandria.
But after the middle of the third century important cur-
rents of thought may have flowed to the "West. Beyond
a question Philo as well as the great Gnostic teachers were
influenced by ideas whose home was in India and Persia.
Concerning the elements of thought that may have
reached the Ionian Greeks through Asia Minor from the
Babylonian sphere of influence we are still in the dark.

On the other hand, it is a well-known fact that numer-
ous Greeks were settled in Egypt in the seventh century
and that many thoughtful men crossed the Mediterranean
to behold the wonders of the ancient civilization in the
valley of the Nile. "We are better prepared to state what
they might have learned of the wisdom of the Egyptians,
had their acquaintance with language and literature been
even equal to our own, than what they actually did learn.
It is not improbable, however, that the Greeks settled in
the land with whom distinguished visitors came in con-
tact were to some extent familiar with Egyptian speech
and letters and able to give them much curious informa-
tion. "We know that in the days of Psammetich priests
in Memphis expressed ideas that are not far removed from
the earlier forms of the Logos-conception;1 and there is
no reason to believe that these were held in such an
esoteric manner that intelligent Greeks, athirst for knowl-
edge and filled with admiration for Egyptian learning,
may not have become acquainted with them. Be this as
it may, the influence of native thought upon the Greek-
speaking population of the Delta in Ptolemaic times has
undoubtedly been underestimated. There were many
native Egyptians who spoke Greek, and their relations
with Macedonians, Greeks and Jews must have offered
constant opportunities for interchange of thought. '

"When the development of the Logos-conception is

4 See J. A. Breasted, in Zeitschrift fiir Aegyptische Sprache und
Altertumskunde, xxxix, 1901, 1 ff.

THE LOGOS 163

treated as essentially a product of Greek thought, it must,
therefore, be borne in mind that extraneous influences
cannot be wholly excluded. In order to appreciate fully
the significance of this idea, it is necessary to consider
it in connection with the growth of Greek philosophy.
This has recently been done by Anathon Aall1 in a lucid
and, for the most part, convincing manner. For our pres-
ent purpose it must suffice to call attention briefly to the
salient features of its long history. Already in the Orphic
religion the divine immanence is emphasized. Zeus is in
all.2 Thales regarded God as the reason (nous) of the
world.3 Xenophanes preached the doctrine of the unity
of God with the fervor of a Hebrew prophet; but his
monotheism was not based on reverence and zeal for a
tribal deity, it was founded on his conviction that the
universe is governed by one reason.4 Parmenides dis-
tinguished between the phenomenal world perceived
through the senses and absolute being revealing itself to
human reason. For this instrument of certain knowledge
he used the term Logos.

It may not be capable of absolute proof, but is ex-
tremely probable, that Heraclitus of Ephesus who lived in
the fifth century B. C. was influenced by Persian thought.
The part played by fire in his system is particularly sig-
nificant. In view of his polemical attitude to the popular
cults it is doubtful whether this impact came through
the mysteries. His personal relation to the Logos is sug-
gestive of Oriental modes of thought. "Not to me," he
declares, "but to the Logos ye should listen." Yet this

1 Der Logos, I. Geschichte der Logosidee in der griechischen Philos-
ophic, 1896, II. Geschichte der Logosidee in der Christlichen Litera-
tur, 1899. The most important earlier monographs are those by J. M.
Heinze, Die Lehre vom Logos in der griechischen Philosophic, 1872,
and Jean Beville, La doctrine du Logos dans le quatrieme evangile et
dans les oeuvres de Philon, 1881. The studies of Gfrorer, Soulier,
Seigfried and Grill have also furthered our knowledge.

•Stobaeus, Eclogae, I, 40.

* Stobaeus, Eclogae, I, 56.

* See Fragment 3 in Karsten, Philos-Graec, 1.

164 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

Logos is not a personality; it is the objective, universal
reason whose spokesman he feels himself to be and whose
claims to recognition he urges against the assumptions of
individual reason. It may not be permissible to press his
professed monism into logical consistency by postulating
an identity of Logos and fire. Heraclitus makes an epoch
in the history of the Logos-conception, because with him
the term is used for the first time as a designation of
cosmic, universal reason.1

Neither Anaxagoras nor Empedocles, neither Plato nor
Aristotle continued directly the Logos-speculation of the
Ephesian philosopher. But indirectly they all contrib-
uted to a marked extent to the further development of
this idea. Anaxagoras gave to the term Nous a richer
content, making it suggestive of spirit rather than abstract
reason,2 and Empedocles introduced into the spiritual sub-
stance of the world the two motive forces of love and
hate.3 This extension of the idea in the direction of per-
sonality left the apparently lifeless part of the universe
out of consideration. A dualism resulted which the So-
cratic school sought to overcome by a teleologic idealism.
We have not the means of determining precisely what
contribution Socrates made to this new movement of
thought. It may be assumed, however, with some degree
of probability, that the view of objective reality as con-
sisting of a system of cognizable conceptions ethically de-
termined by the cosmic end, and of the subject as realiz-
ing its ideal and obtaining adequate knowledge through
moral and intellectual self-perfecting, goes back to him.
Plato conceived of the universe as a living being possessed
of reason, will, goodness and beauty, becoming known to
human reason in a system of ideas which constitute the

1 See especially Anathon Aall in Zeitschrift fur Philosophic und
philosophische Kritik, 1895, p. 217 ff., E. Pfleiderer, Die Philosophie
des Hera klit von Ephesus im Lichte der Mysterienidee, 1886, and
Schuster in Acta Societatis philol. Lips., 1873.

2 Mullach, Fragm. phil. graec, Anaxagoras fr. 12.
8 1, c, 378 ff.

THE LOGOS 165

thought-forms and real substance of the phenomena per-
ceived through the senses. Like Socrates, he believed in
a daimon, sometimes conceived of as a shadow of the per-
sonality, its reflection in an idea, sometimes as an ideal ego
imposing its higher demands on the actually realized ego.
It is difficult to avoid the impression that this is a Hel-
lenized form of the Egyptian idea of the shadow, double,
or genius, called oa or ka. Aristotle was led by his pro-
found study of nature to reject Plato's doctrine of fixed
thought-forms, or ideas, as bringing in a series of inter-
mediate entities unwarranted by the facts. But though
he substituted for the system of ideas the conception of an
organism with its functions, he was none the less an
idealist. In this philosophy the word Logos is used only
as a technical term for concept.

When the Stoic philosophers, Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysip-
pus, and their successors, returned to the conception of
Heraclitus, they were able to draw upon the wealth of
thought bequeathed by the Socratic school. Though, in
their endeavor to establish a monistic view of the uni-
verse, they clung somewhat more closely to the concep-
tion of vital energy, and transformed the ideas of Plato
into powers, thus exposing themselves to the ill-founded
suspicion of materialism, they strongly affirmed the
rationality and moral quality of cosmic life. The Logos-
conception became an instrument for the expression of
both their ontology and their ethics. New names were
coined by them for the different aspects of the Logos. As
the vital force of the universe it was called Logos sper-
matikos. As operative in human consciousness, it was
viewed either in the light of an unexpressed faculty,
Logos endiathetos, or as an outgoing manifestation, Logos
prophorikos. But, however expressed, the Logos im-
plied the rationality of the scheme of existence and the
universality of moral law. The precise relation between
the Logos and the God-idea of the Stoics cannot easily be
defined. It would be going too far to assert that the
Logos of these thinkers was a personal entity. But it is

166 THE PBOPHEf OF NAZAKETH

equally uncertain whether they conceived of the living
macrocosm so closely on the analogy of man as the micro-
cosm as to give it the same kind of a personality. The
reports of Christian opponents that have the most direct
bearing on this point manifestly suffer from a want of
adequate appreciation. There can be no question that the
Logos-conception effectively helped to make Stoicism the
greatest agency for the intellectual and moral uplift of
the Graeco-Roman world.1

The influence of Philo2 upon the further development
of this idea is so marked that there is a decided tendency
to overestimate his originality. He undoubtedly based
his conception largely upon that of the Stoics. Such
modifications as may be observed are apparently due
either to the strong impression of Plato's thought or to
the necessity of bringing the altogether heterogeneous
ideas of his Jewish ancestors into harmony with Greek
philosophy. The Stoics themselves furnished him with
the instrument for achieving the latter task in the alle-
gorical method of interpretation. It is not impossible
that he was to some extent affected also by native Egyp-
tian and Oriental speculation. But the traces of such an
influence are more marked in parts of his system not so
closely connected with the Logos-idea3 From the ap-
pearance of the term Memra (Word) in Aramaic Targums
it has been inferred that Philo may have received impulses
from speculations current in the Palestinian synagogues.
But the date of these Targums renders any such assump-
tion unsafe. The oldest of them is not likely to have been
edited before the third century A. D., and cannot be used
with any degree of assurance to show what oral render-

irThe account of the Stoic Logos idea and its influence on Stoic
ethics given by Anathon Aall (Geschichte der Logosidee, I, 98-167) is
both appreciative and critical.

sAn admirable sketch of the life and writings of Philo will be
found in Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu
Christi, 3d ed., Ill, 1898, p. 487-562.

3 Eor instance, in the doctrine of metempsychosis.

THE LOGOS 167

ings of Biblical passages were current in the synagogues
of Palestine before the time of Philo. This was already
seen by Bruno Bauer, and is now generally recognized.1
Whether the Targumic tendency to ascribe to the Memra
certain activities and feelings ascribed by the Biblical
text to God is due to acquaintance with Philo, as many
suppose, or is the product of a similar occupation with
Greek philosophy on the part of Palestinian rabbis im-
pelled by the general desire to transfer divine functions
to intermediate beings, is a question that admits of
no definite answer. It may be noted, however, that in
the remains of Jewish Alexandrian writings from the
period before Philo, the Logos plays no role, whereas the
term Wisdom is used in a similar manner. This goes
back to Palestinian custom. Already in the book of
Proverbs "Wisdom" appears in a position that suggests
personality. It probably has a Persian2 rather than a
Greek origin. While there is no indication that Philo to
any extent drew his Logos-conception from this Sophia-
conception, the prevalence of the latter both in Palestine
and in Egypt before Philo renders it probable that the
Jewish mind began to operate with the former idea about
his time. If he was not the first to do so, he was, by
virtue of his extraordinary capacity and prestige and the
great extent of his writings', the foremost and exercised
the widest influence.

Philo possessed a thorough and extensive familiarity
with Greek philosophy. But he was a Jew. He believed
in the truth of the divine oracles delivered to his fathers,
and he was convinced that the wisdom of the Greeks was
only a reflection of the wisdom of Moses. His trained
mind perceived very clearly that much of what was
ascribed to the Supreme Being in the Bible was both im-
possible and unworthy of him. But this was only so, when

1 See especially Siegfried, Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des
Alien Testament an sich selbst und nach seinem geschichtlichen Ein-
fluss betrachtet, 1875.

* The prototype seems to have been the Spenta Aramati.

168 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH

the words were understood in a literal sense. By the alle-
gorical method he was able to see in them the same truths
that were in different language expressed by the Greek
thinkers. One of the greatest difficulties, even with this
method, was the doctrine of creation. It was through
the Logos of the Stoics and the ideas of Plato that he
escaped from this difficulty. The Logos spermatihos, the
second god, the manifestation of the invisible and un-
knowable Supreme Being, was the demiurge, the agent
of creation, not indeed a few thousand years ago in the
course of six days, but in the constant procession of
things.1 The Logos was the image of God, the reflection
of his glory, the only begotten Son. The Logos was with
God, and the Logos was God. Through him all things
were made, and in him all things consist. But they exist
in him eternally as ideas, and only as such become known
to human reason. The Logos in this sense may be said
to be the means of creation. It is also the agency of
Providence, a conception that played an important part
in the Stoic system, and the instrument of revelation.
The Logos is the light which illumines every man. There
is a distinction between Logos endiathetos and Logos pro-
phorikos.2 Native Jewish thought influenced Philo when
he described the Logos as angel, servant, high-priest of
God, and probably also when he emphasized his impor-
tance as leader of the nations, maker and director of
history. It has been much discussed whether Philo 's
Logos is a personality or not. None of the attributes of
personality seems to be wanting. Yet a personification
is often very intense without implying the belief in a
personal entity. If the complexity of the conception
points in one direction, the fondness for allegorizing
points in another. At any rate, it is certain that Philo
could not have conceived of his Logos as incarnated in a
historic human personality.

1 Philo could accept no doctrine of a creatio ex nihilo. See Soulier,
La doctrine du Logos chez Philon, 1876, p. 22.

2 See Grossman, Questiones Philoneae, 1829, II, 26 ff .

THE LOGOS 169

This step was taken for the first time, so far as we know,
by the author of the Gospel according to John. It is
not to be denied that Christian thinkers had before his
time been influenced by Philo. This can scarcely be
affirmed of Paul. There is nothing specifically Philonic
in his doctrine of the preexistence of the soul in general,
or that of the Messiah in particular, in the designation of
the Messiah as "the heavenly man," or in the description
of the Messiah as the mediator; and the idea of the Mes-
siah emptying himself and becoming a man, if cherished
by Paul, was certainly never dreamed of by Philo. But
the Christology of the Deutero-Pauline epistles to the
Colossians and the Ephesians uses a phraseology that
seems to be reminiscent of Philo 's language. The Epistle
to the Hebrews reveals so great a similarity in method,
conceptions and style that a familiarity with Philo seems
unquestionable. All the more remarkable is the fact that
there Jesus is never identified as the Logos. The only
passage in the Apocalypse of John that ascribes the title
to Jesus is xix, 13. But the passage has long been recog-
nized as an interpolation. If the name given to him, and
unknown to any one else, is the Tetragrammaton, as some
scholars think, the author of the interpolation must have
written at a date much later than that of the Apocalypse.

The Fourth Evangelist was intimately acquainted with
Philonic speculation.1 The Alexandrian philosopher fur-
nished him not only with ideas but also with his charac-
teristic phraseology. Without Philo his gospel could
never have been written. This is true not only of the
Prologue but of the whole work. But although his con-
ception of the Logos is essentially that of Philo, it has
been modified by two important facts: his Christian ex-

1 This has been strongly emphasized in the most recent works by
Jean Keville, Le quatrieme Evangile, 1901, and Grill, Untersuchun-
gen iiber die Entstehung des viertes Evangeliums, 1902. The latter
scholar has done a service by examining the relative familiarity of
Philo and the Fourth Evangelist with Oriental, especially Indian,
thought. This acquaintance was, of course, only indirect.

170 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

perience and his Gnostic speculation. The former gave
him the conviction that the personality of Jesus of Naz-
areth revealed the eternal nature of the Logos ; the latter
furnished him with the ideas of an emanation, an ap-
pearance in the flesh, and a redemption through gnosis,
or insight, an insight which was characteristically medi-
ated through ethical sympathy and loyal love, rather than
through intellectual penetration. The result was that, in
the Christological development based upon this gospel,
the personality of the eternal Logos, the identity of the
Logos and the man Jesus, the procession of the Son and
the Holy Ghost, the incarnation, and the necessity to sal-
vation of knowing the Father and the Son and their
mutual relations, fixed themselves in Christian thought.

While, so far as our present knowledge goes, this was
the first clear expression of the incarnation of the divine
Logos in Jesus, there are indications that, about the time
when the Gospel was written, other minds were occupied
by Logos-speculations. Valentinus spoke of a pair of
aeons, Logos and Zoe, emanating from the pair Bythos
and Sige. Against this doctrine Pseudo-Ignatius took the
field, declaring,1 that "he is his unseen Logos (Word)
not proceeding from Sige (Silence)."2 The Acts of Peter
and the Acts of John also operate with the conception in
language resembling at times that of the Gospel. But the
differences are also very marked. When the wood of the
cross is called Logos, it is evident that the idea of an incar-
nation in the personality of Jesus has not yet become fixed
in Christian thought. The same is true of some of the
Logia found at Behnese. "Lift the stone and thou shalt
find me ; cleave the wood, and I am there. ' '3 Such fancies

1 Magnesians, VIII, 2.

2 The emendation of the text proposed by Zahn, Lightfoot and Har-
nack, by striking the two words aidios oulc ( di'Stos ovk ) has no war-
rant in the manuscripts, is clearly dictated by an apologetic motive,
and leaves a less comprehensible text. The author of the Ignatian
Epistle to the Romans was apparently not influenced by the Logos
doctrine, though in viii, 2, he tends in that direction.

aLogion, 4.

THE LOGOS 171

disappear after the establishment of the Johannine
Christology.

Although Justin Martyr probably wrote his First
Apology more than a decade later than the appearance of
the Fourth Gospel, it must still be pronounced uncertain
whether he was familiar with it. If so, he evidently did
not regard it as authoritative. If not, he must have
reached somewhat similar ideas concerning the Logos
independently, because he addressed himself to philoso-
phers, was acquainted with Gnosticism, and such ideas
were in the air. He unquestionably knew Philo. Con-
cerning the Logos Justin taught that he was created as
a hypostasis before the world was created, that through
him matter itself was made, and that it became flesh, the
birth of Jesus from the virgin being his work.

In the apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of
Antioch, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, the
doctrine of the Logos is presented without important new
additions. It is noticeable, however, that the Stoic and
Philonic distinction between Logos endiathetos and Logos
prophorikos attracts more and more attention, and that
the conception of the Logos as indwelling in all men pre-
vents the doctrine of total depravity from developing.
The doctrine was naturally defined in controversies with
Gnostics, Montanists and other heretics by Irenaeus, Ter-
tullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
Tertullian's treatment is particularly interesting, as in
his Latin translation of the term, he used two words to
express its different phases: verbum and ratio. The
Logos idea reached its highest development in Origen.
Those great convictions for which he was condemned by
the Church were closely connected with it. A strong and
growing element in the Church felt the danger lurking in
a philosophical conception whose origin, early develop-
ment and natural implications could not be obscured to
men of Greek speech familiar with their great thinkers.
The term itself had a tendency to breed faith in human
reason, confidence in the divine spark in man, and oppo-

172 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

sition to the absolute deity of Jesus and the eternal
damnation of the unbelieving. It is significant that, while
the Arians freely used the Logos conception, distinguish-
ing as the philosophers of old between the vitalizing, the
implicit, and the outgoing Logos, Athanasius protested
against the term Logos spermatikos, and rejected the dis-
tinction made between Logos endiathetos and Logos pro-
phorikos. At the Council of Nicaea Eusebius and his
party proposed the formula: "We believe in the Logos
of God." Athanasius and his party objected, favoring
the successful formula: "We believe in the Son of
God."1

The Logos found no place in the ecumenic creeds. It
was not adopted as a proper name in the Latin language.
It was translated as Word in the modern versions with-
out any hint of its philosophical meaning. To most
readers of the Fourth Gospel it had no pre-Christian his-
tory. A modern theologian2 closes his work upon this
subject by expressing the conviction that "the Protest-
ant spirit has shown the Logos-theory to be what it is: a
religious dream once promising thoughtful men a solution
of the problem of God and the universe." Hs adds that
this judgment applies only to its religious phase.

It is readily seen that the problem in philosophy which
led some of the subtlest thinkers of antiquity to elaborate
the Logos-speculation still remains with us, and that the
facts suggested by the term must, on any theory of the
universe, continue to claim attention. But even on the
religious side the Logos idea has not been an idle dream,
but rather a necessary stage in the development of
thought. The Semitic nations looked upon the deity as
apart from the world. Judaism before its contact with
Greek thought and Islam before its contact with Persian
mysticism rigidly adhered to this doctrine of the divine
transcendence. In India and Greece, and apparently also
in Egypt, the conception of a living universe, and of God

1 Anathon Aall, Der Logos, II, 1899, p. 470.
*Anathon Aall, I. c, p. 481.

THE LOGOS 173

as its life, has taken deep roots. This thought of the
divine immanence could not be appropriated by minds
accustomed to the idea of an extra-mundane divinity,
without the introduction of an intermediate divine being.
The incarnate Logos became a school-master leading men
to the grander conception of the divine immanence. This
was a historical necessity. For pantheism, always ex-
posed to the danger of effacing lines of moral demarca-
tion, was in need of the ethical stimulus of an intensely
personal relation to a definite and exalted ideal. It was
this deep-seated demand for the highest conceivable ideal
that led to the definitions of the "two natures" in Christ.
But the introduction of an intermediate deity became
harmful by translating the ideal into a sphere of being
conceived as possessing an essentially different nature,
and therefore putting it beyond the reach of realization
or imitation. In the advance of religious thought, the
essential oneness of the Life of the universe is perceived,
and the moral and religious influence of the life of Jesus
becomes enhanced by the recognition of its truly human
character.

CHAPTER VIII

THE SECONDARY SOURCES.

Our knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus is based
solely upon the testimony of early Christian literature.
From the allusions in pagan and Jewish writers it would be
possible to gain some idea, though a very imperfect one, of
what Christians believed concerning their Master in the sec-
ond century. But reliable information as to his life could
scarcely be drawn from these sources. Were there no Chris-
tian documents, a careful historian might be inclined to
credit the statement that the man worshiped as a god by
Christian cult-communities in the second century had been
put to death in Judaea by Pontius Pilate during the reign
of Tiberius. But there would be room for doubt whether
this statement rested upon official records or was derived
from Christian tradition; it would be impossible to deter-
mine what, if anything, had been contributed by " Christus"
to the religion named after him ; and the silence of the great
Jewish writers of the first century would always render a
decision precarious.

The only Roman writer of the first century in whose
works one would naturally look for an allusion to Christian-
ity is Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 B. C.-65 A. D.). If, as has
been generally supposed, there were disturbances in Rome
in which Christians were implicated already at the time of
Claudius, and there was a general persecution of Christians
by Nero, the silence of the distinguished statesman, the
teacher and confidential adviser of Nero, would be peculiar.
His ethical, religious and philosophical views were so closely
akin to those expressed in the Pauline literature that the
similarity attracted attention already in the Early Church.
But the correspondence between Paul and Seneca which

174

THE SECONDAEY SOURCES 175

most clearly reveals a puzzled consciousness of this kinship
is a Christian forgery.1 There is no reason to believe that
Seneca ever heard of Jesus or of Paul. The passage in
which, with prophetic indignation, Juvenal2 describes the
sad fate of those who attack "omnipotent rogues" may
allude to acts of Nero, but does not in the least suggest that
it was Christians who were thus punished for crimen laesae
majestatis. Among the discourses of Epictetus published
by Arrian3 there is one which contains a mention of
"Galileans who by custom hold what cannot be proved by
reason and demonstration, that God has made all that is in
the world. ' ' The emphasis upon the force of national cus-
tom and tradition renders it more probable that Epictetus
had in mind an ancient people like the Jews, than that he
thought of a new sect. The discourse was probably deliv-
ered in Nicopolis, Epirus, in 109 A. D. In an oration to
the Corinthians probably delivered in the beginning of the
reign of Trajan, Dio Chrysostom4 speaks of people who
reject both philosophers and gods. It is not clear, however,
that he had Christians in mind.

The first reference to Christianity in a Roman writer
seems to be found in a letter by Pliny the Younger to Tra-
jan.5 The genuineness of this letter has been questioned by
many scholars, but on insufficient grounds.6. It was prob-

1 This correspondence was known to Jerome and Augustine and is
found in MSS. of Seneca's works since the ninth century. See Baur,
Seneca und Paulus in Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie,
1858, p. 463 ff. Cf. E. Westerburg, Der Vrsprung der Sage doss
Seneca Christ gewesen sei, 1881, p. 41 ff.

2 Saturnalia, I, 155 ff.

8rv, 7.

* Corinthiacae Orationes, xxsvii.

6 Epistolae, X, 96.

8 Sender, in 1788, expressed doubts about the genuineness of X, 96
and 97. Bruno Bauer and Manchot assumed interpolations. The
whole collection of Epistles has been questioned by some scholars.
This is the position of Van Manen, who, with some force, has urged
the difficulty of assuming 124 letters to have passed between Pliny
and Trajan in 18 months and of the governor troubling the emperor
with so many trifles. Cf. Be Gids, 1890, p. 290 ff. On the other

176 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

ably written in 112 A. D. In it Pliny as governor of
Bithynia asks for instructions in regard to the Christians.
He has never been present at any examinations of Chris-
tians, and is doubtful whether they should be punished
without any discrimination as to age or manifest willing-
ness to abandon their practices, and whether the name itself
should be punished, or only the crimes found connected with
it. From some apostates he had learned that the Christians
' ' were accustomed to assemble on a stated day, before light,
and to sing responsively a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and
to bind themselves by an oath, not to any wickedness, but
not to commit theft, nor robbery, nor adultery, nor prevari-
cation, nor denial of a pledge received, whereupon they
would separate, and then come together again for a meal
eaten in common." Trajan directed that they should be
punished when convicted of being Christians, upon proper
trial, but that they should not be hunted out.1 The phrase
"as to a god" probably shows that Pliny understood
"Christus" to be a man. There is no intimation of any
knowledge on his part of the life and teaching of Jesus.

Soon after 115 A. D. Tacitus wrote that part of his his-
torical work which has been designated The Annals. In it2
he mentions the case of Pomponia Graecina, who was ac-
cused of a "foreign superstition" in 58 A. D. This has
been supposed by some scholars to be a reference to the
Christian religion. But Hasenclever3 has rendered it prob-
able that Judaism is meant. In describing Nero's reign,
Tacitus4 speaks of the persecution of Christians. His ac-

hand, it is extremely difficult to imagine any Christian writer to have
gone to the trouble of forging so large a number of epistles for the
purpose of introducing a decree which is anything but an edict of tol-
eration. See on this point especially Steck, Jahrbiicher fur protestan-
tische Theologie, 1891, p. 645 ff.

1 Plinii Epistolae, x, 97.

2 Ab excessu divi Augusti, xiii, 32.

* Jahrbiicher fur protestantische Theologie, 1882, p. 47 ff .

* I. c, XV, 44. There is no reason to doubt that this chapter was
written by Tacitus. There may be a question of the accuracy of his
information.

THE SECONDAEY SOUECES 177

count, however, raises some grave questions. Tacitus sug-
gests that to turn the suspicion away from himself, Nero
falsely accused the Christians of having caused the great
fire at Rome in 64 A. D. The Christians, he says, were
named after Christus, who in the reign of Tiberius had been
put to death by Pontius Pilate. Having been repressed at
first, this execrable superstition had broken out afresh, not
only in Judaea, but also in Rome, whither all atrocious and
shameless things find their way from different parts of the
world. Those that were first arrested confessed under tor-
ture, and then a large crowd were convicted, not indeed of
having caused the fire, but of hatred of the human race.
The official charge must of course have been that they had
set fire to the city. What ''they confessed" cannot have
been that they were Christians, but that they had caused the
fire. Of this charge, however, the great crowd were not
found guilty, but of "odium generis humani." This can
scarcely have been a crime recognized by a Roman court.
Schmiedel1 is no doubt right in deeming it possible "that
the religion of the accused did not come into question at all,
and that Tacitus and Suetonius have, unhistorically, carried
back the name Christiani from their own time into that of
Nero." Curiously enough, Suetonius2 does not at all say
that the Christians were accused of starting the fire ; and
Juvenal3 mentions neither incendiarism nor Christian be-
liefs and practices as the occasion of those barbarous punish-
ments of which these writers seem to have had a tradition.
But even if there is reasonable doubt in regard to the
Neronic persecution of Christians, and the unfavorable esti-
mate of them by Tacitus is likely to have been derived from
his own observation, or the accounts of contemporaries,
rather than from a knowledge of their history, the question
still remains, whether he may not have gleaned from official
reports the fact that Jesus was put to death in the reign of

1 Encyclopaedia Biblica, article Christian, the name of, vol. I, col.
758.

2 Be vita Caesarum, VI, 16. This work was written ca. 120 A. D.
3 1, c.

12

178 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

Tiberius, while Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judaea.
In the present state of our knowledge, it is quite impossible
to say, whether a report of the crucifixion of Jesus was sent
to Rome by Pontius Pilate, and was seen in the archives there
by Tacitus, or whether the historian gathered this piece of
information from some Christian source. The probability
of such a report depends upon the very uncertain part
Pilate had in the tragedy,1 and the importance he attached
to it. There is little reason to believe that the Acts of
Pilate referred to by Justin differed essentially from the
late forgeries known to us by that name.

Suetonius2 relates that Claudius (41-54 A. D.) expelled
the Jews from Rome because of a tumult they had made
under the leadership of one Chrestus. As this historian em-
ploys the term "Christiani" in describing the "new and
malicious superstition" against which he had heard that
Nero used such drastic measures, there is no reason to sup-
pose that he confused "Chrestus," the Jewish agitator in
Rome under Claudius, with "Christus," the prophet ap-
pearing in Judaea under Tiberius. But neither can it be
affirmed that there was a Roman demagogue by the name of
Chrestus in the time of Claudius. There may have been
some confusion in the written sources or tradition upon
which Suetonius drew. Acts xviii, 1, 2, throws no light
upon the subject.

Overbeck3 has conclusively shown that a number of edicts
of toleration ascribed to Hadrian and the Antonines are
Christian forgeries. The alleged letter of Hadrian to
Minucius Fundanus is no more likely to be genuine than the
others. The contrast to Trajan's rescript is very marked.
Marcus Aurelius, in his Meditations, refers disapprovingly
to the eagerness for martyrdom shown by the Christians.4
It is possible that Apuleius in 163 A. D. gives a description
of Christians, in terms indicating bitter prejudice, though

1 See Ch. X.
2 1, c, V, 25.

3 Studien zur Geschichte der alien Kirche, II, 1875.

4 Meditationes, XI, 3.

THE SECONDAKY SOUECES 179

he does not mention the name.1 Lucian, of Samosata, in
De morte Peregrini, written in 178 A. D., shows some ac-
quaintance with Christianity. Concerning the founder of
this faith he knew that he was crucified in Palestine. It is
not improbable that in his description of Peregrinus he had
to some extent the legend of Ignatius in mind.2 He also
appears to have been familiar with the Apocalypse of John.3
Celsus, in his "True Account, ,H written in 178 A. D., seems
to have derived his information partly from the Gospels,
including the Fourth Gospel, partly from conversation with
Jews. From the latter source he apparently gleaned no ad-
ditional fact, but only the current Jewish interpretation of
the narratives given in the Gospels. It is characteristic of
his attitude that he accepted the accounts of miracles
wrought by Jesus, though explaining them as performed by
magic, and ascribed to him the teaching of the Fourth Gos-
pel as well as the Synoptic representation, while he rejected
as legends the stories clustering about his birth, death and
resurrection. He does not add a single fact, drawn from
any independent source, to what may be gathered from
Christian literature.

The most significant fact in extant Jewish writings of the
first two centuries is the silence of Philo and Josephus.5
Philo was still living at the time of the accession of Claudius
in 41 A. D. He visited Palestine in connection with his
embassy to Gaius Caligula in 40 A. D., and was intimately
acquainted with the religious life of Judaea. He was fa-
miliar with the various religious parties, Pharisees, Sad-
ducees and Essenes, but he apparently had no knowledge
either of Jesus or of the Christian Church. Still more re-

1 Metamorphoses, IX.

3 This idea has been expressed by several scholars. Pfleiderer in the
second edition of his Urchristentum (1902) regards it as an evidence
of the genuineness of seven of the Ignatian epistles which he dates
ca. 130 A. D. In reality it would only show the development of the
Ignatius legend before 178 A. D.

3 Vera Historia, II, 6-12.

4 See the excerpts in Origen, Contra Celsum.

6 An explanation of this is suggested on page 31.

180 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

markable is the absence of any allusion to Christianity in
the works of Josephus. The historian of his people lived
both in Galilee and in Judaea, was in his youth a seeker
after truth wherever it seemed to offer itself, became a mem-
ber of the Pharisaic party, and described, in his historical
works, not only the political fortunes of the Jews, but also
to some extent their religious development, and carried his
accounts down toward the end of his own life. His "Jewish
War" was written in its Greek form between 75 and 79 A.
D., his "Antiquities" in 94 A. D., his work "Against
Apion" ca. 100 A. D., and his "Autobiography" soon after.
These works have been preserved by the Church, and not by
the Synagogue. Christian readers and copyists could but
note with astonishment the fact that Josephus had nothing
to say about Jesus. Hence they supplied the text with
more or less clumsy interpolations, as patristic testimony
and late manuscripts show. A passage inserted in An-
tiquities xviii, 63, 64 reads as follows : "At this time Jesus
appears, a wise man, if indeed it is proper to call him a man.
For he was a performer of marvelous works, a teacher of
men who receive the truth with joy, and he drew to himself
many Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Messiah.
And when Pilate had punished him by crucifixion, on the
accusation of our foremost men, those who had loved him at
first did not cease to love him. For he appeared to them
alive again after three days, the divine prophets having
predicted this and a thousand other wonderful things about
him. Even now the people named after him Christians has
not ceased to exist." It is admitted on all hands that
Josephus cannot have written this paragraph as it stands.
A number of scholars have maintained that it contains a
genuine nucleus. There is no agreement, however, as to
what the historian could have written ; and the few words
that are left must themselves be subjected to conjectural
emendations or fresh modern interpolations to make them at
all plausible.1 It has therefore been the growing conviction

1 For such attempts see particularly Gieseler, Kirchengeschichte, 4te
Ausgabe, 1844-1848, p. 81; Wieseler, Jahrbiicher fiir deutsche Theol-

THE SECONDARY SOUECES 181

of scholars since the sixteenth century that the entire pas-
sage is the work of a Christian hand. Origen did not find
it in his text of Josephus; but it had been written before
Eusebius composed his Ecclesiastical History ca. 325 A. D.
That the reference to "the brother of Jesus who is called the
Christ, James by name ' n is also a Christian interpolation, is
rendered probable by the fact that Origen found in his text
of Josephus a passage concerning James not extant in our
manuscripts and clearly of Christian origin. Some
scholars have assumed that the original text contained an
allusion to Jesus so objectionable to Christians that it was
removed. There is no basis for such an assumption. The
silence of Josephus does not necessarily imply ignorance on
his part of Christianity, but only that to his mind it did not
possess sufficient importance, either politically or philosoph-
ically, to deserve special mention, or that he thought it un-
wise to refer to the subject. We have the testimony of
Photius2 that Justus of Tiberius in his historical works
written toward the end of the first century likewise made no
mention of Jesus or Christianity.

In the Mishna, edited by R. Jehuda ca. 200 A. D., the
Palestinian Talmud, edited in the time of R. Jose bar
Zabda ca. 350 A. D., the Babylonian Talmud, edited by
Rab Abina and Rab Jose ca. 500 A. D., as well as in
other early Jewish works of uncertain date, there are oc-
casional references to Jesus and the Christians, designated
as Minim. No authorities of the first century, however, are

ogie, 1878, p. 86 ff.; Volkinar, Jesus Nazarenus, 1882, p. 335 ff. ;
Reinach, Eevue des etudes juives, 1897, p. 1. The spuriousness of
the entire passage has been shown especially by Gerlach, Die Weissa-
gungen des Alien Testaments in den Schriften des Flavins Josephus
und das angebliche Zeugniss von Christo, 1863; Keim, Geschichte
Jesu von Nazara, I, 1867, p. 11 ff. ; Loman, Theologisch Tijdschrift,
1882, p. 593 ff. ; Niese, Be testimonio Christiano quod est apud Jose-
phum, 1893-1894; Schiirer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeital-
ter Jesu Christi, Leipzig, 1901, vol. I. p. 544 ff .

1 Antiquitates, XX, 200.

3 Bibliotheca, col. 33.

182 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

quoted as mentioning either.1 It is in the reign of Trajan
that R. Joshua ben Hananiah2 speaks of Minim, and R.
Eliezer quoted a legal decision of Jesus on the authority of
one of his disciples.3 According to R. Eliezer 's informant,
the question had arisen whether it was permissible to bring
money gained by prostitution into the temple, and Jesus
had decided in the affirmative, citing Mich a i, 7 and adding
"it has come from uncleanness and it shall go to the place
of uncleanness." The genuineness of this saying is highly
improbable. But there is good Talmudic authority for the
view that in the reign of Trajan a marked hostility existed
between Jews and Jewish Christians (Ebionites, Naz-
araeans4) ; while this cannot be shown to have existed before
his time. In the decades immediately preceding the publi-
cation of Celsus's book, the conception of Jesus presented
with variations in the Talmudic literature must have shaped
itself. There is not the slightest sign that it was based on
any other sources than Christian writings. The peculiarity
of this Jewish interpretation seems to be due, partly to an
honest attempt to discover the historic truth behind what
was recognized as legends, partly to an instinctive horror
of the new direction Christian thought was taking, partly
to a sense of danger to Judaism itself. One cannot doubt
that Jewish teachers honestly believed the story of the
virgin-birth to be designed to cover up the disgrace of an
illegitimate birth, that the reported flight to Egypt indicated
the place where Jesus acquired his extraordinary power, that
the miracles ascribed to him were actually wrought by
magic, that his intimacy with women implied immoral rela-

1 The silence of R. Jochanan ben Zakkai is most remarkable, as he
frequently disputed with Sadducees (Jadaim, TV, 6), Boethusians
(Menachot, 65), and Pagans (Chullin, 27, Bekoroth, 8).

2Shabbath, 116a al.

8 Aboda Zara, 16b, 17a; KoTieleth rabba to I, 8; Josephta Chullin,
ii, 24.

4 Joel, BlicJce in die Religionsgeschichte, II, 1893, p. 91 ff., is no
doubt right in finding "the house of the Ebionites" and "the house
of the Nazaraeans, referred to in Shabbath, 116a, under the changed
form "house of Abidan" and "house of Nazarfa,"

THE SECONDARY SOURCES 183

tions, that his tleath as a blasphemer was brought about in
accordance with the prescribed methods of judicial pro-
cedure. The deification of Jesus, and the practices of some
Christian churches, including apparently the use of images,
could only be looked upon with alarm. As an ever increas-
ing number of Jews were driven away from Palestine and
scattered in the Koman world, there was danger both of their
being affected by the tendencies of thought prevailing
among Hellenistic Jews and of their abandoning ancestral
customs under the pressure of Roman persecution.

Neither Pagan nor Jewish sources give us any reliable in-
formation concerning Jesus. Such knowledge as we find
can everywhere be traced to Christian sources, with the
possible exception of a statement by Tacitus which may
have been derived from official Eoman records. But the
bulk of early Christian literature does not yield much more.
The Apologies of Quadratus (ca. 125), Aristides (ca. 129),
Aristo of Pella (ca. 135), Justin (ca. 150) and Tatian (ca.
170) present the views of Christian thinkers in the second
century; but aside from an occasional saying of Jesus de-
rived from some lost gospel and at least worthy of consider-
ation, they throw no light on the teaching of Jesus. Still
less information is to be obtained from such works as The
Teaching of the Twelve, a combination of a Jewish writing
of uncertain date, called The Two Ways, and a Christian
hortatory address, written ca. 150 A. D., The Memoirs of
Hegesippus, completed ca. 180 A. D., the Treatise on the
Resurrection by Athenagoras, of about the same age, and
the fragments of Gnostic commentaries and dissertations
that have come down to us. Valuable as are the excerpts
of Papias, they do not add a single reliable fact to the
knowledge we glean from the Synoptic Gospels. Among the
apocalyptic writings of the Early Church the most impor-
tant seem to be the Revelation of John, the Revelation of
Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, and
the Sibylline Oracles ; but it may be doubted whether any
Jewish apocalypse was preserved by the Church without
some interpolation, correction, or accidental change. Such

184 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

alterations of the original text are plainly visible in the
apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, in the Ethiopic Enoch, in
the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, in the Testament
of Abraham, and in the Jewish Sibylline books. None of
the Christian Sibyllists seems to have lived before the sec-
ond century. Hermas apparently wrote his Shepherd
about 150 A. D. The Revelation of Peter was probably
composed not much later. It is particularly important for
the light it throws upon the influence of Orphic speculation
on the development of Christian eschatology. It was highly
esteemed at the end of the second century, as is evident from
the fact that in the Muratorianum it is mentioned side by
side with the Revelation of John. Concerning the Revela-
tion of Paul little is known.

The Tubingen school regarded the Revelation of John as
the genuine work of John, the son of Zebedee, the immediate
disciple of Jesus, and consequently as a document of the
primitive Jewish Christianity. This was a serious mistake,
as practically all independent students recognize to-day. In
its present form, this apocalypse cannot be older than the
last years of the reign of Domitian. This has been shown
quite conclusively by Harnack.1 Nevertheless, Baur was
right in feeling the presence here and there of a distinctly
Jewish spirit. The explanation lies in the fact that some
sections, notably chapters xi-xiii, xvii-xviii, seem to have
been derived from a previously existing Jewish apocalypse.
From different points of view this conviction has been
reached by Vischer, Harnack, Gunkel, AATellhausen, Pfleid-
erer and others. This Jewish apocalypse probably belongs
to the time immediately before the conquest of Jerusalem
in 70 A. D. Wellhausen is probably right in assigning to
the same period the little Apocalypse of Jesus embodied in
the Synoptic Gospels (Matth. xxiv, Mark xiii, Luke xxi).
It may have formed a part of the work quoted in Luke xi,
49 as " The Wisdom of God. ' ' Whether this was originally
a Christian product, may be doubted. At any rate, a long

1 Geschichte der Altchristlichen Llteratur, II, 1897, p. 245 ff. It is
probable, however, that there are later additions.

THE SECONDARY SOURCES 185

period must have passed, as Wellhausen has recognized, be-
fore the reference of the personified Wisdom to the murder
of Zechariah ben Barachiah, which occurred during the
siege of Jerusalem, can have been placed upon the lips of
Jesus. A careful criticism can no more use this Synoptic
Apocalypse than the Revelation of John as a source of the
teaching of Jesus or as coming from his immediate disciples.

Old Christian literature was rich in Acts of the Apostles.
There were Gnostic Acts of the Apostles, Ebionitish Acts of
the Apostles, Travels of Peter, Travels of Paul, Acts of
Paul and Thecla, Travels of James, Travels of John, and
others. The Leucine Acts of John are especially inter-
esting, because they show the wider prevalence of the pe-
culiar type of thought found in the Fourth Gospel. An
appreciative estimate of this literature has recently been
given by Pfleiderer.1 It is not pretended that any of these
works adds to our knowledge of Jesus, or of the thought of
his immediate disciples. The canonical Acts brings us far
nearer to the beginnings. The compiler of this work intro-
duces himself in the preface as identical with the author
of the Third Gospel. Style and literary methods are in
harmony with this claim. The Tubingen school found in
his presentation of history a conscious purpose to cloak over
the differences between Paul and Jewish Christianity. If
the genuineness of the Pauline epistles to the Galatians, the
Corinthians and the Romans is admitted, no other conclusion
seems at first possible, so marked is the contrast between the
Paul of these epistles and the Paul of Acts. On the other
hand, those who, like Bruno Bauer, Loman, Steck and Van
Manen, think it impossible to ascribe these epistles to Paul,
and find in Acts a representation of this apostle that is
nearer to the historic reality than the radical of the epistles,
are as far from making the compiler an impartial and
thoroughly reliable historian. Independent scholars are
now all agreed as to the inability of the author to place him-
self objectively in the period he describes, and recognize
that this failure is due, not so much to any definite purpose

1 Das Urchristentmn2, 1902.

186 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

or tendency, as to the natural prepossessions of his age, and
his distance in time from the events related. Hence he was
unable to comprehend the nature of the early gift of ' ' speak-
ing with tongues," and caused the apostles to preach in
languages they had not acquired, ascribed to them all kinds
of miracles, failed to appreciate the conflicts that once must
have raged, endowed Peter with the spirit of Paul, and
made Paul walk about with a shaven head to show the
myriads of believers in Jerusalem his zeal for the Law.
He probably wrote in the beginning of the second century.
But it is also generally admitted to-day that he used
earlier sources. The first person plural found exclusively
in some sections reveals one of these. This "We-Source"
rightly ranks among the earliest of our New Testament
writings. There is no improbability in the assumption that
it was written by one of the companions of Paul, and the
most plausible theory is that he was none else than Luke,
to whom for this reason the whole book was ascribed, and on
account of the preface consequently also the Third Gospel.
While this source gives us some information of the most
authentic character concerning Paul, it adds nothing, how-
ever, to our knowledge of Jesus. Van Manen, who regards
Luke as the author of the ' ' We-Source, ' ' suggests that in
the first part of his work the compiler used two other
sources, one being the "Acts of Peter," and the other the
"Acts of Paul."1 Neither of them has been preserved in
the original form, and there is every indication that the
compiler has used them with the same freedom of modifica-
tion and expansion that characterizes his gospel, but also
with the same retention of early and valuable features of
tradition. Thus it is manifest that many legends cluster
about the nucleus of fact in his account of the establishment
of the church in Jerusalem, and that it would be hazardous
to affirm that the time indicated is more correct than the
manner described. Yet there is no reason to doubt that the
conviction that Jesus had been raised from the dead, and

*De Eandelingen der Apostelen, 1890; Handleiding voor de oud-
christelijke letterlcunde, 1900.

THE SECONDARY SOURCES 187

would return on the clouds to restore the kingdom to Israel
some time after his death, brought together a group of be-
lievers in Jerusalem who, under the influence of his spirit,
shared with one another what they had, and lived in accord-
ance with that word of the Master which has been preserved
only in Acts : "It is more blessed to give than to receive. ' '

The epistles of the "apostolic fathers," Barnabas,
Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, are important for the testi-
mony they bear concerning the religious ideas or eccle-
siastical institutions of the period in which they were written,
and also for the indications they give, by direct quotation
or allusion, of the Christian writings then extant. It is
recognized by critics of all schools that the epistle of Bar-
nabas cannot have been written by this companion of Paul,
but was composed, probably in Alexandria, in the reign of
Hadrian (117-138 A. D.). A number of writings are as-
cribed to Clement of Rome. The most important among
these are two epistles to the church in Corinth, the Homilies
and the Recognitions. It is universally admitted that the
Homilies and Recognitions are later than the epistles, and
of different authorship. The anti-Pauline "Sermons of
Peter, ' ' one of the sources used, which is carefully to be dis-
tinguished from the Pauline "Preaching of Peter," may
have been written in its earliest form about 135 A. D.
What other sources were employed, what the relation of the
Homilies to the Recognitions is, and whether these works,
known to Origen, were compiled in the second or in the be-
ginning of the third century, cannot, in the present state of
the question, be decided. The second epistle of Clement is
also generally regarded as pseudonymous, and Harnack1 is
probably right in considering it as a sermon preached not
long before 170 A. D.

The first epistle of Clement does not itself claim to be a
work of any man, but to be an epistle of the church of Rome
to the church of Corinth. From some fragments of the
memoirs of Dionysius of Corinth, written ca. 170 and pre-
served by Eusebius, it is evident that it was then supposed

1 Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur, II, 1897, p. 438 ff.

188 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

in Corinth that the first epistle was written by Clement.
Dionysius probably assumed that it must have been written
by the bishop of Rome at the time of the disturbance in the
Corinthian church, and that Clement then held that office.
This may have been the view of his contemporaries in Rome,
as excerpts from Hegesippus in Eusebius show. The source
of both statements may have been a list of Roman bishops
drawn up, as Harnack has shown, not long before the time
of Hegesippus, and apparently used by Irenaeus in 180.
This list mentioned the Corinthian disorder and the dis-
patch of the letter as occurring in the time of Bishop
Clement. But it has been conclusively proved that the mon-
archical episcopate did not exist in Rome before Anicetus
(156-166). "Bishop Clement" seems to be a creation of a
later time, based on the mention of an otherwise unknown
Clement in Philippians iv, 3, or on the vague memory of
Consul Flavius Clemens, put to death by Domitian for
"atheism," Jewish leanings and neglect of duty, or a con-
fusion of both. That the Consul cannot have written this
epistle is clear from the fact that the author was manifestly
a Jew. There is no allusion to Gnostic heresies, and no sign
of the monarchical episcopate in the epistle. But both of
these phenomena appeared later in Rome than in the East.
The author was apparently familiar with I Peter, which
was written at the end of Trajan's reign. A date about 120-
125 is most probable.

Fifteen epistles have been ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch.
Two to John, and one to the Virgin Mary, are extant only in
Latin, and were published in 1495. They are universally
rejected. Of the other twelve there is a longer and a
shorter recension. The former is represented by the Latin
text published in 1498, the Greek text published in 1557,
and the Armenian text published in 1783 and 1849. It con-
tains, in addition to a letter sent by Mary of Cassobola
(Castabala?) before the departure of Ignatius for Rome,
his answer to her, written in Antioch, the epistles to the
churches in Ephesus, Magnesia on the Maeander, Tralles,
and Rome, written in Smyrna, the epistles to Philadelphia,

THE SECONDAEY SOUECES 189

Smyrna, and Polycarp, written in Troas, the epistles to Tar-
sus, Antioch and Deacon Hero of Antioch, written in
Philippi, and the epistle to the church in Philippi, sent from
Khegium in Italy. The latter recension is represented by
an Anglo-Latin version published by Usher in 1644, contain-
ing the same works, though shorter in some of the epistles,
and the Greek Codex Mediceus, ending in the middle of the
ninth epistle, published by Isaac Voss in 1646. In 1845 a
Syriac text, containing the epistles to Polycarp, Ephesians
and Romans, was published by Cureton. Especially the let-
ter to the Ephesians is much shorter than in either of the
Greek recensions.

All Ignatian epistles were rejected as spurious by Flacius,
Calvin, Chemnitz, Dallaeus, Scaliger and others. An im-
portant distinction was made in 1623 by Vedelius who called
attention to the fact that only seven epistles were known to
Eusebius, and rejected all but these. Since then a practical
agreement has been reached among scholars, Catholic and
Protestant alike, that the epistles to Mary of Cassobola, the
Tarsians, the Antiochenes, Hero, and the Philippians,
falsely claim to have been written by Ignatius. None of
them can be earlier than the beginning of the third century,
and the Philippians is evidently much later; but the igno-
rance of Eusebius or his source in regard to them does not
necessarily show that they belong to the fourth century.
Only three of the seven epistles known to Eusebius are
quoted by earlier writers. Curiously enough, these are pre-
cisely the three epistles to the Ephesians, the Romans and
Polycarp, which are found in the Syriac version, published
by Cureton. The epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp is men-
tioned in a spurious addition to Polycarp 's epistle to the
Philippians, that to the Romans was known to Irenaeus, and
that to the Ephesians to Origen. But even this earliest col-
lection of three epistles seems to have had a gradual growth.
The epistle to the Romans is different in style and character
from all the others, and appears to be the earliest. The let-
ter to Polycarp is clearly later. Ephesians seems to have

190 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

been expanded by the hand that wrote Magnesians, Tral-
lians, Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans.

Romans is evidently the starting point of this Ignatian
epistolary literature. There is as yet no sign of the great
interest of the later epistles: prevention of the spread of
Gnostic heresies and inculcation of obedience to the bishop.
The absence of any allusion to the authority of the bishop is
all the more remarkable, if the monarchical episcopate, in
the other epistles deemed of such importance that no church
can be conceived without it, was still unknown in Rome.
The whole emphasis is on the eagerness of Ignatius to be-
come a martyr, and his anxiety lest the intercession of the
Romans prevent the fulfilment of his desire. This is intel-
ligible in the first effort to write in the name of Ignatius
and presupposes only the legend which carried him to Rome
to suffer his martyrdom there, and the development of that
morbid aspiration for martyrdom to which Marcus Aurelius,
Celsus and Caeeilius in the Octavius of Minucius Felix refer.
How early the legend of his Roman martyrdom started, we
do not know. It is possible that Lucian in his work De
morte Peregrini, written 178 A. D., draws upon the story of
Ignatius for his sketch of Proteus Peregrinus, the philos-
opher who publicly burnt himself to death in Olympia in
165 A. D. All critics admit that by that time the seven
epistles are likely to have been in existence. But the legend
rests on no solid foundation ; it is manifestly an imitation of
Paul's journey, and can be shown to be a fiction by abso-
lutely unimpeachable historic testimony. Johannes Ma-
lalas, the Antiochene historian, on the basis of some good old
source, states that Ignatius suffered martyrdom, not in
Rome, but in Antioch, in December, 115 A. D., when Trajan
was in the city, and the fact is independently vouched for
by a Syrian chronographer. The more this statement con-
trasts with the reigning tradition in the church, and the
more difficult it is to conceive of a motive for its invention,
the more the conviction forces itself upon us that this is the
historic truth. Neither Romans alone, nor the three Syriac
epistles, nor the seven known to Eusebius, nor the twelve

THE SECONDAEY SOURCES 191

found in the Greek manuscripts, any more than the whole
number of fifteen ascribed to Ignatius, can be regarded as
genuine. Some who have maintained the genuineness of the
seven have been willing to go as late as to 130 and even 140
A. D., assuming Ignatius to have been living as long as that.
The fourth decade of the second century is not improbable.

While it may not be capable of strict proof, there is no
good reason why the main part of the epistle of Polycarp to
the Philippians should not have been written by the Bishop
of Smyrna who suffered martyrdom in 166 A. D. When
the epistle was written is uncertain, but probably not before
the middle of the century. It was known to Irenaeus in the
reign of Commodus (180-192 A. D.). Ch. xiii, not found in
the Greek text, parts of ch. ix, and other sections, are inter-
polations.

Seven so-called Catholic Epistles in the New Testament
are ascribed to immediate disciples or brothers of Jesus. It
would be of the profoundest interest to the historian, if it
could be shown that ecclesiastical tradition was right in re-
garding two brothers of Jesus as the authors of the epistles
of James and Jude. How much information concerning
his early life they must have possessed ! What light their
manner of thought and speech would throw upon his !
But there is not the slightest indication in the epistle of
James that the writer, who styles himself ' ' a servant of God
and of Jesus Christ," either was, or endeavored to speak
in the name of, the brother of Jesus. Jacob was a common
name among the Jews. The author was a Hellenistic Jew,
to whom the church was the new Israel, the question of the
validity of the letter of the law and the perpetuity of the
cult no longer existed, the one-sicledness, artificiality and
tendency to anti-nomianism in the Pauline doctrine of jus-
tification by faith were painfully apparent, the highest
ethical demands of the law and the ' ' golden rule ' ' of Jesus
formed together the "royal law of liberty," and the social
and economic inequalities constituted the gravest danger of
the church. The epistle was probably written ca. 150 A. D.

Jude presents itself as an epistle written by a brother of

192 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

James. By James, no doubt the brother of Jesus, the head
of the church in Jerusalem, is meant. This cautious term
seems to have been occasioned by the idea that Jesus cannot
have had any real brothers. The author is far removed
from the apostolic age. He looks back and calls to mind
"the words spoken aforetime by the apostles of our Lord
Jesus Christ. ' ' The heretics he combats seem to belong to
the Gnostic school of Carpocrates, or his son Epiphanes.
His quotations from Enoch are not decisive of his date, as
we do not know whether chs. xxxvii-lxxi formed a part of
the volume with which he was acquainted. The epistle can
scarcely have been written before 150 A. D.

Five epistles are assigned by tradition to immediate
disciples of Jesus, three to John, and two to Peter. I John
makes no claim for itself. It was evidently ascribed to the
apostle John, chiefly because of its unmistakable similarity
to the Fourth Gospel. The decision in regard to that Gos-
pel necessarily affects the epistle, whether it is placed im-
mediately before or after the greater work. The most prob-
able view is that it was written later than the Gospel, not
long after 140 A. D. by a disciple of the evangelist, possibly
in his name. II and III John were reckoned among the an-
tilegomena and, like Jude and II Peter, not found at all in
the early Edessene Bible. They were probably written by
the same man, ca. 150 A. D. Whether he meant to convey
the impression that he was the "Presbyter John," whom
Papias knew as a contemporary of Aristion and a different
man from the apostle John, is doubtful. He does not give
his name.

I Peter claims to be an epistle of Peter to the dispersion,
i. e., the scattered Christians in Pontus, Galatia, Cappa-
docia, Asia and Bithynia. Its object is to encourage them
to suffer patiently persecution for the Christian name. The
epistle shows a marked dependence upon some of the
Pauline epistles, including Hebrews. The earliest persecu-
tion known to have affected this region is that under Trajan
to which the letters of Pliny bear testimony. The epistle
was probably written not far from 117 A. D. II Peter

THE SECONDAEY SOURCES 193

claims to be the work of Peter, an eye-witness of the trans-
figuration, and the writer of the first epistle. It is recog-
nized by all critical students that the claim is false. It was
probably written about 170 A. D. Instead of being the
precious words of brothers and disciples of Jesus, these
epistles are the utterances of men who lived from eighty to
one hundred and thirty years after his death, full of interest
and vital truth, but throwing no light on his life or teaching.

Fourteen epistles have been ascribed to Paul. That to
the Hebrews, already doubted by Carlstadt, Grotius, Semler,
and others before the nineteenth century, and to-day uni-
versally regarded as by another author than Paul, was
probably written in Rome toward the end of Trajan's reign,
somewhat earlier than I Peter.. The so-called pastoral
epistles, I and II Timothy and Titus, were not included in
Marcion's collection of Pauline epistles. The genuineness
of I and II Timothy was doubted by J. E. C. Schmidt, that
of I Timothy by Schleiermacher, and that of all three by
Eichhorn and De Wette, but Baur caused the spuriousness
of these epistles to be recognized by all independent investi-
gators. The attempts of Harnack and others to save a few
lines have not been convincing. The Gnostic heresies re-
buked in II Timothy and Titus seem to be less advanced and
the bishops are not yet clearly differentiated from the pres-
byters. It therefore seems probable that these epistles were
written in the reign of Hadrian. I Timothy apparently
refers to Marcion's famous book entitled "Antitheses" in
warning against "the antitheses of a gnosis falsely so
called," and it is familiar with the monarchical episcopate,
though the place of writing seems to be Rome. I Timothy
may on this account be regarded as written some twenty
years later.

Among the so called "letters of the captivity," Ephesians,
Colossians and Philemon form a group apparently coming
from the same period. The genuineness of the "twin-
epistles, ' ' Ephesians and Colossians, was questioned already
by Evanson, that of Ephesians by Usteri, De Wette,
Schleiermacher and Schwegler, and that of Colossians espe-
13

194 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

cially by Mayerhoff, before Baur more fully exhibited the
situation they reflect. In Marcion's collection, Ephesians
was addressed to the Laodiceans; many eminent scholars
have held that it originally had no address at all. It is a
homily on the unity of the Church. The author looks back
upon "the holy apostles" as the foundation of the church.
He is influenced by Gnostic ideas. I Peter, Acts and I
Clement were apparently known to him. The type of
thought is earlier than that in the Johannine writings. The
epistle seems to have been used by the authors of the Teach-
ing of the Twelve, Hermas, Second Clement and Polycarp,
and written about 130 A. D. Colossians reveals the same
Gnostic affinities, the same speculations about celestial hier-
archies, the same Christology, the same conception of the
Church. The false Gnosticism combated seems, however, to
be of a somewhat different character, legalistic, ascetic,
probably Ebionitish. This accounts for the similarity in
some places to the language of the earliest epistles, which
some scholars have sought to explain by the theory of a
genuine nucleus expanded by the author of Ephesians.
Philemon is closely akin to Colossians, as Baur recognized.
Eph. i, 15-17 and Col. i, 4 are used in vss 4-6, as Holtzmann
has shown ; the question of slavery is much discussed in pre-
cisely these three epistles ; the same persons receive greetings
in Colossians and Philemon. Steck has rightly urged
against its genuineness the improbability of a Phrygian
slave running away either to Caesarea or to Rome, and being
sent back all the way to Phrygia, and of the promise made
by the prisoner to pay Philemon for his loss. He regards
Pliny's letters to Sabinian on behalf of a freedman as hav-
ing furnished the model. But it is not improbable that
there existed a tradition to the effect that Paul had sent back
a runaway slave. Colossians and Philemon are probably a

little later than Ephesians.1

JThe ablest defense of the genuineness of the Epistles to the
Colossians and Philemon is that by J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul's
Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, 1875. But it fails to do
full justice to the arguments that may be urged against this assump-
tion.

THE SECONDARY SOURCES 195

The epistle to the Philippians differs radically from the
group just considered. Baur and Bruno Bauer saw indica-
tions of Gnostic ideas in ii, 6 ff . ; but the passage may easily
be an interpolation, and Holsten's interpretation renders
the Gnostic character doubtful. There is reason for iden-
tifying the Clement of iv, 3 with the hypothetical author of
one or both of the Roman homilies sent to Corinth. Hol-
sten's examination of this epistle is a perfect model of the
cautious and comprehensive, fair and searching criticism
in which he excelled. He was led to reject its authenticity
and yet at the same time to assume that it was written not
long after the death of Paul.1 The advance beyond the
ideas of the great epistles on which he based his conclusion
is indeed noticeable, but it is scarcely more marked than
that from Galatians to Romans, and is in the same direction.
Van Manen objects to Holsten's method of comparing
Philippians with four epistles quietly assumed to be gen-
uine. If Holsten never examined the genuineness of these
epistles, because even Baur had left them unquestioned, he
was indeed at fault. Science assumes nothing, is in honor
bound to question every tradition. But if an examination
utterly indifferent to the correctness of ecclesiastical tradi-
tion or the prevailing views at any time should find reasons
for believing that some of these epistles, or the earliest forms
of some of them, are genuine, it would be both legitimate
and necessary to use them as criteria. The absence of the
Gnostic element, the prominence of the fundamental prob-
lems of the earlier letters, even with a calmer discussion of
them, and the marked similarity of style, must then be de-
termining. That is Van Manen 's own method. It is cer-
tainly not in Philippians itself he has found the reasons
for assigning this epistle to so late a date as 125-150 A. D.
He has placed it there, because, on grounds less apparent in
this than any other epistle, he has come to the conviction
that the entire Pauline literature was written at that time.
Philippians was probably written by Paul ca. 63 A. D. in
Rome.

1 Jahrbiicher fiir protestantische Theologie, 1875 and 1876.

196 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

The genuineness of I Thessalonians was apparently sus-
pected already by the author of II Thessalonians. In mod-
ern times Baur, Volkmar, Holsten, Steck, Van Manen, and
others have indicated many reasons for regarding it as
spurious. The language used seems to presuppose a longer
existence of the church in Thessalonica than only a few
months; the fierce denunciation of the Jews is all the more
strange if, contrary to Acts xvii, pagans converted from
their idols are addressed ; ' ' the wrath that has already come
upon them to the end" can scarcely refer to anything else
than the destruction of Jerusalem ; ' ' the words of the Lord ' '
concerning his coming seem to have been drawn from some
apocalypse of the type that flourished in the reign of
Domitian. The early part of Trajan's reign is the most
probable date. As for II Thessalonians, the conclusions of
J. E. C. Schmidt, Mayerhoff, De Wette, Baur and his school
have only been strengthened by the most recent studies of
the epistle by Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Wrede
and Hollmann. The advanced form of the Antichrist
legend, the suspicion cast on I Thessalonians in spite of the
unconscious imitation of its language, and the reference to
the greetings written in Paul's own hand as a sign of gen-
uineness, are decisive. On the other hand, the absence of
any sign of Gnosticism should be noted. The epistle was
probably written ca. 110 A. D.

The most burning question in new Testament isagogies at
the present time concerns the genuineness of the four epis-
tles, Galatians, I and II Corinthians and Romans, that were
regarded by Baur and the Tubingen school as the work of
Paul. The doubts in regard to Romans expressed by Evan-
son1 had attracted little attention. Sixty years later Bruno
Bauer2 presented his reasons for believing that the entire
Pauline literature was written in the second century. In
1877 he particularly emphasized the relation of the Pauline
thought to that of Seneca and the Stoics.3 The next year

1 The Dissonance of the four generally received Evangelists, 1792.

2 KritiTc der Paulinischen Brief e, 1850-1852.
s Christus und die Caesaren, 1877.

THE SECONDARY SOURCES 197

Allard Pierson1 was led to reject the Pauline epistles as
spurious. Of greater importance were the careful and
methodical studies that A. D. Loman2 began to publish in
1882. His treatment of the external evidence was especially
convincing. Marcus Joel3 accepted his conclusions as to
the spuriousness of all the Pauline epistles, and used ef-
fectively the scanty Talmudic material to show that there
was a long period of comparatively friendly relations be-
tween the believers in Jesus as the coming Messiah and the
other members of the Jewish community before the final
break came. J. C. Matthes, F. Van Loon, H. U. Mey-
boom, J. A. Bruins adopted the views of Loman. In 1888
Rudolf Steck4 wrote a commentary on Galatians from the
new point of view. The ablest and most indefatigable de-
fender of this position since 1888 has been Van Manen.5
His articles in the Encyclopaedia Biblica have brought the
question to the fore in the English speaking world, where
W. B. Smith6 has also championed the second century origin
of the Pauline epistles. Most recently, the origin of these
epistles in the second century and in Rome has been main-
tained by A. Kalthoff7 in his attempt to understand Chris-
tianity as an expression of a peculiar social rather than in-
dividual consciousness, the aspiration and upward move-
ment of the Jewish slave proletariat in Rome.

The following are the most important arguments urged
by these scholars and thinkers in favor of their view.
There is no external evidence of the existence of any Paul-
ine epistle before the second century. These writings are
not letters in any strict sense, the epistolary form being
nothing but a literary device. It is impossible to maintain
their unity, and most natural to look upon them as com-
pilations of already existing literary material. Almost all

1 De bergrede en andere synoptische fragmenten, 1878.

2 Questiones Paulinae in Theologische Tijdschrift, 1882, 1883, 1886.
8 Blicke in die BeligionsgescMchte, II, 1883.

4 Der Galaterbricf nach seiner Echtheit untersucht, 1888.
*De Brief aan die Bomeinen, 1891; De brieven aan de Korinthiers,
1896.

6 Hibbert Journal, 1903, and elsewhere.

7 Das Christusproblem, 1902.

193 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

other epistles of this kind are pseudonymous. A number
of epistles that claim to be by Paul have been generally
recognized as spurious. There is no such difference between
the four and the rest as to justify the opinion that more than
half a century lies between them. The author of Acts does
not seem to be acquainted with them. The character and
teaching of Paul, according to these epistles, are very dif-
ferent from the representation given in Acts, which does not
suggest a radical who has broken completely with Judaism.
A teacher more in harmony with the immediate disciples of
Jesus is to be expected rather than a radical and a reformer
so soon after the establishment of Christianity. The author
of the epistles was manifestly influenced by Seneca, if not
by Epietetus. The class consciousness of the proletariat
speaks through him. It is inconceivable that a stranger
should address the church of Eome as he does, and one does
not get any definite conception of the conditions of this
church or its membership. The appearance of the radical
of the epistles twenty-five years after the death of Jesus
could be explained only by a psychological miracle, as im-
possible as the physical miracle by which tradition ex-
plains it.

It should be granted at once that it is not possible to prove
by external evidence the existence of any Pauline epistle in
the first century. Those theologians are easily satisfied who
refer to the mention of a Pauline epistle by Marcion as ' ' the
best possible external evidence. ' ' A great deal may happen
in eighty years. The genuineness of the principal epistles
must therefore be decided solely on internal grounds. It
should also be freely admitted that, in the absence of com-
petent external testimony, only a high degree of probability,
but never absolute certainty, can be reached. It ought to be
needless to remark that, in a matter thus necessarily left
to the subjective judgment of the investigator, dogmatism
and impatience with dissenting views are wholly out of
place. Are these epistles letters at all ? The personal com-
munications found among Egyptian papyri are very differ-
ent. On the other hand, numerous examples of epistles

THE SECONDARY SOURCES 199

clearly intended for a larger circle of readers or hearers
have come to us. Many of these unquestionably were
pseudepigrapha written in the name of distinguished men
with the whole epistolary apparatus of personal references
and greetings. What we would call an essay, a treatise, a
tract very often took this form. But this furnishes no
ground for doubting that such a discussion of important
questions was occasionally sent by a religious propagandist
in the form of an epistle to a cult society in whose welfare
he was deeply interested. The epistles of Seneca often read
like treatises. Why should not Paul 's ?

It is of course true that the absolute integrity of the four
epistles cannot be maintained. The older they are, the less
likely are they to have come down to us in their original
form. The longer the period was that elapsed before they
began to enjoy canonical authority, the more the text must
have suffered through careless copying. The less accus-
tomed to a cautious and reverent handling of holy scriptures
the circles were through which they passed, the more prob-
ability is there of changes, corrections and additions. It
would be unreasonable to expect of Hellenistic Jews, fresh
converts from paganism and Gnostic Christians such ac-
curacy in the transmission of epistles, not claiming in any
way to be inspired oracles, as the Palestinian Jews were
just learning to secure by various artificial means in the
case of recognized Scriptures. Van Manen has conclusively
shown that Marcion possessed an earlier form of Galatians
than the somewhat expanded Catholic epistle. But his copy
had no doubt already been interpolated. Signs of correct-
ing pens are seen in the story of Hagar and Sinai. The
whole allegorical interpretation is likely to be an interpola-
tion. It can scarcely be earlier than the fall of Jerusalem
and the carrying away of captives in 70 A. D. Baur1
recognized that Eomans xv and xvi are a later addition.
Straatman2 is probably right in regarding xii-xiv as such.

1 Semler and Eichhorn had already espoused the view that these
chapters, though by Paul, did not originally belong to this epistle.

2 Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1868, p. 38 ff.

200 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

The account of the appearances of Jesus after his resurrec-
tion in I Corinthians xv, 5-11 seems to be a later insertion.
Only a very searching literary criticism will be able to dis-
cover what the original form of II Corinthians was.
Gradual corruption and enlargement belong to the literary
vicissitudes of all ancient manuscripts. But Van Manen's
theory that these epistles are compilations does not seem
probable. In the writing of history this was the common
method. But why should the writer of an epistle be sup-
posed to draw upon a new literary source every time he
changes his subject? And where would his literary ma-
terial come from? In what form would these little frag-
ments have existed before ?

There is much force in the consideration that none of the
epistles ascribed to Peter and John, James and Jude, Clem-
ent and Barnabas, Ignatius and Hermas can be regarded as
genuine, and that some Pauline letters must be rejected.
But there are genuine epistles as well as fictitious ones that
have come down from pagan antiquity. There would be a
special reason for writing epistles in the name of the im-
mediate disciples of Jesus and his brothers, if there existed
epistles of Paul, and the writing of more epistles in his
name would be natural, if a few had at least enjoyed a long
prestige.

Whether the difference between Galatians and Ephesians
is such as to demand sixty years between them, is a question
not easily answered. But it must be apparent to every
student that the world of thought into which the former
ushers us is altogether different from that of the latter.
Has the Law eternal validity? Must a Gentile believer in
Jesus as the Messiah be circumcised? Must he keep the
distinction between clean and unclean food? Must he ob-
serve the sabbath? Must he abstain from meat offered to
idols? These are the questions that occupy the minds of
the Galatians. They were not of a speculative, but of an
entirely practical nature. They must have arisen as soon
as followers of Jesus began to proclaim his gospel in the
Hellenistic world. It was not among the Aramaic-speaking

THE SECONDAEY SOURCES 201

Christians of Palestine that these questions would be likely
to cause a disturbance, but among the Greek-speaking Jews,
who would naturally be divided among themselves. How
long the conflict must have raged over these fundamental
issues before they were driven into the background, we have
no means of determining. But the time indicated does not
seem excessive. When Ephesians was written, the Church
has been completely severed from the mother-body, and the
Gnostic speculations occupy the minds of the Christians.
The preparation for this may be seen in Acts, where the
older apostles have been unconsciously assimilated to Paul,
and Paul brought into more harmonious relations to them.
It is impossible to say whether the author knew any letter of
Paul. A letter somewhere in Galatia, two or three in
Greece, and one in Italy, even a number of copies scattered
here and there in these churches, may very well have escaped
his attention. And if he had read any of them, it is likely
to have been uncritically and in the light of the traditions,
conditions, and impressions of his own age.

It is right to maintain that these epistles must be placed,
regardless of tradition, where they belong in the develop-
ment of religious thought. Declamations against the theory
of natural evolution will have no effect. If the larger Paul-
ine epistles can be explained naturally as a product of sec-
ond century conditions, and as the work of Paul only by a
physical or psychical miracle, there should be no more hesi-
tancy in regard to them than in the case of the Fourth Gos-
pel or the Catholic Epistles. But in tracing the natural
development it is necessary to observe the different tend-
encies of life and thought within Judaism, and their un-
avoidable continuance among the Jews who became Chris-
tians. The very fact that they used the Greek language,
were in constant contact with Greeks, and lived at a distance
from temple and cult, exposed Hellenistic Jews to influences
of thought not felt at all, or at least not so directly, by Ara-
maic-speaking Jews living in Palestine. So also the very
fact that they spoke Aramaic, heard the Hebrew Scriptures
read, lived in the midst of their native institutions, and were

202 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH

bound up with the national life, tended to make the Pales-
tinian Christians conservative. An outbreak of radicalism
is as natural in a Hellenistic Jew as a keen resentment
against it on the part of Aramaic-speaking Jews in Judaea,
even if they had learned to look for the return of Jesus as
the Messiah. It is not legitimate to ask whether the thought
of Galatians can have developed in twenty-five years from
the faith of the Galilean disciples of Jesus immediately
after his death. The answer to this question must of course
be in the negative. Behind the larger Pauline epistles lies
the world of thought in which an educated Hellenistic Jew
lived, the world of Philo and of Seneca. The Paul of these
epistles is no more a miracle than is Philo, whose philosophy
cannot be explained by the book of Jubilees or the Pirqe
Aboth. A correct instinct led an early Christian to forge a
correspondence between Paul and Seneca. Bruno Bauer
was also right when he divined a relation between the Stoic
thought of Seneca and Paulinism. Pfleiderer,1 with true
insight, calls attention to this philosophico-religious atmos-
phere which must have existed in Tarsus, the native town of
Paul, in the first half of the first century. The great tend-
encies of thought and life are there before they find expres-
sion in a Philo, a Seneca, or a Paul. It is also vain to ask
whether a convert can become at once a reformer of the faith
he has embraced. That depends entirely upon his character
and the stage of development of the faith. If his conver-
sion meant a long stride from his former position, the
impetus that brought him there may easily carry him fur-
ther. If the cause with which he identified himself was
itself in its infancy, and seemed to him to imply a larger
principle than its defenders recognized, there is nothing
improbable in such a radicalism at the outset. In the case
of Paul, however, it was not until after years of reflection
that he seems to have appeared with his new interpretation
of the Gospel, based on the universalistic tendency so natural
to a Hellenistic Jew. The more earnestly it is attempted to
understand the actual evolution of Paulinism, the more im-
1 In Vrchristentum2, 1902.

THE SECONDARY SOURCES 203

perative it becomes to postulate a marked personality, in
whom the tendencies of Hellenistic Judaism and Palestinian
Pharisaism met, and took a new direction under the influ-
ence of a strong and peculiar Messianic conviction. His
appearance must have been followed, it would seem, by a
long conflict over just the issues most clearly seen in Gala-
tians. Finally, these issues could only be retired by the
gradual separation of the Christian church from its original
ethnic connection. Such a personality is suggested by the
earlier sources of Acts; such a conflict this historic work
cannot conceal ; such a shifting of the interest and the view-
point the author clearly manifests. In view of such facts as
are known to us, it remains most probable that the epistles
to the Galatians, the Corinthians and the Romans were writ-
ten by Paul between 56 and 60 A. D.

What evidential value, so far as the life and teaching of
Jesus are concerned, have the five epistles that may thus be
ascribed to Paul? In view of the reasonable doubts as to
the integrity of the present text, they must be used with
great caution, and details cannot be pressed. It may be
inferred, however, that in the reign of Nero there were
Christian cult-communities in Syria, Asia Minor, Greece and
Rome, in which the founder of the faith, Jesus, was believed
to have been a martyr, crucified in Judaea, to have been
raised again from the dead on the third day according to the
Hebrew Scriptures, and to be ready to return soon as the
Messiah. Concerning the nature of his Messiahship, and
the effect of his death and resurrection upon the Jewish law,
there were in these societies wide differences of opinion.
Paul himself maintained that Jesus had existed before his
earthly life as the celestial and archetypal man, that his
death revealed the insufficiency and temporary character of
the law, and freed the believer from all obligation to its
carnal commandments, and that his resurrection proved him
now to be the Son of God, the Lord of a new dispensation
destined to end only with the subjection of all things to God,
and the Spirit of Life, whose inwardly operating law brings
about the moral perfection which the Bible as an external

204 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

authority could not accomplish. While these views were
shared by many Hellenistic Jews who had embraced the new
faith, and their general tendency was agreeable to converted
pagans, however strange some of the Pauline conceptions
and methods of reasoning may have seemed to them, it is
evident from the epistles that the mother-church in Jeru-
salem looked upon Jesus as a prophet, mighty in word and
deed, who had been put to death by the rulers, but had been
raised by God and preserved in heaven, until the day when
he should appear as the Messiah to establish the kingdom of
Israel, and upon his death and resurrection as having no
effect on the validity of the law and the sacred customs en-
joined by it, such as circumcision, tabus, and festivals.
Aside from the crucifixion, not a single fact in the life of
Jesus can be gleaned from these epistles, nor do they record
a single saying of Jesus. With the uncertainty that rests
on the historical character of the Caesarean imprisonment,
the statements in Acts from which the duration of his mis-
sionary journeys has been computed, and the interpretation
of the fourteen-year period mentioned in Galatians, it is
quite impossible to determine how many years before his
appearance before Festus (60-62) Paul had the vision which
convinced him that Jesus had been raised from the dead,
and, in spite of his crucifixion, was the Messiah. It cannot
have been many years, however, after the death of Jesus.
There is no intimation that the disciples of Jesus had not
already reached the conviction that Jesus had been raised
from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures,
but rather probable that statements to this effect constituted
the psychological preparation of Paul for his ecstatic ex-
perience. If, therefore, little light is thrown by the Pauline
epistles upon the life and teaching of Jesus, they are never-
theless of great value as testimonies of one who, though he
did not know Jesus personally, knew his immediate disciples,
and cannot have been mistaken in regard to his historic ex-
istence in his own life-time and a few years before his con-
version, and also in reference to the early appearance of the
two ideas that Jesus had been raised from the dead and that
he would return to earth on the clouds of heaven.

CHAPTER IX

THE GOSPELS

Many gospels that were read and cherished by Chris-
tians in the second century failed to maintain their hold
upon the developing Catholic Church and to find a place
in its canon of Scriptures. The most important of these
seem to have been the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
the Gospel according to the Ebionites, the Gospel accord-
ing to the Egyptians, and the Gospel according to Peter.
The Gospel according to the Hebrews appears to have
existed both in its original Hebrew or Aramaic form and
in a Greek translation. Jerome claims to have seen and
translated it. But his translation is lost, and the quota-
tions do not permit us to form a true estimate of its char-
acter. That it was not identical with our Gospel accord-
ing to Matthew is clear both from the quotations and from
the fact that he felt it necessary to undertake a transla-
tion. "Whether it was written in Hebrew or in Aramaic
is uncertain. In the former case it would probably be
itself a translation. If Jerome had before him an Ara-
maic original, it is more likely to have been a descendant
of an early Palestinian gospel. This is, on the whole,
most probable. But it is, of course, unsafe to infer from
quotations of peculiar statements what this gospel may
have been in its original form. During three centuries of
use it had naturally gathered many interpolations and
accretions. Still less dependence can be placed on a
Greek version even in the time of Clement of Alexandria.
There is nothing to prevent the assumption that the Gos-
pel according to the Hebrews in its earliest form was a
copy of the first written Aramaic gospel. But at present

205

206 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

this is not capable of proof. The altogether trustworthy-
narrative in John vii, 53-viii, 11, seems to have been taken
from this gospel ; but whether the Fourth Evangelist him-
self introduced it, or anywhere else used this source, is
doubtful. It is equally uncertain whether the gospel in
any form was known to Justin Martyr. The Gospel ac-
cording to the Ebionites seems to be a later production.
The relations of this work in its earlier forms to the Gos-
pel according to the Hebrews cannot be determined. It
is perhaps hazardous to draw any conclusions as to the
general character of the Gospel according to the Egyp-
tians from the one extant quotation. But it seems safe to
infer that it was originally written in Greek and that it
reflected Hellenistic tendencies. Harnack is probably
right in ascribing to the same milieu, if not to this gospel
itself, the collections of "Sayings of Jesus" recently found
in Egypt. There is not the slightest reason to suppose
that any of these is genuine.

Of more immediate importance is the Gospel according
to Peter. A fragment of this work was discovered at
Akhmim, Egypt, in 1892. But it was probably written
in Syria. Serapion of Antioch (ca. 200 A. D.) refers to
it; and Harnack1 has shown that Justin Martyr used it.
The author was apparently familiar with the Synoptics,
but used them with great freedom and drew upon the
stream of oral tradition. He was not acquainted with
the Fourth Gospel. There is no indication of Gnosticism,
and its docetic tendency is not sufficiently marked to make
it a heretical gospel. Besides, a distinction between
Catholic and sectarian gospels did not exist in the period
before Justin Martyr. Some relatively ancient features
have been preserved in this gospel. Thus Jesus is cruci-
fied by the Jews, and his disciples return to Galilee before
they have seen their risen Master. His first appearance
to them in Galilee must therefore have been told in the

1 Bruchstiiclce des Evangeliums und der Apokalypse des Petrus2,
1893, p. 37 ff.

THE GOSPELS 207

lost conclusion to the gospel.1 On the other hand, there
are also some very late features. The gospel seems to
have been written between 130 and 150 A. D. The Gospel
according to Nicodemus, the Protevangelium Jacobi, and
other gospels of the infancy, are late works possessing no
historical value.

From the time of Irenaeus the four Gospels according
to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John have enjoyed greater
authority than all others. A distinction must be made,
however, between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics.
In regard to the former there was a difference of opinion
already in the Early Church. A party called the Alogi
rejected it as spurious at the very time when the first
external evidence of its existence is found. These Alogi
were not heretical innovators, but conservatives who
looked upon the application of the Logos-conception to
Jesus as a new and dangerous doctrine. Whether they
had any sympathizers in the Middle Ages is not known.
The German and Swiss reformers did not question either
the authorship or the historical accuracy of the Fourth
Gospel. But we have the testimony of Giuliano of Milan,
given before the Inquisition and preserved in its official
records,2 to the effect that the Baptists in Italy did not
regard it as of apostolic origin and authority. If the
liberty of conscience for which they fought had been
accorded to them, we might have learned the reasons for
their faith, and the world would not have had to wait a
quarter of a millennium for a truer estimate of this gos-
pel. A century of labor has at last established it.
Through the insight and research of such men as Evan-
son, Horst, Bretschneider, Bruno Bauer, Strauss, Schwe-
gler, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Scholten, Albert Re-

1That the author knows no appearance of Jesus on Easter Sunday
is important, showing, as Harnack remarks (I. c, p. 62), that "on
this important point we have in the Gospel acording to Peter a tradi-
tion that is older than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. ' '

2 See especially Bevista Christiana, 1885, and Comba, I nostri pro-
testanti, 1897, II, 488 ff.

208 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

ville, Thoma, Pfleiderer, Weizsacker, Cassels, Sihmiedel,
Van Manen, Jean Reville, Spitta, Harnack, Bacon, Fries,
Kreyenbiihl and Grill, not to mention others, the charac-
ter of the gospel has become increasingly manifest.
There are many problems left, but they are of wholly sub-
ordinate value. Whether the external or the internal
evidence is considered, the results are the same. It is not
the work of the apostle John; it is a product of the second
century ; it cannot be used independently as a source from
which to derive knowledge concerning the life and teach-
ing of Jesus ; it is not a historical but a didactic treatise ;
it belongs to the period of the conflict between Gnosticism
and Catholicism; it reflects the philosophical speculation
of Philo and the Alexandrian school and the Christian
Gnosticism they helped to foster, though with such modi-
fications as made it a useful instrument for the develop-
ment of the Catholic type of thought.

The first reference to this gospel as a work of John is
found in an epistle written by Theophilus of Antioch ca.
180 A. D. ; and the first distinct statement that its author
was the apostle John is met in a work of Irenaeus, then
bishop of Lyons, written about the same time. The Mura-
torian Canon at the end of the second century ascribes it
to the apostle. Celsus may have consulted the gospel in
178 A. D. Tatian knew it. This is certain, aside from the
question of the Diatessaron. The Arabic translation of a
Diatessaron published by Ciasca has on insufficient
grounds been supposed to be Tatian 's. The Sinaitic
Syriac, which contains the Fourth Gospel, may have been
made toward the end of the second century. Fragments
have been preserved of a commentary on this gospel by
Heracleon, a disciple of Valentinus. Two other disciples
of Valentinus, Ptolemy and Theodotus, were familiar with
it. There is no evidence that Valentinus himself knew it ;
and the testimony of Hippolytus in his Philosophoumena
(ca. 225 A. D.) to its use by Basilides is not trustworthy.
Marcion, who came to Rome about 144 A. D., was not
acquainted with it. Justin Martyr, who wrote his Apolo-

THE GOSPELS 209

gies and Dialogue with Trypho between 152 and 160 A. D..
does not mention it. Some of his statements, and espe-
cially his use of the Logos-speculation, have led to the
belief that he may have read it, though he did not recog-
nize its authority. It is more natural to suppose that he
was influenced by the general trend of thought that found
expression in the gospel. Neither Irenaeus nor Eusebius
has preserved any statement from the lost work of Papias
indicating that he knew this gospel. A Bodleyan manu-
script quoting "John the Evangelist" seems to be ascribed
to Papias. But this Papias is probably the lexicographer
of the twelfth century. A manuscript in the Vatican con-
tains an argumentum in which Papias is said to have
acted as John's amanuensis and yet to have been a con-
temporary of Marcion. Though possibly older than Jer-
ome, this argumentum has no historical value. Polycarp
does not mention this gospel. No quotations from it are
found in the epistles ascribed to Ignatius of Antioch, and
probably written ca. 140 A. D., though similar ideas are
here and there expressed. The Gnostic Acts of John
ascribed to Leueius Charinus speak of John as "the be-
loved disciple." This work evidently comes from the
same milieu as the gospel; but it is impossible to prove
dependence on either side. The external evidence shows
with increasing clearness, what was observed already a
century ago, that this gospel was cherished among the
Gnostics before it came into use among Catholic Chris-
tians.1

Since the end of the second century a tradition ex-
isted in the Church that the apostle John lived to a high
old age in Ephesus and died there peaceably in the time of
Trajan. It is significant that Papias evidently did not
know the apostle John either as the writer of a gospel or
as the head of the church in Ephesus. If he had, Irenaeus
and Eusebius would have been only too glad to record
it. Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, the Deutero-

1 Before Bretschneider 's ProhaUUa, 1820, Horst in Henke's Maga-
sin, 1803, presented this fact with great clearness.
14

210 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

Pauline epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, Marcion,
and the Ignatian epistles are silent concerning any so-
journ of the apostle John in Asia Minor. There was in
fact a somewhat widespread tradition that the apostle
John did not die naturally at Ephesus in the reign of Tra-
jan, but was put to death by the Jews in Jerusalem long
before that time. George the Sinner in the ninth century
quotes a passage from the second book of Papias's work
affirming that the apostle John was put to death by the
Jews. Heracleon does not mention John among the apos-
tles who had died a natural death. The ancient Syriac
calendar commemorates on December 27 as martyrs
"John and James the apostles in Jerusalem"; and the
Armenian, Ethiopic, Gothico-Gallic and Carthaginian cal-
endars similarly mention the two martyred brothers.1
Matth. xx, 23, and Mark x, 39, imply that John was to be,
or had been, baptized with the same baptism of blood as
James. Whether this tradition rests upon a solid founda-
tion of fact, and in that case the apostle was martyred at
the same time as his brother or later, is not easy to de-
termine. It appears at any rate to be older than that of
his long sojourn in Ephesus and natural death there.
Papias carefully distinguishes between John, the apostle,
and John, the presbyter, the contemporary of Aristion.
This presbyter John is also mentioned by Polycrates,
bishop of Ephesus, ca. 190 A. D., in connection with Poly-
carp, Melito and their contemporaries. Legendary em-
bellishments already cluster about his figure : he is a
priest and wears the pontifical diadem. It is evident that
this John, the presbyter, has been confused with John, the
apostle. Such a merging of the presbyter into the apostle
probably occurs in John xxi, 20 ff. John, the presbyter, is
already dead; hence the necessity of correcting the mis-
taken idea that "the beloved disciple" had actually been
promised to live until the return of Christ. The memory
of his life far into the second century still lingers and sup-

1 On these calendars see F. P. Badham, The Martyrdom of John the
Apostle, in The American Journal of Theology, July, 1904, p. 539 ff.

THE GOSPELS 211

plements in some circles the defective information as to the
later fortunes and end of the life of John, the apostle. The
champions of Peter's primacy, who by their addition to the
gospel made it acceptable to the Catholic Church, were
convinced that it came from the hand of "the beloved dis-
ciple," unable to distinguish between the two Johns, but
anxious to prevent any rival claims by the Johannine
school based on the widely reported saying of Jesus and
the developing legend of John's continued existence on
earth or translation. It is impossible to prove that this
presbyter John who is known through Papias only as a
transmitter of oral tradition had anything to do with the
composition of the Fourth Gospel, is identical with "the
presbyter" of the epistles whose name is not given, or is
the author of the Apocalypse, or any part of it. The
attempts to fasten upon him the authorship of the gospel
are wholly unconvincing, in spite of the names of emi-
nent scholars that may be cited in favor of this conjecture.
The value of these efforts lies in the fact that they have
revealed one of the prime factors in the growth of tradi-
tion. The ancient Alogi and some modern scholars, nota-
bly Fries, ascribed the whole gospel, or a considerable
part of it, to Cerinthus. This opinion has no more in-
trinsic probability, but shows a correct appreciation of its
Gnostic character. The same judgment applies to the
view of Kreyenbuhl who regards Menander of Kappare-
taea, the alleged disciple of Simon Magus and probable
teacher of Valentinus and Basilides, as the author. A
careful criticism must be satisfied with a non liquet on the
question of authorship.

When the late, vacillating and unreliable tradition of
apostolic authorship is set aside, and the Fourth Gospel
is compared, without prejudice, with the Synoptics, it be-
comes possible to understand its character. It is in no'
sense a historical account of what Jesus said and did. It
is significant that even conservative scholars find it im-
possible to maintain that the speeches it puts upon the
lips of Jesus were actually uttered by him, at least in

212 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

the form given to them, or to deny that there are irrec-
oncilable conflicts between the historic framework and
the Synoptic representation. Sanday freely admits "in
this collection of sayings an element — possibly a some-
what considerable element— that represents not so much
what was actually spoken as enlargement and comment
embodying the experience and reflection of the growing
church."1 Any serious attempt, however, to separate
such enlargements and comments from the supposed genu-
ine nucleus only tends to reveal the substantial unity of
the whole structure. Some expansions there no doubt
were. But the theories of Schweizer, of Harnack and
Bousset, of Delff and Fries, by which it has been sought
to vindicate a genuine kernel reported by the presbyter
John during the visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, have failed
to commend themselves chiefly for two reasons. How-
ever small the remnant, it still exhibits the same Johan-
nine characteristics, the same peculiar philosophical style,
the same contrast to the language ascribed to Jesus in the
Synoptics, the same fundamental difference from the
other gospels in the conception of his career. In some
respects, the source-theory of Weisse, Freytag and Wendt
is more plausible. There is no reason to doubt that the
author may have had before him other sources than the
Synoptics. It is not inconceivable that this work was
preceded by another of a similar character coming from
the same Hellenistic milieu, very much as the Chronicles
were preceded by a similar Midrash on the Book of
Kings. But there is no indication of this ; and the value
of the discovery of any additional sources used by the
evangelist is at once greatly reduced by observing the
manner in which he deals with the sources known to us
that he obviously had at his disposal.

The freedom with which the author uses his material is
explained in part by his philosophy, in part by his allegor-
ical method, and in part by his Christian experience. The

'Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. IV, 1902, p. 575.

THE GOSPELS 213

Prologue clearly indicates his philosophical position. He
was a disciple of Philo and a Christian Gnostic. Whether
he had ever read the works of Philo or not, it was from
them that he derived his great organizing idea. The more
intimately one becomes acquainted with Philo 's thought,
the more inevitable becomes the conclusion that its salient
features must have been known to the Fourth Evangelist,
and the more probable it seems, from the repetition of
numerous phrases, that the later writer was actually
familiar with the works of his predecessor. It is equally
clear that he was a Gnostic. His gospel was designed to
present Jesus as an incarnate god ; a manifestation of the
divine Logos in a human personality; a dispenser to the
sons of light of that hidden knowledge, or gnosis, which
gives them eternal life; an emanation from the Supreme
God going forth into the darkness of the Cosmos and
returning to him, that another emanation, the Para-
clete, may take his place. Of his two cardinal ideas "the
Logos was God" and "the Logos became flesh," Philo
supplied the former. The idea of a divine incarnation,
still foreign to Philo 's speculation, ultimately came from
India. Through Persia the belief in avatars, or divine
incarnations, together with the hope of redemption
through esoteric knowledge and the conception of an ab-
solute ethical dualism, came to Syria, Egypt and Asia
Minor. Gnosticism— Pagan, Jewish and Christian— was
the result.1 The Gnostic philosophy of emanation
through the Fourth Gospel became regnant in the Chris-
tian Church. The author successfully strove to com-
mend to the Church the Gnosticism in which he believed,
carefully removing those features of which he could not
approve by emphasizing, against docetic tendencies, the
reality of the incarnation, the true humanity assumed by
the Logos.

The allegorical method permitted him to read his own
philosophy into the records he had before him, to ignore

1 See Excursus A,

214 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

as of little importance, or to lose sight of, literal sense
and historic fact, to seek for the spirit which "bloweth
where it listeth, ' ' and to symbolize its message in new and
suggestive forms. Thus the difficulties in the Old Testa-
ment so keenly felt by Gnostics yielded to a new species
of Gnostic thought. The creation of the world is under-
stood as an eternal procession of things through the
Logos. The prophetic inspiration in Israel is not thought
of as the action of a deity dealing in such a manner only
with the Jews, but as the illumination offering itself im-
partially to every soul that comes into the world. The
supreme sacrifice, the paschal lamb, is but a type of the
true Lamb of God. The sacred feasts of the Passover, the
Tabernacles, the Dedication are but symbols whose real
meaning becomes apparent, when the Logos offers his
flesh for food, his spirit for drink, his body for a temple.
The Sabbath itself is a sign, not of rest, but of work, the
marvelous and everlasting work of God and of the Logos.
It is not strange that an author who thus treats the
great ideas and institutions of the Old Testament should
reveal the same spirit in dealing with the earlier gospels.
They were seen in the light of the Word made flesh.
There is no story of a conception by the Holy Ghost and a
virgin birth in this gospel. The Logos exists from eter-
nity to eternity. When he appears in the flesh, he has a
father as well as a mother. But these earthly relations
have no significance ; the spiritual relations alone are im-
portant. Jesus is not baptized by John. He is publicly
recognized as the Messiah by the Baptist, and carries on
his work independently of his predecessor before the ar-
rest of the latter. There is no Messianic temptation. The
Logos cannot be tempted with evil. There is no conceal-
ment of his Messiahship, no injunction upon his disciples
not to proclaim him as the Messiah. The Logos does not
preach the coming of the kingdom of heaven ; he points
incessantly to himself. There is no transfiguration; the
cross is his mount of transfiguration. There is no conflict
with devils for the healing of men, and no confession of

THE GOSPELS 215

him as the Messiah by demons or demoniacs. The Logos
cannot come into contact with this world of unclean
spirits. The miracles of this gospel seem to be intended
as allegories. They are exaggerated to such a point as to
raise at least the question whether they were at all meant
to be taken as narratives of actual occurrences. In place
of the formalism of the Jews, with their purificatory rites.
Jesus pours out his precious, joy-giving wine. The bread
he multiplies is the heavenly manna, himself. He restores
the sight of men that they may see the invisible glory of
the Son of God. Jesus eats no paschal meal. He is him-
self the paschal lamb. Hence his death is placed, con-
trary to the Synoptics, on the fourteenth of Nisan when
the paschal lamb was slain. There is no institution of the
Lord's Supper. The author knows the eucharistic formu-
las; but he maintains that "the flesh profiteth nothing";
it is the teaching of Jesus that is spirit and life. In the
place of the eucharist he puts the foot-washing. There is
no agony in Gethsemane. There is no cry of God-forsak-
enness on the cross. The Logos walks in calm unruffled
majesty to his glorification. There is no ascension after
forty days. The Logos breathes upon the disciples and
the Paraclete is sent to them. If some of the material,
such as the conversations with Nicodemus and the Samari-
tan woman, the message of Philip and the placing of John
and Mary beneath the cross, was derived from other
gospels unknown to us, it has evidently gone through
the same transformation. The author's allegorizing tend-
ency is particularly manifest in the story of the Samari-
tan woman who clearly represents the Samaritan people
that has abandoned its five Assyrian gods, but not at-
tained to the temple-less worship of God in spirit and in
truth.

But neither the influence of Alexandrian and Oriental
speculation nor the use of allegorical methods of inter-
pretation can fully account for the nature of this most
remarkable literary production left to us by Christian
antiquity. The Logos here presented is no mere philo-

216 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

sophical abstraction. By being welded to the historical
personality of Jesus of Nazareth, it has become instinct
with life, informed with his spirit, a divinely human ob-
ject of faith, love and devotion. The Christ of Paul is a
celestial being, the ideal, archetypal man, the Son of God
by virtue of his resurrection. To have known him accord-
ing to the flesh, to be acquainted with his words and
deeds, is of no importance, to live in spiritual communion
with the risen and glorified Lord is all-important. The
Logos of the Fourth Gospel walks on earth, tabernacles in
the flesh, sends forth unceasingly the rays of his divine
glory through the veil of his assumed humanity, and it
is here, in his incarnate existence, that the believer finds
him and lives with him. This Christian experience is
genuine and sincere; it fills the author's soul with life
and light and joy. Its power does not depend upon the
objective reality of such a personal Logos, nor upon the
historical character of such an incarnation of a god. Its
source is not the Philonian Logos, but the human life of
Jesus. "With all its grandeur, this incarnate god is not
so great as the humble teacher of Nazareth. Out of his
fulness the Evangelist received, "and grace for grace."
To have come under the influence of his spirit is Christian
experience. To this experience is due what is permanent
in the thought of the Fourth Gospel. Time, like an ever
rolling stream, sweeps away what is perishable in the
grandest structures of human speculation. But it pre-
serves and enhances the value of the things that have in
them abiding substance. While the Johannine concep-
tion of the Christ fades away before the glory of the his-
toric reality shining through the Synoptic representation,
the spiritual freedom and insight of the great evangelist
become all the more apparent. These were largely hid-
den as long as men sought in his gospel what it could not
give, more accurate information concerning the words
and deeds of Jesus ; they stand out in startling relief when
seen against the background of the crystallizing traditions
and fixed institutions of the Church in the fourth decade

THE GOSPELS 217

of the second century. Had the Church possessed a tithe
of the spirit of him who substituted a foot-washing for the
eucharist, suppressed the baptism of Jesus, refused to be
bound by gospel-books and ecclesiastical tradition, found
life and redemption in the essence and trend of Jesus'
teaching and not in forensic fictions, understood that
"the letter killeth" and let his present ideal speak in
ways that seemed to him true, stagnation of doctrinal
development, a rigid fixity of institutional character, and
a deadening imposition of external authority on the con-
sciences of men would have been impossible. The inter-
nal evidence apparently indicates that the gospel was
written between 135 and 140 A. D., while the reprisals
taken by the Jews for their sufferings in consequence of
the insurrection under Simon bar Kozeba were fresh in
mind, and it is possible that John v, 35, contains an allu-
sion to this Messiah.

The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark and Luke
were called by Griesbach "Synoptics," and the term has
been kept for the sake of convenience, though it is ap-
parent, on close examination, that they are by no means
written from the same point of view. The differences are
as important a part of the Synoptic problem as the simi-
larities. The reader who turns from a perusal of Mat-
thew to Mark, and then to Luke, finds himself going over
familiar ground. In Mark there is nothing that is abso-
lutely new; in Luke there are sections that contain new
material. But on the whole the story appears to be the
same. Yet the thoughtful and observing student is puz-
zled to find that very rarely the same saying has been
given in the same form or put in the same connection, and
that the differences in the historic setting are often very
marked. He is constantly forced to ask himself, Did
Jesus actually utter the words that Matthew places on
his lips, or those ascribed to him by Mark, or the quite
different ones reported by Luke? Which is the more
original, and to what accidents or conscious motives are
the changes due? Has the silence of one or two of the

218 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

evangelists in regard to an important utterance any sig-
nificance? If the authors transformed old sayings, is it
also likely that they created new ones! To what extent
are changes due to errors and additions in transmission
rather than to the evangelists themselves? Can they be
explained as occasioned by differences in rendering a com-
mon Aramaic original, or were there different Aramaic
sources? Was any of our present Greek gospels directly
translated from an Aramaic gospel, or does the process
of individual rendering of Aramaic sayings into Greek
lie further behind the process of gospel-writing in Greek ?
Has any Greek gospel come down to us in its original
form, or have they all suffered to some extent by addition
and excision, alteration and transposition? Does any
gospel show literary dependence on any other ? Have we
any knowledge of literary sources used by the evangelists ?
What value should be ascribed to oral tradition? What
is likely to be the date of the present gospels, of these
gospels in their most original form, and of their sources?
And what degree of credibility can be assigned to these
records of the life and teaching of Jesus?

Thus one question leads to another. In attempting to
answer them we naturally turn first to the earliest ascer-
tainable tradition of the church. The only really impor-
tant testimony as to Matthew and Mark is found in some
fragments of a lost work of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis,
in Phrygia, toward the middle of the second century.
These fragments have been preserved by Eusebius.1
Papias declares that the apostle Matthew wrote certain
Logia, or sayings of Jesus, in "the Hebrew dialect" and
that each man interpreted them in his own way. He adds
that it was his constant endeavor to secure information
concerning the words of Jesus from the disciples of the
presbyters who had themselves been the disciples of the
apostles. By the "Hebrew dialect" he no doubt means
the Aramaic spoken by the Hebrews of the period. If he
had himself been able to consult the Aramaic work, he
1 Hist. Eccl, III, 39, 1 ff.

THE GOSPELS 219

would unquestionably have mentioned so important a
fact. His assertion that each man interpreted the Ara-
maic in his own way shows that he was familiar with vari-
ous Greek gospels claiming to be translations of the apos-
tolic work. He ascribed none of these to the apostle Mat-
thew. Not having in his possession any gospel on which
he felt he could implicitly rely, he leaned all the more
heavily on oral tradition. He was glad to take such tra-
dition from the third generation. He was acquainted
with the Gospel according to Mark, and regarded this as
haiyng been written by a companion of Peter, under his
influence. Concerning Luke and John he knew nothing.
It is evident that a tradition that appears for the first
time a hundred years after the death of Jesus, and has
been preserved to us only in late excerpts of a work writ-
ten about that time, does not carry as much weight as one
might wish. It may simply record the prevalent view in
Asia Minor at the time of Antoninus Pius (138-161
A. D.). This view may have some foundation in fact; but
we are unable to prove its accuracy. Aside from the
doubtful identity of the Gospel according to the Hebrews
known to Jerome and others, it is altogether probable
that there existed in Syria an Aramaic gospel. The inves-
tigations in regard to the term "son of man" have con-
vinced the present writer that the so-called Jerusalem
Lectionary, whatever the date of its present form, has
been influenced by an earlier Aramaic gospel.1 The Ara-
maic speaking Christians of Syria must have had a gospel
of their own. Their peculiar doctrinal position demanded
it. As their peculiarities affected the life and ministry
of Jesus quite as much as his teaching, it is a priori prob-
able that this gospel was not merely a collection of say-
ings. There is also every reason to believe that it was
ascribed to Matthew. Papias had evidently heard that
such a gospel existed. His word can of course not prove
that it actually was written by the apostle. The question
has been much discussed whether the term he uses shows
1 Cf. Encyclopaedia Biblica, Vol. IV, 1903, cols. 4714, 4727.

220 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

that it was only a collection of detached utterances or a
gospel giving a narrative of the life of Jesus as well. The
analogy of Old Testament usage renders the latter alter-
native more probable. We have no collection of pro-
phetic oracles in the Old Testament that is not supplied
with editorial superscriptions, and accounts of events con-
nected with the lives of the prophets are frequently inter-
spersed in the books of the second canon. It is also sig-
nificant that, in spite of this narrative material, the books
are given such titles as The Words of Amos, The Words of
Jeremiah and the like. An Aramaic work bearing the title
The Words of Jesus may very well have combined both
appropriate headings and brief narratives. As the Sayings
of Jesus found in Egypt clearly do not go back to any Ara-
maic original, these extracts from some current gospel
have no bearing on the question.

It would be hazardous to affirm that the work of whose
existence Papias was aware originally came from the hand
of Matthew. As this apostle was said to have been a
publican, tradition may have seized upon him as the most
likely to have been the author. If the book was called
The Words of Jesus, it is likely to have been at first
anonymous, and the analogy of Hebrew usage may be in-
structive also on this point. The disciples of famous
rabbis would, first of all, seek to preserve in memory and
to transmit by word of mouth the utterances of their
teachers. As aids to memory, however, they would per-
mit themselves the use of memoranda. To this method
we owe, in a large measure, the enormous Talmudic col-
lections. It is not impossible that some disciples of Jesus in
old age wrote down in his vernacular such words and
incidents as he remembered. The remarkable preserva-
tion of an earlier strand of tradition out of harmony with
the prevailing view of Jesus in a later age may be cited
in favor of this theory. Even more probability attaches
to another theory also based on Hebrew customs. The
transmission of the decisions of a rabbi in the name of
one of his disciples is exceedingly common in the Tal-

THE GOSPELS 221

mud. Similarly, a Christian belonging to the second gen-
eration may have given the words of Jesus on the au-
thority of Matthew, and not relying on his memory, as
the immediate disciple might, he may have written down
many a saying and provided it with its historic setting.
The Aramaic gospel may in this sense have been from its
inception a gospel "according to Matthew." It no doubt
grew by gradual expansion, but unfortunately we have no
means of determining its extent at the time when it was
first translated into Greek.

What is the relation of our Greek Matthew to the orig-
inal Aramaic gospel? Papias singles out no version as
more authoritative than any other, and evidently dis-
trusts them all. If it really was one of the translations
with which he was familiar that won recognition as the
Gospel according to Matthew, it is likely to have gained
this distinction above the others later than his time.
When the present text of Matthew is critically examined,
it is readily perceived that it cannot be a translation of an
Aramaic original. The fact that, at least in the vast
majority of instances, the quotations from the Old Testa-
ment are taken from the Greek version is alone decisive
against such an assumption.1 But while the present text
cannot have been a rendering of a Semitic original, its
most remote ancestor in the second century may. There
are numerous indications that the First Gospel has under-
gone various changes — some of them of a most momentous
character— before the end of the fourth century. Cony-
beare2 has shown that before the Council of Nicaea in 325

1 Even in regard to those quotations which do not quite correspond
to the ordinary tests of the so-called Septuagint Version, it is very
probable that they came from a Greek version. If the differences
are not merely due to earlier variants supplanted in the leading ma-
juscules by others, they may represent another Greek version or text-
recension, of which there is considerable evidence. The supposition
that any editor of the gospel used the Hebrew text is less likely than
that the Greek texts consulted by those to whom we owe the gospel
exhibited certain differences.

2 Zeitschrift fur Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1903,

222 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

A. D. Eusebius again and again quoted the Great Commis-
sion in Matthew xxviii, 19, as follows: "Go ye, there-
fore, and make disciples of all the nations in my name,"
and he has rendered it probable that the ultimately pre-
vailing form, including the commandment to baptize and
the trinitarian formula, represents an expansion made
in some locality and gradually finding its way to the dif-
ferent parts of the Church. But even the unexpanded
form is clearly a later addition. Most critics recognize
that the conferring of the primacy on Peter in Matthew
xvi, 18, 19, is a similar expansion of the text in the interest
of the growing Roman hierarchy. But Matth. xvi, 17, is
no doubt also a later addition. It was seen already in the
Early Church and again by Baptist scholars in the six-
teenth century and modern exegetes that the first two
chapters of the gospel had been subsequently placed be-
fore the beginning of the original text. Some earlier
exordium was probably displaced, as the first verse of
the third chapter indicates. When it is observed that the
majority of Old Testament quotations are found in these
chapters, the suggestion naturally offers itself that the
hand which wrote the story of the birth and infancy also
introduced in the rest of the gospel references to the ful-
filment of Old Testament prophecies. As the opening
chapters themselves have manifestly undergone at least
one redaction, seeing that the author of Joseph's pedi-
gree cannot have written the narrative of the virgin birth,
it is also possible that some of these often loosely attached
observations on the fulfilment of prophecy are due to a
later editor.

But even when these palpable additions are removed,
it is quite inconceivable that the remainder can be the
work of the same author. That the writer who chose to
record the attacks of Jesus upon fundamental principles
of the Mosaic law should have neutralized the effect of
these criticisms by introducing statements censuring the
least deviation from the letter of the Law, such as are
found in Matth. vi, 17-19, can no more be comprehended

THE GOSPELS 223

than that Jesus himself should have uttered the self-
condemnatory words. This is but one example among
many showing that the original gospel has suffered inter-
polations. These accretions are so different in character
that it is difficult to understand them as the result of
systematic redaction. Hilgenfeld1 recognized these facts
more clearly than any other scholar. Whether he was
correct in explaining them by subsequent editorial proc-
esses in different schools, is more doubtful. The First
Gospel seems to have been more widely used than any
of the others owing to its age and assumed apostolic au-
thority. It is therefore natural that it should have
received more marginal glosses, emendations, interpolated
sections, and doctrinal enlargements. It is a common oc-
currence that an ancient, greatly cherished, and fre-
quently copied manuscript thus gathers about it more ma-
terial foreign to the original text than later and inferior
codices.2 If this process is duly considered, it is easy to
believe that the Greek Matthew in its earliest form may
have been a translation of an Aramaic gospel, and there
is nothing to prevent the assumption that it was one of
several renderings of the gospel ascribed to Matthew,
having certain peculiarities that made its claim to ac-
curacy appear most plausible.

Such considerations also give added credibility to the
uniform tradition of the Early Church that the Gospel
according to Matthew is the oldest of the Synoptics.
Against this tradition and in favor of the priority of Mark
it has been urged, that the latter is shorter than the others,
that practically all that it contains is also found in the
others, and that the historic development of Jesus' career
comes out more clearly in it than in the others. But it is
quite impossible to determine whether Matthew in its earl-

1 See especially his Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1875, and his
Zeitschrift fur WissenscJiaftliche Theologie, passim.

2 An interesting illustration of this may be seen in Codex Venetus
of Ecclesiasticus; see Schmidt, The Boole of Ecclesiasticus, 1903, p.
xxiii ff «

224 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

iest Greek form was more extensive than Mark. As Mark
clearly adressed himself to a different class of readers
and had a different purpose, he may have made a selec-
tion. The assumption that he comprehended the growth
of Jesus' Messianic consciousness and the gradual un-
folding of his Messianic programme better than the other
evangelists is not well founded. It is supposed that he
alone understood the importance of the episode at Cae-
sarea Philippi, and realized that this was the turning-point
in the career of Jesus, the time when he first revealed the
secret of his Messiahship. But Mark, who clearly uses
the term "Son of Man" as a Messianic title, puts this as a
self-designation on the lips of Jesus before the visit to
Caesarea Philippi. Concerning the real nature of this
term he shows no more knoAvledge than Matthew, and
the true significance of Jesus' question to his disciples
appears to have been as little recognized by him as by
Matthew. The early tradition that Jesus never assumed
for himself any unmistakable Messianic title and actually
forbade his disciples to say that he was the Messiah, facts
which in the light of the conviction of his disciples that
he was the Messiah were naturally interpreted as signify-
ing that during his life-time he had wished his official
character to be unknown, is better preserved in Matthew
than in Mark. For the former1 allows Jesus to preserve
his Messianic incognito to the end, even in the presence
of the high-priest, while the latter,2 contrary to both Mat-
thew and Luke, makes Jesus distinctly affirm to an out-
sider his Messiahship.

Papias connected the Second Gospel directly with Mark,
and indirectly with Peter. The latter must be regarded
as an after-thought. There is every reason to believe that
the gospel was written in Rome. We have no trustworthy
historic evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. But as

1Matth., xxvi, 64, "Thou sayest" (not I) ; similarly, Luke xxii, 70:
"Ye say that I am." Cf. Merx, Das Evangelium Matthaus, 1902, p.
391 ff.

2 Mark, xiv, 62, "I am,"

THE GOSPELS 225

the tradition developed that he had been the first bishop
of Rome, the desire would naturally be felt to give his
authority to the gospel recognized in that church. An
earlier tradition that it was written by Mark could not be
set aside ; but it was possible to bring the author into con-
nection with Peter. Who the Mark was on whose au-
thority it was presented, we do not know. There is no
tradition to the effect that it was originally written in
Aramaic, and it does not have the appearance of being a
translation. The emphasis given to the thaumaturgical
powers of Jesus, his successful exorcisms, and his relations
to the world of demons who know the secret of his Mes-
siahship, is precisely what might be expected in a Hellen-
istic Jew writing with the view to convincing Romans of
his supernatural greatness and authority. That the
writer was familiar with the Greek Matthew, is alto-
gether probable. He adds no important new material.
But his variations show that he exercised the same lib-
erty, and consulted the form of oral tradition prevalent in
his circle in the same manner, as all other early Christian
writers with whom we are familiar. There is nowhere
any leaning upon an absolutely authoritative source. As
a writer Mark distinguishes himself favorably by his
conciseness of statement, his vivid style, and his local
coloring. His gospel has remained comparatively free
from later additions. No one added to it a gospel of the
infancy, as in the case of the other Synoptics. The orig-
inal ending seems to be lost. A substitute found its way
into many copies. Aristion has been supposed to be its
author, but on insufficient grounds.1 Another shorter
substitute has also been preserved, which is of still later
origin.

The Third Gospel apparently at one time circulated
without the name of Luke. Marcion was familiar with a
gospel exhibiting so marked a similarity to the Gospel
according to Luke that there is scarcely room for doubt

*See P. Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Marcus Evangeliums, 1894;
Conybeare, Expositor, 1893, p. 241 fE.
15

226 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

as to its substantial identity. But it does not seem to have
had the name of Luke attached to it, and it showed some
important deviations from the present form. The first
two chapters were lacking, and here and there different
readings were found. It is possible that the gospel had
already suffered somewhat through the bias of Ebionitish
and Gnostic copyists, as it certainly has suffered since
through the prepossessions of Catholic scribes. Whether
Marcion's gospel contained the Preface i, 1-4, is uncertain,
but cannot be said to be improbable. It does not men-
tion the name of the writer, and gives no clue to the
authorship to anyone who has no independent knowledge
of who the friend of Theophilus was. Such knowledge
we do not possess, and it may be questioned whether Mar-
cion did. There is no reason to doubt the identity of the
author of the gospel with the compiler of Acts. As one
of the sources used by the latter may have been written
by Luke, the companion of Paul, it is easy to account for
the tradition that makes him the author of both works.
There is no claim to Lukan authorship in the preface to
either, and the internal evidence is strongly against the
assumption that the author of the We-Source had any-
thing to do with the composition of the larger works.
From the preface we gain the same impression as from the
fragments of Papias. The author is acquainted with
numerous gospels, is displeased with their lack of order
and incompleteness, distrusts their accuracy, and draws
upon the living streams of tradition. Among the gospels
that he had at his disposal, Matthew, Mark and an other-
wise unknown work largely used in the section, ix, 51-
xviii, 14, seem to have been the most important. That he
wrote later than Matthew and Mark is to-day generally
acknowledged by critics; that he knew his predecessors
and derived the bulk of his information from them is the
most natural conclusion, though it has been questioned by
some. It appears to the present writer a serious mistake
to begin the comparison of Matthew and Luke with the
first two chapters of each, and to allow the result to influ-

THE GOSPELS 227

ence the final decision. Both of these gospels of the in-
fancy are later additions and themselves of highly com-
posite character. Luke i, 5-ii, 52, iii, 23-38, forms a sec-
tion made up of extracts from a Book of Zechariah; a
Jewish Psalm, wrongly ascribed first to Elizabeth, and
then in the majority of manuscripts to Mary; a story of
the birth of Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary, sub-
sequently re-touched by an editor believing in the virgin-
birth ; and a genealogy intended to prove that the father
of Jesus was a descendant of David. Even if it were
easier than it is to determine the relation of the various
elements entering into this composition to the gospel of
the infancy in Matthew, little light would be thrown by
it on the relative age of the gospels of the ministry of
Jesus to which they have been prefixed.

As we do not know either the general character or
the age of the source upon which the author has drawn for
the material not found in the other Synoptics, no inference
is possible as to his own age and attitude toward Matthew
and Mark from his use of it. Nor does the peculiar form
in which he quotes the Synoptic apocalypse allow any con-
clusion in reference to its wording in the text that lies
behind all the three evangelists. The attempts to solve
these problems by the so-called ''Two-Source Theory"
cannot be regarded as successful. According to this
theory, in its most popular and plausible form, the authors
of Matthew and Luke had before them the Gospel of Mark,
and all three made use of a collection of Sayings of Jesus
written in Greek and now lost. The more closely the Gos-
pel of Mark is compared with what may be regarded as
the most original form of Matthew both as respects the
utterances of Jesus and the general character of his min-
istry, the more difficult it is to maintain the priority of
Mark. While there is no a priori objection to supposing
that among the early Christian works that have been
lost there once was such a Logia Jesu as many modern
scholars resort to for the explanation of the Synoptic
problem, the hypothesis seems unnecessary, has no foun-

228 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH

dation in early tradition, and is only productive of new
difficulties. If Mark only occasionally used this source,
deriving his information in the main from some living au-
thority or some other gospel, why should he have copied
the few sayings so differently from Matthew and Luke,
and why should he have passed by so much genuine and
valuable material in a book he deemed worthy of use?
If Matthew was anxious, as he apparently was, to com-
municate all that Jesus said, why should he have delib-
erately left out such precious parables as those of the
Lost Coin, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Son, the Good Samari-
tan, the Pharisee and the Publican and the Rich Man and
Lazarus? If Luke drew most extensively from this
source, how are the similar omissions in his gospel and
the apparent looseness of quotation in numerous places
to be accounted for ? Is it to be supposed that Mark failed
to appreciate the beauty of the Lord's Prayer, and that
neither Matthew nor Mark was moved by the pathos of
the Prodigal Son? If such a book existed coming with
the authority of an apostle and commending itself to the
evangelists so highly that they actually copied from it
the words of Jesus, is it likely that the result should have
been the numerous variants in the simplest sayings and
the peculiar selection of material ? It is difficult to avoid
the impression that forces have been at work in. the pro-
duction of our gospels that would have been checked, if
the method had been that of simply copying a common,
authoritative document.

The individual freedom that under all circumstances
must be granted, and the peculiar relations of the three
writers, seem to find their most natural explanation, if
it is supposed, in harmony with the earliest tradition, that
the First Evangelist translated his work from an Aramaic
original ascribed to Matthew, that the Second Evangelist
looked upon this Greek gospel as one of many more or less
doubtful attempts to render the original text, adopted
its general outline and drew upon it largely but also
leaned on the tradition of his church? and that the Third

THE GOSPELS 229

Evangelist used his two predecessors, without assign-
ing to them any higher authority than that of at least one
other gospel which he used, but also endeavored to find
through oral sources what the truth was, and quoted the
sayings of Jesus in the form familiar to him from the
usage of his church or province. The first translations of
the words of Jesus were no doubt made in a manner simi-
lar to the first translations of the Hebrew Scriptures
among Hellenistic Jews. They were Targums. To sup-
plement the imperfect knowledge of the sacred language
a methurg email rendered into the vernacular section by
section the text read. Thus the extant Aramaic Targums
and the earlier Greek versions came into existence. How
much freedom the interpreter might use depended on his
own judgment and the importance of what he explained.
We are only too well acquainted with the liberties taken
by some, while we admire the accuracy and skill of others.
In the case of the Old Testament we are fortunate enough
to have, if not the original text, at least one of its direct
descendants speaking its own language. The Aramaic
gospel is lost, and not a single saying of Jesus has come
down to us in his own vernacular through any channel.
The Greek gospels themselves have undergone so many
changes that we are in a far worse plight than those who
could examine the first drafts of these documents.

In attempting to fix the dates of the Synoptic gospels,
it is of the utmost importance to bear in mind what may
be ascertained concerning the composition of these works.
When so careful a critic as Pfleiderer1 allows himself to be
influenced by some of the most obvious interpolations in
Matthew to date the entire gospel in ca. 140 A. D., a caveat
is necessary. What would be thought of an Old Testa-
ment critic who would place the whole Book of Amos in
the Babylonian Exile, or the entire Books of Isaiah and
Jeremiah in the Maccabaean age because of the sections
that unmistakably come from these late periods? Stu-
dents of the Old Testament have learnt to distinguish

1 Das Urchristentum2, 1902.

230 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

between the age of a book in substantially its present form
and the age of its various component parts. Some parts
of our Matthew may be later than Pfleiderer's date for the
book. The value of determining when even the smallest
and youngest section was written should not be under-
estimated. But the main interest is to discover, if pos-
sible, the date of the earliest part. When was the first
draft made of the Greek Matthew? Three facts may
throw some light on this question. Eusebius1 records
that in the reign of Trajan (98-117 A. D.) "many disciples,
full of zeal for the divine word, followed the old exhorta-
tion of the Saviour, distributed their goods to the poor,
left their country and became evangelists, holding it to
be an honor to preach the doctrine of the faith to those to
whom it was unknown, and to place in their hands the
written text of the divine gospels." This is evidently the
reflection of a historic fact. The presentation in Greek of
the Aramaic gospel ascribed to Matthew was coincident
with the break of the Jewish Christian Church in Pales-
tine with Judaism and the consequent devotion of many
of its members to a missionary propaganda among the
Gentiles. The appearance of other gospels in Greek,
whether as translations of the Aramaic gospel, or as inde-
pendent accounts soon after the first, made the epoch
memorable ; and it is by no means improbable that the first
interpreters were at the same time exhorters, evangelists
in every sense of the word. If the tradition, naturally
somewhat misunderstood by Eusebius, is well founded, it
may signify that Matthew, Mark and Luke in their earli-
est Greek form appeared in the beginning of the second
century.

Another fact points in the same direction. The Synop-
tic apocalypse manifestly comes from a Semitic original,
but the differences between the three versions are not such
as can be explained by peculiarities of translation. That
it has gone from Matthew to Mark, and from both to

1 Hist. Eccl., Ill, 37, 2.

THE GOSPELS 231

Luke, is seen on careful examination. Matthew has pre-
served the expectation of the coming of the Messiah im-
mediately after the distress of the siege of Jerusalem,1
the anxiety lest the flight be on the sabbath, and the em-
phasis on the conflict with heathen nations. Mark can no
longer write ''immediately after the distress of those
days," eliminates the reference to the sabbath, and intro-
duces persecutions in synagogues, and before governors
and kings. Luke follows his example, but goes beyond
him by placing "the times of the Gentiles" when they
shall trample Jerusalem under foot between the destruc-
tion of the city and the advent of the Messiah. Well-
hausen has convincingly shown that the Aramaic apoca-
lypse originated in the days of the siege of Jerusalem, and
he is probably right in regarding it as a non-Christian
product. Whether it was appropriated to Christian use
and placed on the lips of Jesus already by the author of
the Aramaic gospel, or circulated independently in a
Greek translation and was subsequently incorporated in
the Greek Matthew, is a delicate question to answer. In
favor of the latter alternative it may be said that the
Son of Man as a Messianic title, not found as yet in the
apocalypses of the reign of Domitian (81-96 A. D.),
Baruch, Ezra, the original Parables of Enoch, and John,
seems to have appeared for the first time in Christian
writings in the Greek translation of this apocalypse, and
that the Gnostic influence of the conception of a Celestial
Son of the Macrocosmic Man, ultimately of Indian origin,
which at any rate facilitated the introduction of the in-

*It is faithfulness to the text before him, and not nearness to the
catastrophe, that is the cause of this preservation of the original form,
though it may be questioned whether Matthew understood the quoted
apocalypse to affirm the coming of the Messiah within a month, or a
year, or a generation. Matthew realized that concerning the exact
time no man and not even the angels of the heavens, but only the
Father, had any knowledge. ' ' Not even the Son ' ' is an addition prob-
ably made in the second half of the second century, not found in our
earliest witnesses to the text. There is probably an interpolation
also in Mark, though the testimony is less conclusive.

232 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

felicitous rendering of the Aramaic bar-nasha, cannot so
easily be understood in the case of the translator of the
whole gospel, who nowhere else shows any sign of similar
tendencies. Yet this apocalypse must have been inter-
polated at an early time, as it found its way through Mat-
thew into Mark and Luke. A date subsequent to the
reign of Domitian is probable.

A third indication of the same period is the use of the
book entitled The Wisdom of God by Matthew and Luke.
Its name is given only by Luke,1 but it seems to have been
already quoted by Matthew.2 A generation must be sup-
posed to have elapsed before a reference to the murder of
Zechariah, the son of Barachiah, during the siege of Jeru-
salem can have been placed on the lips of Jesus. The
Wisdom of God evidently lay before these authors (or at
least before Luke, if the passage in Matthew is an inter-
polation) in a Greek text. Even if no other part of this
work were known to us than the words immediately
quoted, this quotation alone would show that the writer,
or writers, who used it belonged to a time far subsequent
to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. It is not improbable,
however, that the Synoptic apocalypse once was incorpor-
ated in it, and together with its other parts translated
into Greek under the title The Wisdom of God. But the
argument from the character of each section as to the
late date of the gospels would in no wise be invalidated, if
they should prove to have been at all times two independ-
ent works. That the Greek texts of Matthew, Mark and
Luke, in their most primitive form, are not likely to have
been written before the reign of Trajan, seems to be the
inevitable conclusion from all the facts observed. So far
as Luke is concerned his acquaintance with the Antiqui-
ties of Josephus remains a fact, even when the story of the
infancy is ascribed to later hands, and clearly indicates
that he wrote in the second century.

If none of the gospels, then, that we can consult were

1 XI, 49.

2 XXIII, 34 ff.

THE GOSPELS 233

written by apostles or eye-witnesses, or existed at all
before some sixty years or more had passed since the
death of Jesus, to what extent can such accounts be re-
garded as trustworthy? Is it possible to lay down a line
of evidence by which a nucleus of historic facts can be
rendered probable? Can the historic figure be at all dis-
cerned through the veil of myth and legend? Can the
words he actually uttered be gathered from these late
translations, suffering from a host of accidental or inten-
tional changes, weighed down with layer after layer of
corrections, comments and interpolations? Is it possible
to prove even the historic existence of the teacher of Naz-
areth? Such questions are not asked only by blind unbe-
lief, determined incredulity, antipathy to the character
portrayed, and a perverse moral attitude, preferring per-
manent doubt to an unwelcome truth ; but also, and most
insistently, by legitimate historic investigation, eager for
the truth, patient in the search for it, grateful for every
discovery, willing to hold or to abandon a position as the
facts seem to demand, ready to doubt in order that faith
may rest on tested foundations, rejoicing in the advance
of knowledge, capable of appreciation, and sympathetic
with the great facts and factors in the religious history of
man.

The present writer has considered every such question
that has occurred to his mind. The more radical and far-
reaching they have been, the more urgent and important
they seemed to him. So far as he is aware, the results
were never dictated by his desire, or shaped by his prepos-
session. If an honest dealing with the facts should have
seemed to lead to a negative answer to all these inquiries,
he trusts that he would have had the moral fortitude to
abide by his convictions, the confidence that somehow the
truth is worth more than anything wrongly believed to be
the truth, and the good sense to continue his questioning.
It should be freely admitted, however, that it was with
a deep satisfaction the author found himself borne along
by the force of what seemed to him incontrovertible facts

234 THE PEOPHET OP NAZAEETH

to the conviction that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed,
that some of the events of his life may be known to us,
that some of his words may be recovered, and that his
personality, imperfectly as we know it, and widely as it
differed from the estimate of the church, is as sublime
and potent for good as ever.

When the First Gospel is read in the light of an intel-
ligent criticism, the internal evidence coincides with the
earliest external testimony that brings it into connection
with an Aramaic work ascribed to Matthew. It is mani-
fest that the words here recorded were, to a large extent
at least, uttered originally, not in Greek, not even such
Greek as Hellenistic Jews spoke, but in Aramaic. If none
of them were spoken by Jesus, or even if the reputed
speaker never existed, they must have come from the lips
of some teacher, or teachers, using the Aramaic language.
Under no circumstances, therefore, can these sayings be
the invention of our Greek evangelists. When they are
translated back into the Galilean dialect of the Aramaic,
as to some extent it is possible to do, they reveal an even
more remarkable originality than in the Greek. If al-
ready the Greek text, or any modern version, impresses
the thoughtful reader with the extraordinary power and
beauty of these pithy sayings, parables and addresses,
the effect is enhanced when the words are considered in
his own vernacular. But to this general impression is
often added the startling consciousness that behind some
familiar saying there lies a new and strikingly original
utterance, not dreamed of by the interpreters of the
Greek text. In some cases that have already been con-
sidered, in which the term "son of man" occurred, the
new sayings are not only original, and in a high degree
suggestive of independent and radical thought, but also,
naturally interpreted, in marked contrast with the order
of ideas likely to have been entertained by the Aramaic
speaking apostolate or propagators of the Messianic sen-
timent. Some explanation of this remarkable phenome-
non must be found, and the most obvious is that the new

THE GOSPELS 235

treasures come from the same mind that gave to the
world the parables whose beauty no version could hide.
These sayings possess evidential value just in proportion
as they contradict the notions current in the circles
through which they were transmitted. Believers in the
Messiahship of Jesus cannot have invented for him
speeches in which extraordinary powers are ascribed to
man in general, while no prerogatives are reserved for
the Messiah. If this process of translation into the Ara-
maic sometimes reveals to us such practically new sayings,
too simple and yet profound to be the accidental group-
ings of words in a play of chance, and intelligible only
as the products of a great and independent mind,' it often
shows the secondary character of passages that bear
the marks of original composition in Greek, and cannot
readily be turned into the Semitic dialect. It should not
be necessary to insist that the first duty of the exegete
is to test every reported utterance of Jesus in its probable
Aramaic form, and that he who is incompetent to do this
or neglects it must leave to others the most vital question
concerning the life and teaching of Jesus.

On the other hand, the critical study of the Greek texts
is as necessary as ever, and familiarity with the course of
criticism and insight into the problems lead to the same
conclusions. By comparison of the different reports, the
relatively oldest Greek form of a saying may be estab-
lished, and by observation of the tendencies at work in
the centers whence the gospels have come later additions
may be eliminated. Certain inferences may also be
drawn from the earlier operation of these tendencies as
to the changes a saying may already have undergone be-
fore the first Greek gospel was written. By such proc-
esses scholars have, without any consideration of the orig-
inal Aramaic, reached the conviction that the earliest
form of many a parable, address and apothegm was so
different from the present form that it can be explained
only by the persistence of an old tradition reflecting the
immediate expression of an original and fruitful genius.

236 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH

Divested of later modifications and additions, most of the
parables are so unlike the proverbial sayings and similes
that might be culled from Hebrew literature, so mani-
festly the products of one mind, so inconceivable, with
their constant emphasis on the kingdom of heaven and
the Father in heaven,, as the instruments of a Messianic
propaganda made by a group of demagogues or teachers
in the interest of the Nazarene, or as a means of rallying
men around the symbol of his name, a nomen et praeterea
nihil, and so impossible to understand as anything else
than utterances of the man who gave the first impulse to
the great spiritual movement, that they are felt to be
themselves evidences of his historical existence as well as
of his character and thought.

Many students have been puzzled over the curious
avoidance on the part of Jesus of assuming any recog-
nized Messianic title, the impression that he did not accept
recognition as the Messiah even from his disciples, the
fact that he forbade his disciples to say that he was the
Messiah, and his apparent reticence to the end in regard
to his claims. The ordinary attempts to explain this pe-
culiar attitude are quite unsatisfactory. It is supposed
that he disapproved of the current Messianic idea, and had
framed for himself a different idea anticipating the eccle-
siastical conception of the Christ, and that he sought to
prepare his disciples for accepting him as the Messiah in
this higher sense. But of such pedagogical training there
is no indication. He does not seem to have taught them
the distinction between the good and powerful king of
Israel and conqueror of the world whom his contem-
poraries regarded themselves as having a right to look
for in accordance with the prophetic word and the wholly
different kind of Messiah he considered himself to be.
He can scarcely have cherished the ambition or hope of
becoming the king of Israel and of the world in any sense
without attaching to this office sufficient importance to
communicate something of its nature to his closest dis-
ciples. Even students of the Greek gospels who have

THE GOSPELS 237

left untouched the question as to the meaning of the term
Son of Man have been led to see that the problem arises
from the survival along with the new estimate of him as
the Messiah, naturally modified by the impression of his
personality and his spirit, of a primitive tradition that
Jesus never claimed for himself Messiahship in any sense,
present or future, political or metaphysical, and prohib-
ited his disciples from making such claims for him, a tra-
dition too old and strongly rooted to be eradicated.1 The
more marked the contrast is between this early tradition
and the apostolic conception, the more unavoidable is the
conclusion that the former can only be the reflection of
the historic reality. How could those who proclaimed
him as the Messiah have invented the difficulties they
were at such pains to circumvent by the assumption that
Jesus carefully guarded his Messianic secret until his
resurrection should reveal it ?

Similar facts, only secondary to this in importance,
have been observed by many scholars.2 Mark3 has pre-
served the answer of Jesus to the young ruler addressing
him as Good Master, "Why callest thou me good? None
is good save one, God only. ' ' This certainly does not rep-
resent the later feeling concerning Jesus. Mark also
records that the relatives of Jesus held him to be beside
himself.4 This is altogether probable, but it is not likely
to have been invented at a later time. Schmiedel5 has
added to these passages the words "neither the Son" in
Mark xiii, 32, and the cry on the cross, "My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me ? " in Matthew xxvii, 46. But
the first is lacking in the original text of Matthew xxiv,
36,6 and likely to be an interpolation in Mark also. It

1 See especially Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss, 1901.

2 See especially Schmiedel, articles Gospels in Encyclopaedia Biblica,
Vol. II, 1901.

3 X, 17 ff.

4 III, 21.

6 1, c, col. 1881.

6 See the careful discussion by Merx, Das Evangelium Mattliaeus,
1902, p. 356.

238 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

introduces a juxtaposition of "the Father" and "the
Son ' ' that is wholly foreign to the thought of Jesus, places
"the Son" with emphasis above the angels, and only pre-
supposes such a doctrine of subordination as was widely
cherished in the Church throughout the second century
and later. The second passage is a quotation from a sup-
posedly Messianic Psalm, deemed appropriate by the
Early Church, to be understood in the light of Semitic
thought and Biblical usage, not well authenticated, since
there is no disciple present to hear the words, improbable
as an utterance of Jesus, either as a part of a Messianic
programme or as a spontaneous expression of a sense of
failure and a lack of faith in the midst of physical pain,
and explicable at any time before the doctrine of the
incarnation had been fully developed.1

More importance is to be attached to the remarkable
fact that, while the evangelists certainly, and the Aramaic
speaking followers of Jesus probably at an early time,
believed that he had wrought an abundance of miracles,
the gospels have nevertheless preserved an old tradition
according to which he positively refused to work any sign,
and declared that no sign should be given to his genera-
tion, except the sign of Jonah, by which he clearly meant
the preaching of repentance. It has also been recorded2
that he could not do any mighty works in Nazareth be-
cause of the unbelief of its people. The fact was, of
course, the absence of miracles ; and the explanation is an
after-thought. An inventor might as well have ascribed
to him miracles, and saved the explanation. But there
was a strong tradition to reckon with. Occasionally it
is possible to observe by the differing accounts of two
evangelists, that while one has preserved the old state-
ment that Jesus "taught the multitudes," another, "seek-
ing for signs," has changed it into a narrative of how
"he healed the multitudes." To some extent the misin-
terpretation of Old Testament language may have been

1 See Brandt, Die Evangelische GeschicMe, 1893, p. 240 ff.
s Marie, vi, 5 ff ; Matth., xiii, 58.

THE GOSPELS 239

responsible for such changes. In Matth. xi, 5, Jesus
answers the straightforward question sent him by John
the Baptist, whether he is the Messiah or they should look
for another, by a statement quoted from Isaiah xxxv, 5 ff.,
lxi, 1, that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are
cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor
have the gospel preached to them. It is evident that
Jesus had in mind the obvious meaning of these words in
the prophetic book. They are there figures of speech
referring to the spiritual apprehension of God's ways and
work. "Report to John," he virtually says, "that you
have found the good news of the coming of the kingdom
of heaven accepted by the sons of men." That seemed to
him more important than the question as to the Messiah-
ship. The evangelists, however, understood the saying
literally, and did their best to find in the life of Jesus such
works as he had positively declared should not be given
to his contemporaries, in order that no detail of their Mes-
sianic picture should be wanting.

In various ways the conviction thus forces itself upon
the historian that it is possible to go behind the records
and to reach a trustworthy tradition, expressing itself first
orally, then in the Aramaic gospel, which on critical points
at least it is possible to restore with approximate accu-
racy, and finally in precious survivals preserved, in spite of
the different conceptions of the evangelists, in the Greek
Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and, on
rare occasions, in the Gospel according to John, the Gospel
according to the Hebrews and elsewhere.

CHAPTER X

THE LIFE OF JESUS

When it is recognized that the Synoptic gospels, in spite
of their late date and their didactic, rather than historical,
character, contain survivals of an early tradition, all the
more reliable as it contradicts the fundamental positions of
these writings, a point of departure has been obtained
whence it is possible to proceed to a critical sifting of the
entire material. Transformations of original sayings and
more exact statements of fact may be detected. Later ac-
cretions may be eliminated. The outlines of the historic
figure of Jesus become discernible. What is thus posi-
tively gained may seem slight in comparison with the wealth
of detail that once appeared to be available. Here as else-
where we must be satisfied with knowing less, if we would
have more accurate knowledge. But a handful of reason-
ably assured facts is worth more from the historical point of
view than a vast mass of comparatively late traditions. A
few glimpses of the real life of Jesus may allow us to per-
ceive a career more natural, a spiritual attitude more com-
prehensible, a character of greater dignity and intrinsic
worth, a teaching more profound than the evangelists, at
their distance in time, with their historic limitations, and
under the pressure of their peculiar religious demands,
were capable of appreciating.

There is no valid reason to doubt that Jesus was born in
Galilee, and that he was the son of a carpenter by the name
of Joseph and his wife Mariam, or Mary. The event prob-
ably occurred a few years before the Dionysian era. Luke1

1 The terms ' ' Matthew ' ' and ' ' Luke ' ' have been preserved, though
in the preceding chapter it has been shown, not only that Matthew
and Luke are not the authors of the Greek gospels bearing their
names, but also that the first two chapters in each of these gospels
are later additions, themselves of highly composite origin.

240

THE LIFE OF JESUS 241

indeed brings the birth of Jesus into connection with the
census under Quirinius that took place in the year 6 A. D.1
But he also declares that the conception of John happened
in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, and the natural im-
pression is that this statement of time is intended to cover
the angel 's visit to Mary as well. Herod died ten years be-
fore the census of Quirinius, in 4 B. C.2 As Matthew also
places the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod, this
seems to be the older tradition. Luke clearly believed that
the census under Quirinius occurred in the days of King
Herod3, and saw in it an occasion for the journey of Joseph
and his wife to Bethlehem where the Messiah was to be
born. This is rendered more probable by the fact that he
dates the public appearance of John in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius,4 28 or 29 A. D., and regards Jesus, who manifestly

1 II, 2 ; Josephus, Ant., xvii, 355 ; xviii, 1. f . Cf . the excellent
discussion of this census by Schiirer, Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes,
3rd ed., 1901, I, 508-543. The name of the Roman official praised in
the mutilated inscription found near Tivoli in 1764 has unfortunately
not been preserved, and it is uncertain whether he is said to have
been legatus Augusti twice, for instance once in Cilicia and Pam-
phylia and another time in Syria, or twice legate of Syria. The ref-
erence in Tacitus to the victory of Quirinius over the Homonadensians
soon after his consulate in 12 B. C. does not prove that he was gov-
ernor of Syria in 3-2 B. C, as long as it has not been shown that
Cilicia belonged to Syria, and was not an imperial province, in the
time of Augustus. Cf. Rudolph Hilgenfeld in Zeitschrift fur Wissen-
schaftliche Theologie, 1880, p. 98 ff., and Adolph Hilgenfeld, ibid.,
1892, p. 196 ff. Ramsay has produced no evidence of a census in
Judaea before 6 A. D. (Was Christ born in Bethleheml 1898).

Tertullian's statement (Adv. Marcion, IV, 19) that there was a
census in Judaea under Sentius Saturninus (9-6 B. C.) is without
support and clearly erroneous. Before the death of Herod (4 B.C.)
there can have beet no Roman census in Judaea, and citizens of
Galilee can have had nothing to do with any Judaean census.

2 Cf . the discussion of this date by C. H. Turner in Hastings' Dic-
tionary of the Bible, II, 483 ff.

3 1, 5.

4 III, 1. Before the time of Nerva civil years were reckoned in

Rome by the consuls. In the exceptional cases when regnal years

were used, they were counted from the actual day of accession. The

year extending from the 19th August, 28, to the 18th August, 29, was

16

242 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAKETH

appeared soon after, as "about thirty years of age."
While the statement is not as exact as it could be desired,1
it unquestionably points to the earlier period. The story of
the Magi and the massacre of infants in Matthew presup-
poses a tradition placing Jesus ' birth in the time of Herod.
In John ii, 20 the temple is said to have been in building
forty-six years. Herod began the main structure in 20 B.
C. Archaelaus may have added a wing; there is no evi-
dence or likelihood that the Roman procurators did anything
to the temple. From 41 A. D. Agrippa I built on the sanc-
tuary, and the temple was finished under Agrippa II in 65
A. D.2 However the years actually spent on this enterprise
may have been counted, no light is thrown by the statement
upon the chronology of Jesus ' life. In John viii, 57 the Jews
ask, ' ' Thou art not yet fifty years, and hast thou seen Abra-
ham ? " It may perhaps be inferred from this that the Fourth
Evangelist looked upon Jesus as a man of at least forty
years when this question was asked. Irenaeus3 also records
the opinion of some presbyters in Asia Minor that Jesus at-
tained an age of between forty and fifty years. But it is
doubtful whether, in either case, a genuine and old tradition
can be assumed. If the story of the star of Bethlehem is
connected with the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in
Pisces or the succeeding still greater conjunction of these
planets in Aries, and if Jesus was actually conceived or

probably regarded as the fifteenth of Tiberius 's reign. But if the
author was influenced by the custom prevailing in the time of Trajan,
he may have considered the time from the 19th August to the 31st
December, 14, as the first, and the tribunician year 28 as the fifteenth.
The consuls of the year 29 -were Eubellius Geminus and Eufus Gemi-
nus.

1 Annas (6-15 A. D.) is wrongly made high-priest at the same time
as Caiaphas (18-36 A. D.) ; Antipas is called only Herod; Philip is,
contrary to Josephus, made Tetrarch of Iturea; Lysanias, who died
36 B.C., is made tetrarch at this time. "About thirty years" is
quite indefinite. Even the fifteenth year of Tiberius may be Luke's
impression merely of the account given by Josephus of Pilate's pro-
curatorship. Cf. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, III, p. 480.

2 Cf . Keim, I. c, I, 615 f .

3 II, 22, 5.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 243

born at the time when one or the other of these conjunc-
tions occupied the attention of astrologers, his birth would
have occurred between the spring of 7 B. C. and the end of
5 B. C. There can be no question about the astrological im-
portance especially of the conjunctio maxima in 6 B. C. ; but
it may be seriously questioned whether the conception and
birth of Jesus synchronized with the significant movements
of the two planets. Nevertheless, it is not improbable that
Jesus was born toward the end of the reign of Herod. The
day of his birth is as little known as the year. The early
church celebrated as his birth-day the festival of the
epiphany of Dionysus on the sixth of January, and the Ar-
menian church still continues this custom; the Roman
church since the fourth century celebrates the natalis solis
invicti on the twenty-fifth of December.

That the parents of Jesus lived in Nazareth, and that he
was universally regarded as a native of that place, is the im-
pression left by the gospels. It is uncertain, however,
whether the Nazareth mentioned is identical with the pres-
ent En Nazura. No town by this name occurs in the Old
Testament, the works of Josephus, or the Talmud. Cheyne1
questions its very existence in the first century, and explains
Nazareth as Galilee, Nazarene in Matth. ii, 23 as Galilean,
referring to Isaiah ix, 1 ff., the Talmudic Jeshu ha nozeri2
as Jesus the Galilean, and, following Halevy and Well-
hausen,3 Gennesareth as Galilee. The most important of
these positions would be tenable even if it should be possible
to prove that there was a Galilean town of Nazareth. Hal-
evy4 looks for such a place near the Lake of Galilee. Of
this, however, there is no evidence, and the modern Nazareth
is most probably the place where Jesus was born. The
story of the Magi5 reveals the source of the idea that
Jesus was born in Bethlehem. This story rests upon

1 Encyclopaedia BiNica, III, 3360 ff.

2 Aboda Zara, 17a.

3 Israelische und jiidische Geschichte, 3rd ed., 1897, p. 266.

4 Revue Semitique, 1903, p. 232 ff,

5 M.Qtth., ii, 1 ff .

244 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

the assumption current in antiquity that the fate of men
and nations may be read in the stars. While the writer
himself may have conceived of the star that went before
the Magi "until it came and stood over where the young
child was" as a new and startling celestial phenomenon,
the tradition upon which he drew no doubt had its
origin in the astrologically important observation that about
the time when Jesus must have been born there occurred the
greatest of all conjunctions, that of Jupiter and Saturn in
the Zodiacal sign of Aries, the house of the sun at the vernal
equinox. According to Kepler,1 there was a conjunction
of Jupiter and Saturn in Pisces about the 22d of June, 7
B. C. and in February-May, 6 B. C, a still greater con-
junction when Mars approached Jupiter and Saturn and, in
addition to them, the sun with its satellites Yenus and Mer-
cury also appeared in or near Aries. He was quite justified
in asking, "What could the Chaldaeans, following the still
extant rules of their art, conjecture but an event of the very
greatest importance?" The language of Matthew forced
Kepler to assume that "together with and besides such very
great conjunctions ' ' a comet appeared.2 Oef ele has recently
called attention to a demotic papyrus in the Berlin Museum
giving the positions of the planets from 17 B. C. to 10 A. D.3
This table indicates a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in
Aries from the 12th Epiphi 23 of Augustus's reign to the
8th Thot, 24, from the 5th Mechir to the 5th Epiphi, 24, and
from the 1st Choiak to the 3d Mechir, 25. With the aid of
such data and due observation of the apparent retrogres-
sions of the planets, Oefele has figured out that the con-

1 Opera Omnia, ed. Frisch, II, 708 f.; IV, 257, 347.

"Opera Omnia, IV, 257. Kepler does not seem to have given the
technical sense of a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in Aries to the
term conjunctio maxima, but simply "a very great conjunction." He
appears to think of the conjunction in Pisces as well as that in Aries
and the concourse of other planets beside the largest ones in the same
region of the sky, when he speaks of "solchen conjunctionibus max-
imis. ' '

'Die Angdben der Berliner Planetentafel P. 8279, and Das Uoro-
slcop der Empfdngnis Christi in Mitteilungen der Vorderasatischen
Gesellschaft, 1903, 2 and 6.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 245

junction in Pisces referred to by Kepler ended seven days
before the first conjunction in Aries, that there were three
periods of conjunction in Aries interrupted by one in Pisces,
that one of these periods began the 15th April, 6 B. C, that
Jupiter became stationary, or "stood," in Aries on the 27th
December, 6 B. C, and that Jesus was conceived on the 15th
April of that year and found in Bethlehem on the 27th De-
cember by the Magi who had started from Jerusalem on the
25th November. Oefele shows by the testimony of cunei-
form tablets that Babylonian astrologers were in the habit
of predicting the effect of planetary positions upon Martu,
or Syria. The value of his researches lies in pointing out
how necessarily this conjunction, occurring only a few
times in a millennium, must have led observers of the stars
to look for extraordinary events and to find horoscopes im-
plying unusual destines. There can be little doubt that as-
trology helped to create an atmosphere of expectancy at this
time. But it should also be considered how natural it
would be to conclude subsequently from the importance of
a historic personality that his conception or birth must have
been connected with the peculiar and rarely occurring posi-
tion of the planets.1 There are minor difficulties, such as
the too short period between conception and birth, the too
long journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, and the compu-
tation of the regnal years of Augustus. But these are of
little consequence compared with the tremendous strain
upon modern intelligence of the assumption that there
really is a relation between the conception of a human
being upon the earth and the greater or shorter distance be-
tween some of the planets in the sky.

In all probability, a Hellenistic Jew or a Gentile con-
verted to Christianity toward the end of the first century
was led by his knowledge of the conjunctio maxima in 6
B. C. to suppose that Jesus was born under those auspicious
planetary influences, and to conclude that astrologers in
the East must have seen his star (Jupiter near Saturn in
Aries) and naturally come to worship him. That Magi

1 This was clearly done in the case of Alexander.

246 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

from the rising sun might thus have journeyed far to pay
divine homage to a great king, had been seen in the case of
Tiridates and the Magi in his company, who in 66 A. D. had
gone through Asia Minor to Rome to prostrate themselves
before Nero, addressing him as a god.1 An influence upon
the legend from this source was suggested by Dieterich2 and
has been deemed probable by Usener3 and Pfleiderer.4
Thus understood, it sets forth in impressive' symbolism the
conversion of the Mithras-worshiping world to Christianity,
the adoration of the new-born king of the Jews by the Magi,
in contrast with the attitude of his own people who, though
in possession of the prophetic word, refused to do him honor.
The story clearly indicates that it was the prophecy of
Micah5 which rendered it necessary to believe that as the
Messiah he must have been born in Bethlehem. The Beth-
lehem meant is unquestionably the well known town in
Judah where David was supposed to have been born.
Cheyne6 thinks of Bethlehem nozeriyya, or zeriyya, in
Zebulon, 7 miles N. W. of Nazareth, a place mentioned in
the Talmud.7 But it is to be observed that this Bethlehem is
only referred to in the birth-stories and is distinctly con-
nected with David. At least since the eighth century Beth-
lehem in Judah was regarded as the birth-place of David.
Only in recent times the accuracy of this tradition has been
questioned.8 Modern criticism is making Bethlehem again
' ' little among the thousands of Judah, ' ' no longer to be hon-

Jb Dio Cassius, LXIII, 2 f .

* Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1902, p. 1 ff.
8 Ibid., 1903, p. 19.

4 Das Christusbild des urchristlichen Glaubens, 1903, p. 101. How
far the star of Jacob in Numbers, xxiv, 17, influenced the legend, is
difficult to say. Pfleiderer has also suggested Isaiah, lx, 1 ff ., where
the breaking forth of Yahwe's light is followed by the coming of
the Sabaeans with gifts of gold and frankincense (Das Vrchristen-
tum, 2nd ed., 1902, p. 552 f.).

6 Matth., ii, 6 ; Micah, v, 1.

* Encyclopaedia Biblica, III, 3360 ff.

7 Megilla, 70a.

8 Marquart, Fundamente israelitischer und jiidischer Geschichte,
1896, p. 23 ff.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 247

ored as the birth-place either of David dr of Jesus. The
massacre of the infants is inextricably interwoven with the
visit of the astrologers from the East. Josephus records
many a crime committed by Herod, but he knew nothing of
such a deed. This silence remains strange, even when due
weight is given to the reasoning of J. C. Vollborth1 who
called attention to the fact that Bethlehem cannot have had
more than about a thousand inhabitants, so that the number
of male children under two years of age is not likely to have
exceeded a dozen. Far reaching conclusions have been
drawn from Matthew's account of the flight to Egypt.
Rabbis reported in the Talmud supposed that Jesus learned
in Egypt forbidden magic,2 and modern writers have
thought that he acquired the wisdom of the Egyptians.
The evangelist clearly indicates the source of this story.
The flight was invented "that it might be fulfilled which
was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, ' ! Out
of Egypt I have called my son."3 It is unknown to Luke.
Instead of a visit by Magi, this evangelist narrates the com-
ing of shepherds to Bethlehem, who have been informed by
angels that "a Saviour, who is Christ, the Lord, has been
born in the city of David."4 And from Bethlehem he lets
the holy family go, not to Egypt, but to Jerusalem and
thence ' ' to their own city Nazareth. ' '5

At the root of the various Bethlehem legends lies the con-
viction that Jesus must have been a true descendant of
David. The genealogies in Matthew6 and Luke7 bear wit-
ness to this conviction. Both profess to give the pedigree
of Joseph. One goes back to Abraham, the other to Adam ;
one runs through the royal line, the other follows a side

1In Matth., ii, 16, 1788, summarized by Eichhorn in Allgemeine
Bibliothek, 1789, p. 356 ff.

2Cf. e. g. Shabbath, 104b; Sanhedrin, 107b; Sota, 47a; pal. Shab-
bath, 14. So also the Jewish informants of Celsus.

3 Matth., ii, 14; Rosea, xi, 1.

4 Luke, ii, 8 ff .
B Luke, ii, 39.

• I, 1-17.
T III, 23-38.

248 THE PEOFHET OF NAZARETH

branch ; one omits certain links to make the chain consist of
three equal parts, the other adds links not found in the Old
Testament. Both depend on the Greek version for the
earlier period, and apparently upon some books akin to the
Chronicles for some of the later names. Curiously enough,
Shealtiel is the son of Jeconiah in Matthew, the son of Neri
in Luke; Joseph descends from David's son Solomon and
Zerubbabel's son Abiud in Matthew, from David's son
Nathan and Zerubbabel's son Rhesa in Luke, and neither
Abiud nor Rhesa are mentioned among the sons of Zerub-
babel in Chronicles; in fact, Joseph's own father is Jacob in
Matthew and Heli in Luke. The phrases "of Tamar" in
vs 3, "of Rahab" and "of Ruth" in vs 5, and "of her that
had been the wife of Uriah" in vs 6, are probably late addi-
tions by some one who desired to emphasize the contrast be-
tween the Davidic lineage of Jesus' putative father, with
its undeniable taints, and the pure and spotless paternity
of Jesus. The incomplete, contradictory and mutually ex-
clusive genealogies only show that Jesus' grandfather was
not known in early Christian circles. But while they do not
prove the Davidic descent of Jesus, they are of great value
in revealing the earliest tradition as to his immediate pater-
nity. It was recognized long ago that no man could have
undertaken to prove by the pedigree of Joseph the Davidic
descent of Jesus who did not believe that Jesus was the son
of Joseph. But this remained a critical conjecture until the
discovery of the Sinaitic Syriac palimpsest. This version,
made from a Greek text older than any we possess to-day,
as is universally admitted, reads in Matth. i, 16, "Joseph
begat Jesus." Some manuscripts of the old Latin version
point to the same text.1

This is indeed out of harmony with the story of the virgin
birth, as the contradiction to it given in verse 18 at once
evinces, but the section containing it is clearly a later inser-
tion. The profound influence of non-Jewish thought upon

1 The fullest discussion of the passage will be found in Adalbert
Merx, Das Evangelium Matthaeus nach der Syrischen im SinaiMoster
gefundenen Palimpsesthandschrift, 1902, p. 5 ff.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 249

the author of Matth. i, 18-ii, 23 cannot be denied. In the
Graeco-Roman world the idea of a divine paternity was ex-
ceedingly common. Pythagoras was supposed to be a son
of Apollo and Parthenis, Plato a son of Apollo and Perik-
tione, Alexander a son of Amon Re or Zeus and Olympias,
Seleueus a son of Apollo and Laodice, Augustus a son of
Jupiter and Attia, Apollonius of Tyana a son of Zeus and
a woman, and Simon Magus a son of the Most High and a
virgin, to mention only a few examples among many.1 In
early Israel similar notions occur, as Gen. vi, 1 ff. and other
passages show. But in later Judaism they seem to have dis-
appeared except where contact with Greek thought is mani-
fest, as in the case of Philo. According to him, Samuel
was "born of a human mother" who "became pregnant
after receiving divine seed;"2 Zipporah was found by
Moses "pregnant by no mortal;"3 Tamar was "pregnant
through divine seed;"4 and Isaac was "not the result of
generation but the shaping of the unbegotten. "5 This
shows that even profound thinkers among the Hellenistic
Jews occupied themselves with parthenogenetic speculations.
Whether the wrong translation of 'almak in Isaiah vii, 14
as "virgin" instead of as "young woman" contributed to
the development of the doctrine of the virgin birth or was a
welcome proof from the Scriptures of an already formed
conviction, cannot be determined. But the author of the
story may very well have been a Christian Jew. His fa-
miliarity with the Jewish law of betrothal speaks in favor of
this view.

Originally, the account in Luke presented Mary as the
wife of Joseph, accompanying her husband to Bethlehem,
there giving birth to her first-born son with him, and stop-
ping on the way home in Jerusalem after they had both been

1 Cf . Usener, Beligionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 1898, p. 70 ff.

2 I, 273, ed. Mangey.

3 1, 147.
4 1, 598.
I, 215.

0

250 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

purified. Hillman1 has convincingly shown that when the
interpolated verses i, 34, 35 and the gloss "as was sup-
posed ' ' in iii, 23 have been removed, there is not the slight-
est intimation of a virgin birth in the text, but weighty evi-
dence that the author can have had no such miracle in
mind.2 This disposes of the various attempts by Jewish
rabbis and modern scholars to discover the real paternity
of Jesus, as well as of the fiction of an immaculate concep-
tion. The currents of human life that united in the person-
ality of Jesus bore through hidden channels from sources
lost to view the strength and weakness of the race. To
regard them as common and unclean was a serious de-
parture from the spirit of Jesus that avenged itself by cast-
ing the shadow of a wholly undeserved suspicion on the
humble family of Nazareth.3

1 Jahrbucher fur protestantische Theologie, XVII, 1891, 192 ff.

2 Luke, i, 5-25, 41b, 46-55, 57-80, seems to have been drawn from a
work originating among the disciples of John the Baptist. The Mag-
nificat was originally put upon the lips of Elizabeth, as Volter has
shown. (Theologisch Tijdschrift, 1896, p. 244 ff.). Harnack has
called attention to the fact that both "Elizabeth" and "Mary" in
vs. 46 are late (Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Alcademie der Wissen-
schaften, 1900, p. 538 ff.), which would give the psalm to Elizabeth.
The psalm is an imitation of that ascribed to Hanna, but signifi-
cantly omits the supposed Messianic reference, and speaks of a "hu-
miliation" of the Lord's handmaiden, appropriate in the case of
Elizabeth, but not applicable to Mary. The legends concerning
Hanna and Symeon are clearly of late origin.

3 The story that Jesus was the son of a soldier by the name of
Panthera was known already to Celsus in 178 A. D. (Origen, Contra
Celsum, I, 32), and is frequently repeated in the Babylonian and
Palestinian Talmuds. (See the original texts in Dalman, Was sagt
der Talmud uber Jesum, 1891). Panthera is probably a Greek ana-
gram on the word Parthenos-Virgin, Bar Panthera thus playfully
hinting at the "Son of the Virgin." Later Panthera was made the
name of the alleged seducer of Mary. This anagram was suggested
by P. Cassel in 1878 in his Commentary on Esther (Eng. tr., p. 336),
and by J. Eendel Harris, The Apology of Aristides in Texts and
Studies, Cambridge, 1893, p. 25. The name Panther also occurs in
Christian genealogies of Jesus; cf. Epiphanius, Haer., lxxviii, 7, but
this probably is an attempted rehabilitation of Panthera. Ben-Sotada
is generally explained "Son of this woman suspected of adultery,"

THE LIFE OF JESUS 251

Concerning the early life of Jesus little is known. He
may have been about twelve years of age when, in 6 A. D.,
the census of Quirinius caused an insurrection headed by
the Galilean, Judas of Gamala in Gaulanitis, and it is not
improbable that his youthful mind was already impressed
with the weighty issues that were involved. About the
same time he may have made his first pilgrimage to Jeru-
salem and seen for the first time animal sacrifices offered to
Yahwe. If he asked any questions of the priests or the
elders in the temple, they are likely to have concerned the
sacrificial cult.1 The child is the father of the man. From
Mark vi, 3 ff . it is safe to conclude that Jesus was a carpen-
ter and house-builder. This passage also shows that the

though this explanation is open to doubt. In modern times many
writers have sought to account for the general characteristics of Jesus
and his peculiar attitude to priests, scribes and Pharisees as well as
to his mother and brothers by his supposed illegitimate birth. But
the suspicion of illegitimacy is only a corollary of the late doctrine of
a virgin birth. It is time that historic criticism should put an end to
these groundless aspersions against the parents of Jesus with the
survivals of pagan mythology that gave occasion to them. The car-
penter of Nazareth and his good wife need no apology for giving to
the world, as the fruits of tender and loyal affection, their first born
son and his less distinguished brothers and sisters. But the Church
in its maturity should seek to repair the injury done unwittingly by
the Church in its childhood to this worthy couple, and to all sound
family life, by the myths concerning the origin of Jesus.

1 The nucleus of the story, Luke, ii, 41-51, belongs to the older
stratum of tradition, as is clear from the modest role of Jesus, listen-
ing to the teachers and asking them questions, and from Mary's
words, "Thy father and I were seeking thee." But the answer of
Jesus, "How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be
about my Father 's business ? " is as clearly secondary. In his anxiety
to mark the contrast between "thy father" and "my Father," the
author has put upon the lips of Jesus a wholly unwarranted rebuke of
his parents. Why should they not seek him? Whether we interpret
"my Father's business" or "my Father's house," there is do ques-
tion here of a conflict of duties to God and to parents, but rather a
suggestion of that tendency to set aside manifest moral duties on a
religious pretext, which Jesus himself so severely criticised in later
life.

252 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

trade cannot have been merely a rabbi's avocation.1 The
astonishment of his neighbors is too genuine, and their
knowledge concerning his outward career too reliable, to
permit the idea that Jesus had been trained as a rabbi. The
whole character of his teaching precludes the assumption.
There is nothing to suggest that he had ever appeared as a
teacher before his contact with John the Baptist. But
there can be no doubt that the many years during which he
quietly worked at his trade witnessed the growth of his
moral and religious character and the development of his
peculiar views of life. What the shaping influences were,
cannot be determined with certainty. His later conduct
and teaching suggest, however, that he learned more from
observation of nature, intercourse with men, and com-
munion with God, than from books. In the synagogue of
Nazareth, Moses and the Prophets were read in the Hebrew,
and probably a methurgeman interpreted in the Galilean
dialect of the Aramaic the sections read. The prophetic
books seem to have left a deeper impression on Jesus than
the Law. If his home possessed any of these revered writ-
ings, it is likely that prophets and psalms were his favorite
reading.2 From the great prophets of his people he learned

how freely men of the spirit had criticised what he supposed

«

*So apparently Brandt, who thinks that Jesus went through the
school af Pharisaic Biblical erudition and thus became a rabbi, and
who attaches much value to a Eabbinic decision handed down from
Jesus the Galilean through an unknown disciple, Jacob of Kefar
Sekanyah, to Eabbi Eliezer and quoted in Aboda Zara, 16b, 17a
(Evangelische Geschichte, 1893, p. 449 ff.).

8 There is no reason to doubt that he knew how to read and to
write. An opportunity to acquire such knowledge was probably
offered in the synagogue. Josephus seems to indicate that (Contra
Apionem, II, 204), and the Mishna clearly shows it to have been the
case in the second century A. D. (Shabbath, I, 3.) While all par-
ents may not have given their children the advantage of such instruc-
tion, and it is difficult to determine how far the conditions of Judaea
prevailed also in a small Galilean town in the first years of our era,
it is safe to assume that a promising child was given the oppor-
tunity, or an intelligent young man was able to secure for himself a
chance, of acquiring these elements of education.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 253

to be Mosaic institutions, how strongly they had emphasized
their conviction that God desired righteousness and not sac-
rifices, how strenuously they had opposed the resort to
chariots and horses and urged a quiet reliance on the arm
of God, and how constantly they had peered into the future
for the signs of the great day of the Lord. Their influence
upon him is unmistakable. On the other hand, his sayings
do not reveal to what extent he was familiar with such wis-
dom-books as Job, Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes,
or whether he was at all acquainted with such works as the
Psalms of Solomon, the earlier parts of Enoch, and Jubilees.
Both his daily occupation and his bent of mind tended to
give him a livelier interest in the vital issues presented by
the prophets than in the legal questions absorbing the atten-
tion of the rabbis, and to send him in leisure moments to the
fountain-heads of inspiration and instruction rather than to
the best cisterns. He was a sympathetic and thoughtful ob-
server of nature. Revelations of deep significance came to
him through rain and sunshine, land and sea, trees and
flowers, birds and beasts. References to natural objects
and phenomena are as frequent in his reported utterances
as they are conspicuously absent in the rabbinic discussions
of the Talmud, or the epistolary literature of the New Testa-
ment. His observation of human nature was keen rather
than broad. He learned much from contact with men, even
though his acquaintance was limited by the circumstances of
his life. His disregard of conventional standards of judg-
ment led him to put his own valuation upon the characters
of men, their words and deeds. His half wondering, half
reproachful question, "Judge ye not of yourselves what is
right ? ' ' reveals a fundamental principle of his mental proc-
esses. He seems to have judged men by the manner in
which they affected him more than by an impartial scrutiny
of their actions, a nice balancing of merits and demerits,
and a gradual approach to an adequate estimate by observa-
tion from many view-points. In this he was a son of the
prophets, and of his race. The men with whom he came in
contact were Hebrews, not Greeks. If in the fragmentary

254 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

record he seems to hurl his woes indiscriminately against
whole classes, not only holding those responsible for enter-
ing in who had the keys, or demanding much of those to
whom much had been given, but apparently failing to recog-
nize the sincerity of those whose conservatism kept them in
the beaten paths and condemning as hypocrites and thieves
the entire body of religious leaders, the noblest men of his
people had done the same before his time. It is probable
that personal experiences and associations had a determin-
ing influence. He was a carpenter, as his father had been.
His associates were humble folk, artisans, small trades-
people, tillers of the soil, fishermen. Grinding poverty,
bootless labor, anxious care for the morrow, constant suffer-
ing from the pride, the greed and the lust of the well-to-do
classes, discontent with the Roman yoke, the Idumaean
dynasty and the heavy burdens of taxation, envy and dis-
trust of the rich, the cultured and the respectable, were
characteristic features of his social environment. To as-
sume that Jesus had a certain class consciousness is not as-
cribing to him a distinctly modern sentiment. A man can-
not have spent most of his life at a carpenter's bench and
in a carpenter's home without looking out upon the world
through a carpenter's eyes. Jesus could not have left his
trade at the mature age of thirty without carrying with him
a sympathy for the little ones, the needy, the oppressed and
the outcast, and an understanding of their lot and character
not so natural to men brought up in surroundings of afflu-
ence and social distinction.

It is difficult to determine how far the views of Jesus may
have been influenced by the opinions of men with whom he
was thrown into contact before the appearance of John the
Baptist. It has been suggested that he may have been a
member of a local Essene cult-community. This is, indeed,
highly improbable. Even if such a brotherhood existed in
the little Galilean town, it is not likely that Jesus was at any
time sufficiently attracted by its principles and mode of life
to identify himself with it. It seems improbable that, with
his temper and in his circumstances, the anxious observance

THE LIFE OF JESUS 255

of ceremonies, tabus, and sacred days, characteristic of the
Essenes, could have appealed to him, or that he would have
been willing to pledge himself to unquestioning obedience to
superiors.1 Nevertheless there was much in Essenism that
must have found a ready response in his heart, if he was
acquainted with it, and much in his own teaching and life
that is most naturally explained by the supposition that he
knew and was influenced by it. If he was familiar with the
Essenes, he must have been favorably impressed with their
simplicity of life, opposition to private wealth, contentment
with their lot, kindness to the poor, disapproval of slavery,
non-resistance of evil, healing of the sick, preference for
celibacy, rejection of animal sacrifices, objection to oaths,
reverent contemplation of nature, occupation with things to
come and idea of a spiritual resurrection.2 It can scarcely
be an accident that so many of his own great convictions are
also found among their leading tenets. Particularly impor-

1 The tendency to allegorizing with which the Essenes are credited
must also have seemed to him unnatural. How far this penchant as
well as some of the Essene tenets were due to the direct influence of
Greek thought, is difficult to determine. If Zeller went somewhat too
far in this direction by making Essenism a mere reflection of
Pythagoreanism, Lucius, on the other hand, erred by denying any re-
lation and regarding Essenism as nothing but an exaggerated form of
Pharisaism. Greek and Oriental speculation met in Essenism as in
Pythagoreanism.

2 Hilgenf eld is right in calling attention to the sporadic opposition
in ancient Israel to the sacrificial system and the temple cult. In
view of utterances by pre-exilic prophets, Ps., 1, Isa., Ixv, and other
passages, Ohle's contention (Jahrbiicher fur prot. Theologie, 1887
and 1888) that the rejection of animal sacrifices proves that the
Essenes cannot have been Jews, that therefore the Jewish sect de-
scribed under this name by Philo and Josephus never existed, lacks
all plausibility. Hilgenfeld believes the accounts, but also explains
the Essenes as an originally non-Jewish tribe, whose existence goes
back to pre-exilic times. Josephus is probably right in assuming that
the Essenes came into existence as a party in the middle of the second
century. Opposition to the illegitimate high-priesthood may have oc-
casioned the forming of a party. Oriental (Indian and Persian) in-
fluences came later. The Greek influence may have come, either from
Alexandria, where the Therapeutas lived, or from the Greek Deeapo-
lis.

256 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

tant is his attitude on questions where the Essenes differed
radically from the Pharisees. The latter believed in the
principle of retaliation sanctioned by the law, in the bearing
of arms, in the taking of oaths, in marriage and divorce, in
the offering of animal sacrifices, and in the resurrection oi
the flesh on the last day. The views of Jesus on these points
seem to have been either identical with or akin to those of the
Essenes. His opposition to the legal principle of retalia-
tion, and his insistence on the principle of overcoming evil
with good were even more marked than those of the Es-
senes. Like them he rejected the oath. He remained
unmarried. He seems to have commended celibacy, though
recognizing the temporary value of marriage when kept
indissoluble and without the possibility of divorce. He
ignored the sacrificial system, or advised men to dispense
with the proper performance of sacrificial acts in the inter-
est of morality. Concerning the resurrection he seems to
have believed, with the Essenes, that the good are raised
immediately after death and continue to live with God in a
form of existence like that of the angels, without sharing
their belief in the preexistence of the soul, the inherent evil
of matter, and the survival of all souls. How far Essene
thought affected Jewish society, even where there was no
organized body of believers, is impossible to know. But the
overlapping of different spheres of influence is a constantly
observed fact. As the young Josephus seeking for the truth
found a Banus, who cannot be affirmed to have been an Es-
sene, but apparently stood religiously very near this body,
so Jesus in his youth may have met some unknown teacher
whose influence in some direction was as determining as
that of John the Baptist later.

The word of God came to John, the son of Zechariah, in
the wilderness in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.1 There is

1 Luke, iii, 1. Where the home of Zechariah and Elizabeth was is
not known. The tradition that places it at 'Ain Karim does not go
beyond the twelfth century. Cheyne (article, John the Baptist in
Encyclopaedia Biblica) conjectures that 'Ain Karim is intended by
"Aenon, near Salim, " i. e., Jerusalem, in John, iii, 23. But what

THE LIFE OF JESUS 257

no valid ground for questioning the substantial accuracy of
this statement of Luke. A number of arguments have been
urged against its trustworthiness, such as the unquestion-
able inaccuracies of the immediate context, the report of
Josephus that men looked upon Herod 's defeat by Aretas as
the judgment of heaven upon him for the murder of John
the Baptist, which therefore could not have occurred a very
long time before, and the apparently necessary close con-
nection in time between the death of John, the divorce of
Aretas 's daughter, and the war of Aretas upon Herod.
But Volkmar1 is probably right in thinking that the journey
of Herod Antipas to Rome on which he became enamoured
of Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Boethus, was
undertaken early in the year 29 A. D. to offer con-
dolences on the death of Julia Livia, to ingratiate himself
with Sejanus, and to explain his conduct in the case of
John, which might have given Pilate cause for complaint.
This scholar probably also divined the truth, when he main-
tained that John the Baptist was imprisoned and some time
later put to death in the fortress of Machaerus, then belong-
ing to Herod's father-in-law Aretas, before Herod's journey
to Eome and his marriage to Herodias. Josephus2 was
familiar with the story of John, his baptism, and the polit-
ical excitement caused by his appearance, but he knew

kind of baptism could John have performed there? The phrase
"because there was much water there" seems to indicate that the
author thought of a good-sized stream. At Tell Nimrim, northeast
of Jericho, which Cheyne regards as the place intended by Bethabara
or Bethany ("beyond the Jordan" being considered as a gloss)
there is at least such a stream. The Onomasticon of Eusebius gives
us no real help. It is not improbable that John's home was some-
where near the Dead Sea or the Jordan, where Essenes and other
Baptist sects seem to have flourished.

1 See especially Jesus Nasarenus, 1882, p. 369 ff.

2 Ant., xviii, 109 ff . There is no reason to doubt the genuineness of
this passage. Had it been inserted by a Christian, he would not have
forgotten the dramatic incidents of the gospels and ascribed a pe-
culiar political character to John's career.

17

258 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

nothing about his having rebuked Herod for marrying the
divorced wife of his brother.1

But while John's career was apparently ended before
Herod Antipas had offended the zealots for the Law by
marrying, contrary to Lev. xviii, 16, a woman who had been
his brother's wife,2 the death of the popular prophet was
laid to his charge by many who possibly cared less about
the chagrin of a foreign princess or even the degrees of mar-

xIt is no longer quite as certain as it seemed in the days of Volk-
mar that Machaerus at the time belonged to Aretas. Niese, in his
edition, has shown that the present manuscripts do not read tote,
"then," but to te, which probably favors the following translation:
"She, however, had already before sent a message to Machaerus and
to the (district) tributary to her father, and everything had been
prepared for the journey by the general." This is supposed by
Schiirer {Geschichte, 3rd ed., 1901, Vol. I, p. 436) to mean that she
sent word both to the fortress belonging to Herod, from whom she
fled, and to the adjoining territory belonging to her father. But
the connection between Machaerus and "the subject to her father"
is too close to permit the thought of two different messages to offi-
cers of different governments, and the construction of a dative follow-
ing a preposition with accusative is harsh. If this was the original
text, it is more natural to suppose the meaning to be that she sent
to Machaerus and the subordinate (masc.) of her father, the com-
mander of the fortress. But it is difficult to believe that all the
earlier editors of Josephus recorded the more natural reading without
any manuscript authority. An editio 'princeps is often as good as a
manuscript.

*It has long been recognized that Matthew made a mistake when
he declared that Herodias was the wife of Philip (xiv, 3). Mark
repeated the error (vi, 17). Luke, acquainted with Josephus, avoided
it (iii, 19, 20) and spoke only of Herod's brother. Herodias was the
wife of Herod Boethus, who lived in privacy in Jerusalem. Their
daughter was Salome, who afterwards became the wife of Philip.
The story of her dancing before Herod and being instigated by her
mother to ask for the head of John the Baptist on a charger, which
was reluctantly given to her by Herod on account of his promise to
grant her anything "to the half of his kingdom," is generally ac-
knowledged to be legendary. The historical Antipas "had no king-
dom to divide" (Holtzmann). Herodias, considering her family an
exceptionally good woman, had no grievance against John. Christian
exegetes forget that bigamy was no crime according to the Jewish
law.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 259

riage forbidden in the Law, and it was this martyrdom of
John that was remembered when he was defeated by Aretas,
rather than the humiliation of Aretas 's daughter. That
some time passed between the flight of the Nabataean
princess and the war that ended so disastrously for Herod,
is evident from the narrative of Josephus which mentions
boundary disputes. It should also be observed that Aretas
scarcely had any grievance against Herod because of his
marrying an additional wife, while Herod might have had
cause for complaint in the disappearance of his Arabian
queen. There is no necessary connection between the death
of John in 28 or early in 29 A. D., the marriage of Herod
to Herodias on his return from Eome in 29 A. D., and the
great victory of Aretas in 36 A. D. Seven years is not too
long a period for men to remember a prophet in whose
light they have rejoiced to walk, and the memory of the
martyred prophet is especially long-lived, even though the
year and day may not be accurately recalled.

If John appeared in 28 A. D. and was imprisoned and put
to death before Herod's departure for Eome in 29 A. D.,
it was probably some time early in the latter year that Jesus
came to listen to his preaching. The Gospel according to
the Hebrews1 seems to have recorded that his mother and
brothers urged Jesus to go with them to be baptized by John.
He at first objected on the ground that he was not con-
scious of any sin, but afterwards changed his mind, consid-
ering that this assertion may itself have been a sin. It is
not impossible that this story has preserved the memory of
two facts : that the whole family was moved by the account
of John's preaching to go to the Jordan, and that Jesus at
first objected to the ceremony of immersion and the osten-
tatious confession of sin. This would be in harmony with
his later attitude. Oscar Holtzmann2 accepts the whole
story on the ground that it could not have been invented by
those who believed in the absolute sinlessness of Jesus.

1 Jerome, Contra Pelagium, iii, 2; Cyprian, Be rebaptismate, xvii.
From this gospel the passage found its way into the Predicatio Pauli.

2 Leben Jesu, 1901, p. 93 f .

260 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

This is indeed true, but hardly conclusive. The narrative
appears to be early, without being wholly reliable. The
motives that led Jesus to go were no doubt his desire to hear
the words of a living prophet and his eagerness for every
sign of the coming of the kingdom of heaven. It is a
precious indication of his faith that he did not regard
prophecy as a thing of the past but was ready to hear the
word of God from the lips of one of his own contemporaries.
When he saw the stern prophet of the desert, with his un-
shorn hair and his leathern girdle, and heard his fierce de-
nunciation of the mighty and the wise in their own conceit,
and his earnest demand for righteousness of conduct, the
prophets whose words he had read seemed less great. The
first impression must have been overpowering. Even later,
when he had learned to discount the value of this message
and was himself proclaiming an ideal higher than any that
John ever dreamed of, he continued to regard the Baptist
as the greatest of all prophets. It is uncertain whether
John immersed others in the Jordan, or set an example of
immersing himself in its waters.1 In any case, the act was
well understood to be something else than an ordinary wash-
ing, to remove the uncleanness of the flesh. It was a sacred
bath, symbolical of repentance and the desire to live a clean
life. Hence he forbade some to come to his baptism who
declared that, as sons of Abraham and members of the holy
nation, they were acceptable to God, and who showed no
fruits of repentance. Jesus appears to have submitted to
the rite. Later tradition associated various miraculous
features with the event. There was a fire;2 the heavens
were rent asunder ; a dove appeared ; this dove was the Holy
Ghost ; a voice was heard by Jesus himself or by John ; the
bath kol proclaimed him to be the Messiah; it said to him

1 The latter is the inference drawn from the title by Brandt, Evan-
gelische Geschlchte, 1893, p. 457 f .

2 Justin seems to have read of a fire in his copy of Matthew, Dial,
c. Tryph., lxxxviii, 315, so also the Predicatio Pauli, the Gospel ace. to
the Ebionites, quoted by Epiphanius, Adv, haer, xxx, 13, and old Latin
versions.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 261

' ' Thou art my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, ' ' or
' ' Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, " or ' ' My
Son, in all the prophets I expected thee, that thou shouldest
come, and I should rest on thee ; for thou art my rest, thou
art my only begotten Son, who reigneth for ever;"1 or it
said of him, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well
pleased." The Baptist was represented as hesitating, feel-
ing that it would be more appropriate for him to be bap-
tized by Jesus, whom he recognized as the Messiah, than the
reverse, but was graciously reminded that ' ' Thus it behooves
us to fulfil all righteousness." This is clearly a secondary
thought. It is manifest from John's later message2 to
Jesus that nothing of this kind had actually happened, and
that the thought of Jesus possibly being the Messiah did not
come to him until he began to receive reports of the public
ministry of the latter. That Jesus in the water had an
ecstatic vision which convinced him that he was the Messiah,
is supposed by some critics. But there is no indication that
he was a visionary, no ground for assuming that he regarded
himself as the Messiah, and no justification for such a con-
struction of the vacillating and mutually exclusive tradi-
tions. Nevertheless, the event had unquestionably a de-
cisive influence on his future. He had identified himself
with the prophetic movement. How long he remained with
John, we do not know. The period must have been com-
paratively short, as the Baptist's career was soon cut off by
his arrest. Antipas was apparently forced by political con-
siderations to interfere. As the cry arose on every side,
' ' The kingdom of heaven is at hand ! " he had good reason
to fear an intervention by the Romans similar to that which
twenty-three years before had deprived his brother Arche-
laus of Judaea and Samaria.

The arrest of John was an unmistakable call to Jesus to
take up his work. It is probable that the news reached him
in Galilee. If so, he seems to have left the Baptist, either
as a propagandist, or from a growing sense of disappoint-

1 Gospel ace. to the Hebreivs, Jerome, Com. in Isaiam, xi, 2.
zMatth., xi, 2ff.

262 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH

ment, or to wait for further providential leading. There
is a tradition that he was carried by the Spirit to the desert
to be tempted by the devil.1 Possibly it might be inferred
from this that he sought solitude for meditation, and that
his residence for some time was unknown to his relatives
and remained so to his disciples. Matthew, Luke, and the
Gospel according to the Hebrews give in different order and
different language accounts of the Satanic temptations that
assailed him. He was tempted to satisfy his hunger by
making bread out of stones, to cast himself from the pin-
nacles of the temple and to fly in the air, and to fall down
and worship the devil in order to obtain all the kingdoms
of the world which he saw from an exceedingly high moun-
tain. There is of course, no more reason to believe that
Jesus was seriously troubled by desires to turn stones into
bread, to soar above the earth before gaping crowds, or to
rule as an emperor even at the cost of worshiping the devil,
than that he actually was carried through the air by the
devil to the roof of the temple, or to a mountain so high
that from its peak he could see round the globe. The orig-
inal impulse to such narratives may have been the saying of
Jesus recorded in Luke xxii, 28. They seem to typify the
sort of temptations supposed to assail the Messiah. The
devil was supposed to find the material for his temptations
in Messianic prophecies, and Jesus was supposed to have
overcome them by falling back upon passages in the Scrip-
tures relating to man's duty. "Man shall not live by bread
alone ;" "man must not tempt the Lord, his God ; man must
worship God alone and serve him." These were indeed
pivotal thoughts with Jesus. Such words may have been
heard from his own lips. In harmony with them his life
had been lived. It had not been dominated by selfish con-
siderations ; it had been marked by patient endurance of the
evils of the day ; it had been sustained by the good message
that came from above. His sensitive soul had shrunk from
the presumption of testing how far God might go in helping
him to perform miracles ; he had learned to distinguish be-
xMatth., iv, 1-11; Luke, iv, 1-13.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 263

tween the sympathetic ministry of healing, whatever his
views may have been as to the source of disease, and the
faithless faith that seeks to lean upon an Almighty Power
in undertaking sensational, unprofitable and impossible
tasks. He had understood the essential impiety of all polit-
ical autocracy, and had shown no more desire to become a
king of the Jews or an emperor of the world than to become
a devil-worshiper.

All the Synoptic gospels record that Jesus went about in
Galilee proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of heaven
before he made Capernaum the center of his activity. But
only Luke1 has the story of his preaching in the synagogue
of Nazareth and his being driven out of the town. Such an
announcement in Nazareth that the acceptable year of the
Lord had at length come, and that the fulfilment of the Old
Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah were now to
be expected, no doubt seemed to the evangelist an appro-
priate beginning of Jesus' ministry. He was unable, how-
ever, to carry out the scene without betraying its unhis-
torical character by the allusion to the great works already
done in Capernaum, the premature rejection of Israel and
choice of the Gentiles, his escape by a miracle, and other-
wise. Some of the sayings may have been uttered by him
at a later time. Walking along the sea of Galilee Jesus be-
came acquainted with two brothers, Simon also called Peter,
and Andrew, and they followed him. They also seem to
have offered him the hospitality of their home in Caper-
naum.2 Two other brothers, John and James, sons of Zebe-
dee, soon after became his disciples. At Capernaum Jesus
spoke in a synagogue. What he preached was not that the
Messiah had come, and that he was the Messiah, but that the
kingdom of heaven was at hand. God would reign over
men and make them happy; let them therefore turn away

^V, 16-30.

x Possibly Tell Hum where ruins of a synagogue exist. But "the
fountain called Kapharnaum" (Josephus, Bell. jud. Ill, 519 f), was
in the plain El Ghuweir, either Ain Tabighah, or, more probably,
Ain Mudhawarah. The ruins of an acqueduct do not prove that tho
district Tell Hum bore the same name.

264 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

from their sinful, selfish ways, and accept in glad confi-
dence the message of good things to come. The apocalyptic
literature clearly shows that without speculating on any
Messiah many minds occupied themselves in Israel with
this thought of a perfectly realized theocracy, a new order
of things to be ushered in by God. God himself was to be
the king. But there were also those who looked eagerly for
an occupant of the throne of David and a conqueror of the
heathen nations. It is not impossible that this dream of
vengeance and the pomp of empire unbalanced some minds,
or caused an excitement so violent as to suggest demoniac
possession. If there is a basis of fact in the narratives of
demons who recognized Jesus as the Messiah, it may have
been the exclamation of some such person. It is not impos-
sible that an instance of this kind led to the theory that the
demons, because of their superhuman knowledge, possessed
the secret of his identity. But it would be quite hazardous
to assume that the exact language of such ravings has been
preserved, and Mark is so clearly under the influence of his
theory that any such utterance is subject to doubt.

In the Synoptic gospels Jesus appears not only as a
preacher to whom at first the crowds gladly listened, but
also as a physician by whom multitudes were healed from
various diseases. Because some of his patients are de-
scribed as possessed by demons, and the cures as being ef-
fected by the casting out of these demons, and because the
accounts have often savored of the miraculous, critics have
at times cast doubts on all narratives of healing. In this
they have probably been wrong. Jesus no doubt shared
the common belief in demons, and the common explanation
of some diseases as caused by temporary or permanent
demoniacal possession. We may, if we choose, regard his
diagnosis as faulty. There is no reason to doubt that he
believed in exorcism. He freely recognized that the Phar-
isees were able to cast out demons,1 and he encouraged his
own disciples to practise exorcism. We may reject the

1 Matth., xii, 27.

THE LIFE OP JESUS 265

remedy with the explanation of the disease. But we have
no right to question the occasional efficiency of this treat-
ment. Granted the sincerity of belief on the part of physi-
cian and patient alike, the earnest conviction that the evil
can be overcome by the influence of a stronger and holier
spirit, the firmness of will, the power of suggestion, the calm
serenity of confidence, the quickening touch of sympathy;
the result, particularly in the case of nervous disorders, is
too well attested to admit of doubt. However erroneous the
analysis may be, however mistaken the theory, however ab-
surd the formulas, the psychic stimuli and sedatives, the
subtle forces disturbing or restoring the equilibrium, may
operate to the welfare of the organism. The physician may
not himself be able to explain the source of his power. Es-
pecially is this likely to be the case, if he has had no scientific
education, but finds himself possessed of extraordinary skill
and insight. Not every one was intended by nature to be a
physician who had the advantages of a medical training,
nor was everyone sent to the schools whom nature ordained
to the healing ministry. This is true in every age. Jesus
seems to have ascribed his power to a spirit, distinct from
himself and working through him.1 The best evidence that
he actually wrought some cures is the early tradition, still
preserved in our gospels, that he sometimes did not succeed
at all, and at other times effected only a temporary improve-
ment, the sufferer relapsing again into his former condition.
But the great importance of this practical work supplement-
ing his teaching lies in the disposition that led him to under-
take it and the spirit in which he continued it. Actuated by
sympathy, he served men freely, making his gift neither a
source of revenue nor a stepping-stone to power.

Jesus seems to have feared the outbursts of enthusiasm
that greeted his words and deeds. He retired to solitary
places, but the crowds sought and found him. He entered

1 Matth., xii, 28.

266 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

other towns, like Chorazin1 and Bethsaida,2 and people soon
began to flock around him there. As his fame reached the
prisoner in Machaerus,3 John sent a message to him asking
whether he was the Messiah or they should look for an-
other.4 Jesus called the attention of the messengers, in
figures of speech borrowed from the Old Testament, to the
spiritual revival they were witnessing, but said nothing
about Messiahship. He neither desired that John should
look upon him as a claimant for the throne of David, nor
would he encourage him to go away from the manifest signs
of God's presence in search for some aspirant to royal
power. Soon after, John the Baptist was put to death.
The agitation on behalf of the Baptist by his disciples, fol-
lowing the manifest disavowal of Messianic claims by Jesus,
may have determined Herod to take his life. Immediately
upon this event, Herod seems to have undertaken his journey
to Rome. On his way he visited his brother Herod Boethus
in Jerusalem, and fell in love with Herodias. On his re-
turn, she had secured a divorce, and he married her. Some
people objected to the marriage, not on the ground that he
had another wife, for that was lawful, nor because she was
divorced, for that was permitted in the law, but on account
of the legal prohibition against marrying a woman who had
been a brother's wife.5 It is interesting to observe that no
censure on the part of Jesus has been recorded, though he
did not hesitate to characterize the chief magistrate of his
people as a "fox,"6 and he objected to bigamy and divorce
as well. When Herod heard of Jesus, he is said to have
expressed his belief that he was none else than John the
Baptist raised from the dead.7 Whether the words are actu-
ally his or not, they show how current the opinion was that

1 The modern Kerazeh.

2 Probably on the site of the ruins called Et Tell, though some
scholars have thought it at Khan Minyeh. Tell Hum is also possible.

8 The modern Mukaur.
4 Matth., xi, 2 ff.

6 Leviticus, xviii, 16.
'Luke, xiii, 32.

7 Matth., xiv, 2.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 267

men may be raised immediately after death, and how similar
the two teachers were. In his estimate of John the Baptist,1
Jesus reveals his admiration of the great teacher, but also
the consciousness of his limitations. He admired the firm-
ness, the courage, the moral earnestness, the simplicity of
life that characterized the prophet of the desert, without
concealing from himself the failure of his terrifying mes-
sage to reach and cleanse the deep-lying fountains of life.
Because, with all his greatness, he lacked insight into the
secret of the most radical and permanent moral and relig-
ious influence, he still belonged to an order destined to pass
away.

It is impossible to state how long time had elapsed when
Jesus was recalled to Capernaum by a message from the
Roman centurion who had built the synagogue in which he
had once preached.2 He desired him to heal a favorite
slave. The messengers were Jewish elders, and superin-
tendents of the synagogue. While on the way to comply
with this request, Jesus is met by a new deputation urging
him not to defile himself by entering the house of a Gentile,
but to heal by a word of command, as he no doubt could do.
In this atmosphere of faith the slave, whose sickness is not
indicated, recovered. Besides adding greatly to his influ-
ence in Capernaum, this incident is likely to have led him to
reflect on the artificiality of that barrier between Jews and
Gentiles which the principle of faith so triumphantly over-
stepped. Crowds gather in the house of Simon to hear him,
and the sick are carried there to be healed. A certain class
of diseases is generally explained as due to demoniacal pos-
session, but a man does not come into the power of a devil,
unless he has sinned. The sufferers are therefore con-
stantly tormented by the consciousness of unforgiven sin.
The Pharisees taught that only God can forgive sins. His
forgiveness can manifest itself in two ways : by priestly ab-
solution in the name of God, and by removal of the penalty,
the new condition of health revealing acceptance with God.

1 Matth., xi, 7 ff.

2 Matth., viii, 5 ff . ; Luke, vii, 1-10.

268 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

Jesus shocked many of his hearers by assuring the despon-
dent patients that their sins were forgiven, and even more
by declaring that man has the right to forgive sins.1 This
privilege of assuring men that their past sins need not stand
in the way of their entering into proper, trustful and happy
relations to God, when they have abandoned their sins and
their disposition is right, is not reserved by Jesus for him-
self, or made the prerogative of a priestly class, but freely
assigned to his disciples and to all men. Nor does this
emphasis of the forgiveness of sin in the case of the sick
show that Jesus shared the common prejudice that sickness,
accident, and sudden death are tokens of exceptional sinful-
ness. He knew that the men on whom the tower of Siloam
fell were not sinners above those that escaped2 and that the
field on which no rain fell did not necessarily belong to an
unjust man ;3 but he also knew that, because of the common
doctrine, the sick man and the afflicted were in most need of
such assurance.

There seems to have been a custom house at Capernaum.
Travelers across the Sea of Tiberias probably paid toll or
duty. The officer receiving the duties belonged to a class
thoroughly hated and despised, and generally in proportion
as they did their work faithfully. Such tax-gatherers had
many temptations to practise extortion or embezzlement,
and were often regarded as little better than thieves. Their
apparent alliance with the detested Koman power caused
them to be socially ostracized. The name of the customs
official in Capernaum was Levi, the son of Alphaeus.4 This
man became one of the leading disciples of Jesus. Others
of the same class were drawn into the circle. Among the
women who with eagerness listened to his words there were
those whose reputation was bad, either because it was known
that they had lived in irregular relations, or it was sus-

1 Matth., ix, 6.
zLuke, xiii, 4.
3 Matth., v, 45.

* He seems also to have been known as Matthew ; Matth., ix, 9-13 ;
Mark, ii, 13-17; Luke, v, 27-32.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 269

pected that they had, or their possession by demons made it
evident that they were sinners. A woman from Magdala1
by the name of Miriam had seven times been cured by Jesus.
"What her real disease was is not known. Without the
slightest shred of evidence she has been made by ecclesiasti-
cal tradition an abandoned woman, and vulgar rationalism
has added its quota to the Mary Magdalene legends by
gratuitously making her the mistress of Jesus. It is im-
portant that Jesus did not feel it to be his duty to hold aloof
from men and women who, for one reason or another, were
shunned by polite society, respectable people and religious
leaders. He conversed with them ; he greeted them ; he ate
and drank with them.

If this attitude to the socially ostracized gave rise to un-
favorable comment, criticism increased when it was learned
that he never fasted. It was so difficult to conceive of a
prophet who did not show his sainthood by asceticism, that
his mode of life seemed to some critical observers like a per-
petual debauch. It began to be said: "He is a glutton
and a wine-bibber."2 John could be understood; he ate
locusts and wild honey, drank no wine, let his hair grow,
and wore a leathern girdle. But what manner of man was
this who ate bread with publicans and drank wine with har-
lots, and never stopped to fast? When he was asked why
he did not fast, he said that it was not worth the while to
put a new piece on an old garment or to pour new wine into
old skins.3 The old and the new will not mix, and com-
promises are of no permanent value. Most offense, how-
ever, was caused by his breaking the sabbath. Once his
disciples went through a field on the sabbath and, as they
were hungry, picked the grain and husked it between their
fingers. When they were accused for this, he defended
them by saying that David set aside the law when he de-
manded of Abimelech at Nob the shew-bread which none
but the priests were permitted to eat, and that the priests

1 Luke, viii, 2. Possibly Mejdel, or some place in the vicinity.

2 Matth., xi, 19.

8 Matth., ix, 14-17.

270 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

every sabbath broke the day of rest by carrying on their
sacrificial work.1 It matters little that he forgot the name
of the priest2 and that he wrongly supposed the priestly
regulation he had in mind to have been in force in the time
of David. He squarely faced the issue, and defended sab-
bath-breaking by citing an instance when the law, as he
thought, was broken by David, and a fact showing that even
the priests did not observe the absolute cessation of work.
Nor did he claim any special dispensation for himself and
his disciples. He grandly concluded his answer by declar-
ing that the sabbath was made for the sake of man, and not
man for the sake of the sabbath, and that therefore man is
lord also of the sabbath. He regarded it as a matter for
man himself to decide what he should do with his day of
rest. On any day he deemed it right to do what was in it-
self right and good, and on any day he considered it wrong
to omit a deed of kindness that could be done. Hence he
worked as a physician on the sabbath as well as on other
days.

It would be difficult to overestimate the importance of this
breach with the Law. Aside from circumcision there was
no custom prescribed in the Mosaic Codes on which more
stress was laid than on the observance of the sabbath. It
was one of the chief characteristics of Judaism in the eyes
of other nations. The opposition to Jesus on the part of the
conservative religious leaders grew too strong for him to
remain safely in Capernaum. He retired with some of his
friends to the sea-shore. But he could not escape his grow-
ing fame. People came from all parts of Galilee in search
of him. He was forced to move about from place to place.
While the crowds came and went, there gradually formed
about him a little band of men and women who followed
him withersoever he went. Tradition has it that he chose
twelve men to be his disciples.3 The precise number is not
certain. It may be that "the twelve" is merely expressive

1 Matth., xii, 1 ff. ; Marie, ii, 23 ff.

2 According to Mark, ii, 26, he said Abiathar instead of Abimelech.
8 Matth., xi, 1 ff. ; Mark, iii, 13 ff . ; Luke, vi, 13 ff .

THE LIFE OF JESUS 271

of a later idea that there should be one apostle for each of
the twelve tribes of Israel. The number of the twelve apos-
tles is as fictitious as that of the twelve patriarchs and the
twelve tribes, and tradition was quite uncertain in regard
to their names. The comparatively small group of men and
women that thus attached itself more permanently to the
Galilean teacher was probably the result of natural selection
rather than of a formal choice. They received a twofold
education for future service. The importance of his teach-
ing which they enjoyed is generally recognized. But not
less valuable was the communal life informed by his spirit
in which it was their privilege to live. They had left all
their former relations and all that they possessed for the
kingdom of heaven. They lived simply, and their scanty
needs were met especially by the means of the women who
devoted their property to the cause,1 but also by the indi-
vidual efforts of the fishermen,2 and by free gifts. What
they had, they held in common. One among them seems to
have been entrusted with the administration of their
finances.3 The common meal was a symbol of their unity.
They gladly shared their bread and fish with the people that
came to listen to Jesus. Such services as each could render
were freely given. They worked for the good of men ac-
cording to their ability and opportunity, as all men should ;
they lived on charity, as all men in reality do, kings as well
as beggars, but the principle was too potent to permit the
existence among them of either kings or beggars. No one
lorded it over his brothers, least of all Jesus himself. The
need of intimacies and of solitude was recognized. Jesus
often communed with Peter, James and John ; and he at
times retired for a night to be alone with himself and the
Heavenly Father. It was not an ideal society; but Jesus

1 Luke, viii, 3.

2 Peter obtained by fishing the money to pay the temple-tax; and
that was surely not the only time he followed his trade.

3 John, xii, 6, may have been drawn from a trustworthy source.
Cheyne's conjecture (article Judas in Encyclopaedia Biblica), "he
was a harsh man ' ' for ' ' he was a thief, ' ' has much to commend it.

272 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

earnestly sought to embody in its life the principles of the
coming kingdom of heaven, to make it a sample of the
society that was to be. And it certainly was pregnant with
some ideals that are yet waiting for recognition in human
society at large.

The so-called Sermon on the Mount is probably not a ser-
mon addressed to a large congregation of people ; it is doubt-
ful whether it was spoken on a mountain or on a plain ; and
it is not certain that either Matthew1 or Luke2 has recorded
the address in its original form. Its ringing sentences were
apparently first uttered in the privacy of his more immedi-
ate followers. Both as a method of instruction and as a
means of self-protection, Jesus seems to have adopted the
use of the parable for public discourse.3 It is indeed im-
probable that he spoke to the people exclusively in parables.
He certainly answered directly many a question, and many
an epigrammatic saying has no doubt been preserved from
a public address not at all confined to the narration of par-
ables. But it is altogether likely that he employed by pref-
erence the parabolic form of teaching when he found him-
self confronted by a mixed and partly hostile audience,
while he spoke more directly and openly in the presence of
his disciples and friends. The searching criticism of funda-
mental principles of the Mosaic law and of the common
practices of piety as well as the unfolding of the higher
righteousness of the kingdom of heaven may plausibly be
regarded as having formed a part of his private instruction.
Yet there is nothing esoteric about this teaching. He never
set forth in public views different from, and more accept-
able than, those he presented in private, and made no at-
tempt at concealment of his real attitude to the Law. He

XV, 1 ff.

*VI, 20-49.

8 The object was of course not to conceal from men in general the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven or to harden their hearts and
make them ripe for their doom, as Matth., xiii, 10 ff . and parallels
represent it. Jesus spoke to be understood and to lead men to re-
pentance and knowledge of the truth; but the result seemed to the
evangelists to be none else than that described in Isaiah, vi, 9 ff.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 273

freely denounced as immoral the conjugal relations of the
Pharisees, though they lived quite in harmony with both
the letter and the spirit of the law. There is scarcely a
principle laid down in the Sermon on the Mount that is not
expressed in parables, repliques, or epigrams addressed to
the multitudes or to his enemies. It is possible that in such
familiar intercourse with his disciples Jesus at one time sug-
gested what it would be proper to pray for, the advent of
the kingdom of heaven, bread for the coming day, pardon
for sin, and freedom from temptation.1 Such desires were
of course to be voiced in the closet, and not in public. The
church made a formula of these suggestions, enlarged the
number of its petitions, and recited it in public.

As some of his disciples entered into the spirit of his
teaching and felt his power, they began themselves to ad-
dress the crowds. Upon one occasion some who had gone
ahead of the company had not only preached repentance
and announced the coming of the kingdom of heaven, but
had also succeeded in casting out devils, i. e., in healing sick
persons. They came rejoicing and reported this to Jesus.
He shared their joy, and exclaimed : " I see Satan falling
from heaven."2 If they could do what he did, the good
time was certainly coming when the power of Satan over
men would be ended. As dangers surrounded them, he en-
couraged his disciples to be brave, and not to fear men who
could only kill the body, but not, as God, the soul also.3 In
his wanderings Jesus once came to the other side of the
lake where the ten Greek cities were.4 The story is told that
outside of one of them he drove out a demon called Legion
from a man and allowed the demon to enter a herd of swine
which rushed into the sea and were drowned.5 What

1 The account in Luke, xi, 1-4, is more original than that in Matth.,
vi, 9-15. Various additions have been made to the four objects
possibly mentioned by Jesus. The Gospel according to the Hebrews
shows by its lehem mdhar that the bread for the coming day is in-
tended.

2 Luke, x, 17-22.

sLuke, xii, 4, 5. 4With the exception of Scythopolis.

6 Matth., viii, 28-34; Mark, v, 1-20; Luke, viii, 26-39.
18

274 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

actually happened, cannot be determined. The fact that
between the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A. D. and the insurrec-
tion of Simon bar Kozeba in 132 A. D. a Roman legion was
located in that part of the Decapolis seems to have had
something to do with the form of the story. The extraordi-
nary calm and self-possession of Jesus in the midst of a
storm may be sufficient to account for the story of his walk-
ing on the water.1 According to the reported words of
Jesus, the daughter of Jairus was not dead, but asleep,
probably a deep comatose sleep, from which he aroused her.2
This seems to have been the basis of reports to the effect
that he could raise even the dead. Whether the miracle of
the feeding of the five thousand grew out of a misunderstood
saying of Jesus,3 or developed from an actual experience of
a small supply of bread and fish going very far to satisfy a
large crowd, must be left in doubt.

Conditions in Galilee became more insecure for Jesus and
his disciples after a number of Pharisees had arrived from
Jerusalem, either from curiosity or for the purpose of check-
ing the dangerous movement.4 They may have been invited
by Galilean Pharisees who had been seriously scandalized by
the life and teaching of Jesus, and offended by his un-
measured denunciations. He had attacked them as a class,
very much as Amos and Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah had at-
tacked priests and prophets without discrimination. His
compassion for the multitudes that were like sheep without
a shepherd had intensified his distrust of these teachers who
had the key to the understanding, but neither entered in
themselves nor permitted others to do so, and his indigna-

1 Matth., xiv, 22-33 ; Mark, vi, 45-52. But miracles of a similar sort
related of Moses, Joshua, Elijah and Elisha may also have helped to
shape the story.

2 Matth., ix, 24 ; Mark, v, 39 ; Luke, viii, 52. As this cure has grown
into a veritable miracle under the hands of the Evangelists, so the
accompanying story of the woman who had an issue of blood is likely
to have grown. No reliance can be placed on the words said to have
been spoken. It was clearly a faith-cure.

'Matth., xvi, 6, 10 ff.

4 Matth., xv, 1 ff . ; Mark, vii, 1.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 275

tion at their self-complacency, formalism, and greed. The
learned men from the Judaean capital soon observed that
the disciples of Jesus did not wash their hands before their
meals. This was an important discovery. What did Jesus
teach concerning sacred ablutions? He promptly came to
the defense of his disciples. No, he did not believe in these
ceremonies. They were the traditions of men by which the
commandments of God were set aside. Lest they should
misunderstand him, and imagine that he had only drawn a
distinction between the oral law and the written law, he
hastens to make it plain that he rejected the whole system
of tabus laid down in the Old Testament. ' ' Hear me, all of
you, and understand!" he cries. "There is nothing from
without the man, that going into him can defile him ; but the
things that proceed out of the man are those that defile
him." Mark correctly understood him: ("This he said)
making all meats clean."1 He had broken with the Law in
regard to the tabus, as he had in regard to the sabbath.

The Pharisees then tried to persuade the people that he
cast out demons through the power of Beelzebul, chief of
the demons.2 Jesus met the attack by pointing out that, if
Satan drives out Satan, his kingdom is divided against it-
self and cannot remain (good would be accomplished
through the evil spirit possessing him), that a man cannot
enter and plunder a strong man's house without binding
him first, that the exorcists among the Pharisees would be
liable to the same heinous charge, and finally that this ac-
cusation was not merely slander against a fellow-man, but
blasphemy against the good spirit through which the
demons had been cast out. Whatever is said against a man
may be forgiven, but blasphemy against the divine spirit
cannot be forgiven.

This conflict must have revealed to Jesus, if he had had
any doubts on the point, how little hope there was of find-
ing Judaea better prepared than Galilee for his radical gos-
pel. He determined to leave his people, at least tempora-

1VII, 19.

2 Matth., xii, 24 ff. : Luke, xi, 14 ff .

276 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

rily, and to betake himself to Phoenicia. Before departing,
however, he seems to have desired to see once more his
native town. But in Nazareth he found himself unable to
do any mighty works.1 He could effect no cures in an at-
mosphere of scepticism and hostility. His mother and
brothers who had gained the impression that he was beside
himself,2 when they visited him on a former occasion, are
not likely to have given him any comfort now. It is pos-
sible that people clamored for miracles, or at least for such
wonderful healings as had been wrought in Capernaum,
that they who thought they knew him so well pointed out
some of his defects, and that he suggested his conviction
that God had a work for him to do among the Gentiles by
mentioning the examples of the Phoenician woman and
Naaman.

"With a heavy heart, no doubt, he went into exile. There
is no reason to question the assistance he gave to the child
of a Phoenician woman.3 But the conversation that is said
to have taken place is quite incredible. It is as impossible
to believe that Jesus should have refused to help a sufferer
in Northern Syria on the ground that it would not be right
to help a dog of a Gentile, as that he would praise as an in-
stance of marvelous faith her willingness to debase herself
by accepting such a gratuitous insult in order to secure a
favor. It is sad enough that a Jewish Christian was still
capable of inventing this story. The more difficult it was
to make his thought understood in these foreign parts, the
more anxious Jesus must have been to commend his message
by deeds of kindness. How long he remained abroad, we
do not know.

On a visit to Caesarea Philippi4 the purpose seems to have
matured within him to go to Jerusalem in order to proclaim
there the coming of the kingdom of heaven.5 The carpenter

1 Narlc, vi, 5.

2 MarJc, iii, 21.

'Matth., xv, 21-28; Mark, vii, 24-30.

4 The modern Baniyas.

B Matth., xvi, 13 ff . ; Marie, viii, 27 ff . ; Luke, ix, 18 ff .

THE LIFE OF JESUS 277

of Nazareth knew very well that no man undertakes to build
a house without first counting its cost. He had already had
an encounter with the scribes of the Holy City, and knew
what to expect. There also was great danger in the Mes-
sianic speculations. To gauge the precise extent of this
danger, he asked his disciples what men were saying about
him. They answered that some regarded him as John the
Baptist ; some, as Elijah ; and others, as Jeremiah, or one of
the prophets. If this answer was in a measure reassuring,
there still remained a possibly more serious danger. What
did they think themselves ? Peter declared that he believed
him to be the Messiah. By this he probably meant that he
hoped he was the one who should deliver Israel. Whether
this was the expectation of the whole band of disciples, or
only Peter's own view, and how far Peter looked upon the
Master 's words as a leading question, and felt called upon to
make a proclamation that would change the career of Jesus,
cannot be known. But Peter was doomed to disappoint-
ment. It was not the first time he had failed to divine the
purpose and meaning of the words of Jesus. But never
had be been more quickly undeceived and disenchanted.
Jesus charged his disciples not to say that he was the Mes-
siah. He did not wish that men should believe in him as
the Messiah and confess him as such. That is perfectly
clear from what has been permitted to remain in the ac-
count. What more he may have said to change their views
upon the subject, and to show them how foreign to his mind
were the hopes of royalty, we can only surmise from a state-
ment thickly overlaid by a later tradition. He began to
show them how dangerous was the mission on which he was
setting out, how probable it was that he would meet with the
fate of so many a prophet before him. When Peter, full of
the dreams of empire, nevertheless held up his Messianic
hope, and in the name of God protested against any fears
of suffering and death, he was sternly rebuked by a "Get
thee behind me, Satan, thou art a stumbling block to me, for
thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men !"
It is impossible not to see the tremendous anxiety of Jesus

278 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

to put a stop to these Messianic delusions. Ecclesiastical
upholders of the authority of Peter thought to change this
stumbling block into a rock on which a church might be
built, but it remains a stumbling-block to an understanding
of the spirit of Jesus.

The story that Jesus on the following sabbath was trans-
figured before his disciples, that his garments became glis-
tening, exceeding white so as no fuller on earth can whiten
them, and that Moses and Elijah appeared with him,1 seems
to have been patterned after the story in Exodus xxxiv,
27-30 of the glory on Moses 's face when he came down from
the Mount, under the influence of these stories of the mys-
terious body, which some accounts of the resurrection
showed him to have possessed, like that of the risen or
translated heroes of ancient Israel. As a foil, the evan-
gelist pictures the vain attempts of the disciples at the foot
of the mountain to cast out a devil from a sick boy, his
impatience with them for not having faith enough to expel
the devil, his own successful exorcism, and his explanation
that the particular kind of demon possessing the boy could
be driven out only by prayer and fasting. The account is
scarcely historical.

Having set his face steadfastly to go to Jerusalem, Jesus
desired once more to visit the scenes of his labors in Galilee.
No crowds welcomed him this time in Capernaum. It is
evident that his radicalism, condemned by learned and pious
men, had made even the common people afraid of having
anything to do with him. It was not safe to expose oneself
to the fascination of his eloquence, or to receive temporary
benefits at the risk of possibly dealing with Beelzebul.
There could be no doubt that he had rejected the divine law.
Therefore he was himself rejected. The tax-gatherers who
in the month before the Passover were collecting the half-
shekel paid by every Israelite according to the law2 for the
support of the temple service were not sure whether he had
put himself so far outside the pale of Judaism as to refuse

1 Matth., xvii, 1 ff . ; Mark, ix, 2 ff . ; Luke, ix, 28 ff.
'Exodus, xxx, 11-16.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 279

to pay this tax.1 They had reason for asking Peter in re-
gard to the matter, as the attitude of Jesus showed. He at
once began to question the propriety of paying this tax.
Were they to be forced to pay a tribute in money to God,
as foreign subjects are forced to pay to an emperor, or were
their relations to God to be free from such exactions, like
those of sons to an earthly ruler? Jesus broke with the
principle of compulsory support of religion, as he had with
the principle of compulsory sabbath-keeping or observance
of religious tabus. Whether he also meant to intimate that
those who realized such filial relations to God might leave
the supply of flesh for the altar and delicacies for the
priests to those who in reality were strangers to God and
his spiritual demands, is less certain. In any case, he
thought it expedient to make the payment, Peter obtaining
the necessary amount by resorting to his old trade.2

Jesus first planned to go through Samaria to Judaea. He
did not share the common prejudice against this people, as
the parable of the Good Samaritan shows. It was quite
customary for Galileans to pass through Samaria on their
way to Jerusalem. But conflicts often arose between Jews
and Samaritans. Jesus seems to have sent James and John
to prepare the way.3 These hot-headed and ambitious men
met with opposition, and came back expressing the wish that
fire might fall from heaven and devour the Samaritans.
Jesus rebuked them for cherishing the spirit of the old
prophet Elijah. He then decided to go through Peraea.
While there, some Pharisees warned him that Herod would
put him to death.4 They probably feared that he would re-
main in Peraea. He requested them to tell "the fox" that
he was doing good by casting out demons and was on his
way to Jerusalem, which should show that he was not afraid
of death, for Jerusalem had killed many a prophet.

1Matth., xvii, 24 ff.

2 It is perfectly obvious how the miracle of the coin in the fish 's
mouth originated.
s Luke, ix, 51-56.
1 Luke, xiii, 31-33.

280 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

Some characteristic episodes may have occurred at this
time. A young lawyer asked him: "Good Master, what
shall I do to inherit eternal life?" Jesus objected to his
calling him "good," as none but God could be said to be
good, told him to live a righteous life in harmony with God 's
commandments, and finally advised him to sell all that he
had and join the little company.1 His departure gave Jesus
occasion to comment on the difficulty with which the rich
could enter the kingdom of heaven. On the other hand,
the rude act of his disciples in pushing aside some women
who wanted Jesus to touch their little ones, gave him an
opportunity to praise the little children as happy because
they would live to see the blessings of the kingdom of
heaven,2 and to point out that only those who had a child-
like spirit were fit for the coming society. Some ambitious
request by the sons of Zebedee or their mother had been re-
buked by Jesus in private ; then he felt it necessary to im-
press upon the whole company the difference between his
ideal of society and the actually existing forms of social life.
The latter were based on authority and obedience to author-
ity, the former on service and ambition to serve.3

In Jericho, people gathered to see the Galilean prophet.
The superintendent of customs, a man by the name of
Zacchaeus, climbed up in a tree to have a better view.
When Jesus perceived him and learned who he was, he
asked him to receive him and his companions in his house.
This Zacchaeus gladly did.4 The usual criticism of such
fraternizing with publicans was made by the Pharisees.

Some evangelist read in the book of Zechariah5 a passage
supposed to refer to the Messiah, in which a king enters
Jerusalem seated on an ass. Not understanding the par-
allelism characteristic of prophetic and poetic style, he
added an ass's colt, and made the Messiah ride on both.

1 Matth., xix, 16 ff. ; Marie, x, 17 ff. ; Luke, xviii, 18 ff.

2 Matth., xix, 13 ff. ; Marie, x, 13 ff. ; Luke, xviii, 15 ff.
1 Matth., xx, 20-28; Mark, x, 35-45; Luke, xxii, 24-30.
* Luke, xix, 1-10.

•IX, 9.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 281

This could not, of course, refer to the still expected advent
of the Messiah. For that was to be in the sky. There
was no room for its fulfilment, therefore, except at the last
entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem. The evangelist cherished
no doubt that the prophecy had then been fulfilled, and felt
confident that the people must by this sign have recognized
its king and hailed him joyously as their Messiah.1 But
that Jesus should have suddenly changed his whole view of
life and his attitude to the royalist movement, that he should
have sacrificed his prophetic ministry, conceived in so lofty
a spirit, to fan the flames of a political insurrection, that
the man, whose convictions had led him to break with fun-
damental principles of the law at the risk of reputation and
life, and had resisted as a satanic temptation the idea of
marching to power by the means of the aspirant for a
throne, should have deliberately set about to arrange the
details of a sensational entry into Jerusalem in accordance
with a misunderstood prophetic passage, is as inconceivable
as the development of the story is easy to explain. The
death on Calvary was not so tragic as such a surrender of
his ideal would have been.

The event that really brought about the violent end of his
career was of a different character and in perfect harmony
with his life and his convictions. In Bethany,2 near Jeru-
salem, he found a restful home with two sisters inclined to
show hospitality to the Galilean prophet.3 From here he
quietly entered the city, and betook himself to the temple.
What he saw, as he stepped into the outer courts, stirred

1 Matthew (xxi, 1) states that Beth phage was the village where the
two asses on which Jesus sat were procured. Mark, who knew that
Jesus had friends in Bethany maintains that this was the village
(xi, 1). Luke (xix, 29) combined the two so unskillfully that Beth-
phage, which is nearer to Jerusalem, came first. The story in Matthew
has the appearance of greatest originality : the raise en scene is most
dramatic, and the Old Testament basis most evident.

2 The modern El Azariyeh.

* Luke, x, 38 ff. is probably out of its true chronological order. The
time of the visit is likely to have been that referred to in Luke, xix,
29.

282 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

his spirit profoundly. Everything indicated that this was
not a house of prayer, but a house of slaughter. He had in
mind a prophetic word that this should be a house of prayer
for all nations,1 and he found only provisions for the sacri-
ficial cult. He was shocked. The concentration of this
cult in Jerusalem had made it possible for a pious Jew
living at a distance from the city to commune with his God
without giving much thought to the animal sacrifices. In
all his teaching he had himself but rarely referred to the
matter, and then only to indicate the greater importance of
morality justifying even disregard for the legal injunctions
in regard to sacrifices.2 Here the service of God by the
slaughter of animals, so sharply criticised by the great
prophets of the past, stared him in the eye and filled his soul
with loathing. He made a lash and began to drive out the
money-changers and the sellers of animals for sacrifice, re-
peating the words, "My house shall be called a house of
prayer." Apparently he also predicted the destruction of
the temple, as Jeremiah had done, though it undoubtedly
was a false witness who claimed that he had threatened to
destroy it himself, and promised to build it up in three
days.3 The real significance of the event lies in the fact
that, like the great prophets before the exile, he had at-
tacked the sacrificial system and had voiced his conviction
that religion was not dependent on the existence of the
temple.

The hierarchy had been touched in its holiest interests,
and Sadducees called him to account and sought to ensnare
him by questions.4 By what authority did he disturb the
peace in the temple? His rejoinder plainly indicated the
answer. It was. the prophet's authority, the authority of
a John the Baptist ; and this they did not dare to question
because the people held the prophet of the desert in high
honor. As they supposed him to share the opinions of the

1 Isaiah, lvi, 7.

2 Matth., v, 24; cf. Matth., ix, 13, xii, 7, and MarTc, xii, 28-34.

3 Matth., xxvi, 61.

4 Matth., xxi, 23 ff.; xxii, 23 ff.; MarTc, xii, 18-27; Luke, xxi, 27-28.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 283

Pharisees, they thought they might find a vulnerable point
in the doctrine of the resurrection for which there was no
authority in the Law or the Prophets. Whose wife would a
woman be in the resurrection who had had seven husbands ?
His answer showed that he did not hold the common
Pharisaic view. He believed that those who were accounted
worthy of a resurrection were raised immediately after
death, and based his belief upon the power of God, and ap-
parently also upon his love, quoting the manner in which
God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
when speaking to Moses centuries after the death of these
men.

It was a dangerous trap that was set for him by the
Pharisees and the Herodians by their question whether it
was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar.1 A negative reply
would have shown that he favored the establishment of an
independent state. If he had desired recognition as the
king of Israel, he might have gained sympathy by quoting
prophetic promises of independence. But his answer was
unmistakably in the affirmative. It was right to render
unto Caesar what was Caesar 's. The use of Caesar 's money
implied the recognition of Caesar's civil administration;
the acceptance of its advantages involved the assumption
of its duties. He was not concerned about forming a new
state with its own money. He was anxious that the duties
toward God should be recognized. When God received
what belonged to him, his kingdom would come. This
answer shows no indifference to the embodiment of righteous
principles in the social life of man, but emphasis on what
Jesus regarded as its only sound foundation.

At Bethany Jesus was invited to the house of a Pharisee,
who may have been called "the leper" because at one time
afflicted by a cutaneous disease.2 A woman who was known
as a "sinner" here poured oil out of an alabaster cruse over

lMatth., xxii, 23-33; Mark, xii, 18-27; Luke, xx, 27-40.

sMatth., xxvi, 6-13; Mark, xiv, 3-9; Luke, vii, 36-50. In earlier
times, as to-day, the term "leprosy" covered a number of skin-dis-
eases, some of them curable.

284 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

his feet. Simon demurred at this on the ground that Jesus
must have known what kind of woman she was, as his
disciples afterwards did on the ground that the contents
might have been sold and given to the poor. But Jesus
showed Simon how he failed to understand the woman's
nature, and what a precious foundation for a reformed char-
acter such a love as hers was. A later tradition made of her
act, by a forced interpretation, an anticipatory anointment
for his burial, a thought as foreign to Jesus as to the woman.
While the storm of opposition grew, and leading men in
both the great parties cast about how to accomplish his over-
throw, Jesus seems to have conversed with people during the
day in the temple, which was safer than any other place, and
to have retired each evening either to his friends in Bethany
or to some secluded spot in the neighborhood. When it was
possible to have a common meal, as of old in Galilee, it was
a festive occasion. Though he realized the gravity of the
situation and was prepared for the worst, Jesus appears to
have maintained his usual attitude of chastened joy and firm
confidence. It was afterwards remembered that at the last
meal which the little company had together, he had spoken
of the joy with which they would eat their bread and drink
their wine when the kingdom of heaven should come.1
Twelve years ago the present writer2 had reached the con-
viction that Jesus did not on this occasion, institute any
ceremony or request his disciples to eat and drink in remem-
brance of him. It then seemed probable that in celebrating
the paschal meal, he had with his accustomed spontaneity
and freedom exclaimed when he saw before him the broken
bread, ("This is) my body!" and as he looked into the cup
filled with red wine, ("This is) my blood !" Continued re-
flection on the elements of the problem has forced him to
accept the conclusions of Eichhorn3 and other scholars, that
even this remnant must be given up. Jesus does not seem

1 Luke, xxii, 18.

2The Significance of Christ's Last Meal in Journal of Biblical
Literature, 1892, p. 1 ff.
3 Das Abendmahl, 1899.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 285

to have celebrated the paschal meal. He was probably put
to death by the Jewish authorities before the time had come
for eating the Passover. All the eucharistic formulas
seem to represent the later growth of the Christian institu-
tion and reflect theological speculation on the significance
of the death of Jesus.1

There is every reason to believe that Jesus in these days
more than once sought solitude for prayer and meditation.
While the disciples slept, he weighed the tremendous issues
of his cause and implored divine guidance. It is not neces-
sary to inquire how the words of his prayer became known.
The Church knew very well what he must have prayed for,
and believed that angels were sent to comfort him,2 without
seeking for testimony from his sleeping disciples. It was
a long time before Christological considerations would have
prevented an evangelist from putting upon the lips of Jesus
words in which he subordinated his will to God's.

Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane,3 so called
from an oil-cellar in the place, by a band of men among
whom there were some servants of the high-priest, and taken
to the palace of Caiaphas. At first his disciples seem to
have made a show of resistance. At least one of them drew
a sword and injured a servant of Caiaphas. Jesus told him
to put up his sword, ' ' for he that taketh to the sword shall
perish by the sword. ' '4 He was true to the last to his doc-
trine of non-resistance. One of the followers of Jesus, who
for some reason had left him and disappeared, was after-
ward suspected of having led the band to Gethsemane. So.
many legends have clustered about his figure that it is quite

1 In the large building called En Nabi Daud one is shown the room
where the last supper took place. The tradition goes back to the
seventh century. Already in the fourth century there stood on this
spot a Church of the Apostles. But it was apparently not thought
of then as the Coenaculum.

2Matth., xxvi, 36-46; Mark, xiv, 32-42; Luke, xxii, 39-46.

8 It is not known where this garden was. The Franciscans have
one Garden of Gethsemane, the Eussians another. Neither can be
very far away from the place where Jesus was arrested.

* Matth., xxvi, 51, 52,

286 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAEETH

impossible to determine what part, if any, he had in helping
the men to find Jesus. We have no reliable data from
which to form a judgment of this man.1

Was Jesus tried in accordance with Jewish law, and of
what crime was he convicted? It has been repeatedly-
shown that the trial as described in the Gospels is out of
harmony with the legal procedure prescribed in the Mish-
naic tractate Sanhedrin, and its Talmudic amplifications.
The highest court of the Jewish people could not convene
in the night, could not condemn an accused person on the
same day that his case was taken up, could not sit on the
day before a sabbath or the day before a festival, could not
convict without the concurrent testimony of two witnesses,
could not deliver a verdict without a majority vote, and in
the case of blasphemy could not condemn unless the utter-
ance in question was a plain and unmistakable blasphemy.
We know these legal principles only as they appear in the
codification of E. Jehudah at the end of the second century,
and works that are still later. In the main they were no
doubt recognized in the time of Jesus. But we also know
that many provisions in the interest of the accused were
flagrantly disregarded by the Saddueean party. The exam-
ination during the night in the house of Caiaphas is likely
to have been only a private meeting. Whether Pharisees
strongly prejudiced against Jesus would have made an ob-
jection to an extraordinary session on the day before the
sabbath, or would have insisted upon a true indictment, suf-
ficient testimony, and a second session, is doubtful, since the
Sadducees could be made responsible for the irregularities.
In the light of the historic conditions it would be quite un-
warranted to conclude, as some have done, that Jesus cannot
have been tried at all by the supreme court of Jewry, seeing
that the rules laid down in the Mishna were manifestly not
followed.

It is evident that the high-priest was obliged to dismiss as
irrelevant and insufficient any testimony offered by wit-
nesses. The charge that Jesus had seduced men into idol-
1 Cf . Cheyne, article Judas in Encyclopaedia Biblica.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 287

atry was clearly not made at all ; it was at a much later time
that such an accusation was framed. No Jewish court
could have construed the prediction of the coming of the
Messiah, or even the claim to he the Messiah, into a blas-
phemy. What occurred at the private meeting of the
enemies of Jesus, or the session of the Sanhedrin, can only
have been a matter of conjecture on the part of the disciples
of Jesus.1 They naturally supposed that he must at last
have been asked on oath whether he was the Messiah. The
remarkable thing is that the earliest tradition on this point
was too strongly reminiscent of Jesus' attitude to the Mes-
siahship to allow him, even under oath, to affirm that he
was the Messiah2 and Luke3 still felt that he must have pre-
served his incognito, refusing to commit himself, and merely
hinting at the future fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy.
Only Mark,4 writing to Gentiles to whom the term Christ
had an entirely different meaning, made him admit that he
was the Christ. We shall probably never know whether
Jesus maintained throughout a dignified silence, or, stung to
the quick by unjust charges and imputations, bore witness
once more, in burning words, to the faith that was within
him. Whether he was silent or spoke, his doom was decided
upon beforehand.

"We have a law, and according to that law he shall die."5
This was substantially the message of Caiaphas to Pilate.
The Roman procurator would fain set him free. But the
highest representatives of this subject people proclaimed that
he was an insurgent, a pretender to the throne, a politically

1 A consciousness of this lack of testimony may have led to the
statement that Peter entered in to see the end, Matth., xxvi, 58, but
the story that Peter denied his master where he was sitting "without
in the court," vs. 69, shows that no emphasis was put upon Peter's
nearness to the scene as verifying the account.

2 XXVI, 64.

3 XXII, 67-70.

4 XIV, 62.

6 John, xix, 7. The correctness of the words cannot be vouched for,
and the addition "because he made himself the Son of God" reveals
the later standpoint of the evangelist.

288 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

dangerous character, whom he could not allow at large and
remain a friend and trusted servant of the emperor. Pilate
understood well enough the nature of this extraordinary
anxiety about the welfare of Tiberius and the integrity of
the empire. He would have been amused at their simulated
fear lest the Eoman yoke should be broken and Judaea be-
come independent, had he not been so strongly impressed by
the personality of this latest victim of their religious intoler-
ance. Political considerations, however, forced him to fol-
low the usual Roman method of not interfering with the
laws of the subject nations. The Jews did not possess the
' ' right of the sword. ' ' They must obtain permission of the
procurator before they could inflict the death penalty.
Pilate finally "handed him over to them to be crucified."1
And they crucified him. Our earliest witness to the text of
the Gospels, the Sinaitic Syriac version, renders it certain
that the execution was not done by Roman soldiers, but by
the Jewish authorities.2 How far he was subjected to per-
sonal indignities, is difficult to say. He certainly was not
scourged by Pilate, and probably not by the Jews.3 The
mock-coronation may also be a later feature brought into
the story by persons familiar with the widespread custom
of crowning a criminal as mock-king for some time previous
to his crucifixion at the end of the year.4 But the Jews
who crucified him divided between themselves his garments,
and as they sat and observed his end they wrote in derision
on his cross in Aramaic "king of the Jews."5 Before the
crucifixion they had, according to Jewish custom, offered
him wine mixed with myrrh,6 in order to relieve his suffer-

1 Luke's account of Pilate's sending Jesus to Herod (xxiii, 6 ff.) is
subject to grave doubts, and is probably unhistorical.

2 It is the merit of Merx to have called attention to this fact, Das
Evangelium Hatthaeus, 1902, p. 416 ff.

3 See Merx, I. c, p. 408 ff.

4 See J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, 1900, II, 171 ff.; Ill, 138 ff.
6 So the altogether credible narrative in the Sinaitic Syriac version

of Matthew.

eHatth., xxvii, 34. The Sinaitic Syriac has wine, not vinegar. This
is probable. It has gall; this is likely to be a mistake for an earlier
myrrh.

THE LIFE OF JESUS 289

ings, and rob him of consciousness. It has generally been
taken for granted that Jesus must have been crucified by
the Romans, on the ground that crucifixion was a peculiar
Roman punishment not prescribed in the Jewish law. It
must be remembered, however, that impalement or hanging
in some form was exceedingly common among the Semitic
nations, that the Deuteronomic law (xxi, 22) mentions
hanging on a tree as a penalty which Paul regards as equiv-
alent to crucifixion, that the Jews adopted such Roman pun-
ishments as death by the sword not prescribed in the law,
that already Alexander Jannaeus had adopted crucifixion
as well, as he crucified eight hundred Jewish rebels in the
midst of the city,1 and that there were good reasons why this
form of punishment used by the Sadducean rulers should
have been abolished in the later penal codes. It should not
be necessary to emphasize to-day that the condemnation
and execution of Jesus by Jewish authorities, with permis-
sion of the Roman procurator, furnishes no justification for
the age-long persecution of Jews by Christians. There is
no nation whose conservatives have not waged war upon
such radicals as Jesus, or whose prophets have not known
the fellowship of his sufferings.

Tradition ascribed to Jesus several utterances on the
cross. Matthew and Mark have only the improbable quota-
tion of the twenty-second Psalm.2 Luke3 substituted for
the cry of God-forsakenness another word from the
Psalter,4 "Into thy hands I commit my spirit" and also
added the beautiful prayer,5 "Father, forgive them, for
they know not what they do," as well as the promise to the
robber,6 "To-day thou shalt be with me in Paradise." The
Fourth Evangelist went his own ways. Placing the beloved
disciple and the mother beneath the cross, he had a word

1 Josephus, Bellum judaicum, I, 97 f.

* Matth., xxvii, 46 ; Mark, xv, 34.

* XXIII, 46.
*Ps., xxxi, 6.
"XXIII, 34.

* XXIII, 43.
19

290 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

for each. He made him exclaim, ' ' I thirst, ' n and the part-
ing word was the statement by the incarnate Logos who in
his person had revealed God, " It is finished. ' '2 Historical
is the inarticulate cry of anguish with which he gave up
the ghost, heard by the women who stood afar off. The
Gospels narrate that he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of
Arimathaea, a rich man who had secretly been a disciple of
Jesus.3 It is natural to suppose that this feature owes its
origin to the prophecy in Isa. liii, 9 "They made his grave
with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. ' ' But it
may also be that the body was buried, on account of the fes-
tival, in a plot of ground said to have belonged to this
man.4

1 John, xix, 28.

2 XIX, 30.

3Matth., xxvii, 57 ff.; Marie, xv, 42 ff.; Luke, xxiii, 50 ff.; John,
xix, 38 ff.

*It is not known where Jesus was crucified and in what spot his
body was laid when taken from the cross. The gospels call the place
of execution Golgotha (Ghi(l)gulta, Kranion, Calvaria), or the Place
of the Skull, and declare that it was near the city. This only shows
that the spot must be sought outside of the walls enclosing the city in
his time. The oldest tradition is attached to the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre. It goes back to Constantine, who, in removing a temple of
Venus and laying the foundations of a Christian basilica, unexpectedly
came upon a cave or tomb (Eusebius, Vita Constantini, iii, 25). We
are not informed on what grounds it was identified as the tomb of
Jesus. After a starting-point had thus been found, it was not diffi-
cult to discover all the other sacred sites that now group themselves
about this shrine. The main objection urged against this tradition
has been removed by the excavations and researches of Schick and
Clermont Ganneau, which have tended to prove that the second wall
ran south of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and that Jewish tombs
actually exist within this enclosure, near the Jacobite Chapel and in
the house of the Coptic Bishop. The present writer has been told by
priests that there are other tombs below the so-called tombs of Joseph
of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, but has not been able to verify these
statements in spite of repeated attempts. The presence of these
tombs is not altogether favorable to the tradition, since it raises the
question whether it is likely that such a resting-place for the dead
could have been chosen for an execution. In recent times, Thenius,
Gordon, Conder and others have suggested as a possible site the knoll

THE LIFE OF JESUS 291

It is quite impossible to determine when the death of
Jesus occurred. The Synoptists seem to have regarded his
ministry as occupying one year. But they were palpably
influenced by the prophecy of "the acceptable year of the
Lord ; ' n and it is difficult to escape the impression that they
have recorded events that must have occupied considerably
more time. On the other hand, the Fourth Gospel has gen-
erally been understood as stretching out his ministry
through three years. This, however, is not certain, as the
festivals recorded may be only those of one year, beginning
with one passover and ending before the other. It appears
probable that the official career of Jesus lasted more than a
year, though it cannot be decided with our present data
how long it was. There have been many attempts to de-
termine the date of his death by the Jewish calendar or
astronomically, but none are convincing. That Jesus died
on a Friday, and that this Friday was the 14th of Nisan, is
probable. All evangelists agree that it was on the eve of
the sabbath. The gospels according to John and Peter
make this Friday the day when the paschal meal was eaten ;
the Synoptic gospels make it the day following that when
the Passover was celebrated.2 The second representation
may have been as strongly influenced by the idea that Jesus
must have eaten the paschal meal, as the former was by the
idea that he was put to death on the day when the paschal
lamb was slain. Intrinsically, it is most probable that the
authorities were anxious to have this work done before the

above "Jeremiah's Grotto," northeast of the Damascus Gate, urging
in favor of this theory that the present north wall was the second
wall of the city, that the place has the appearance of a skull, and that,
according to a Jewish tradition, it was the place of stoning. But the
first of these arguments can no longer be maintained; it is by no
means certain that the name was derived from the configuration of the
hill, and quite doubtful whether, even before a part of it was blasted
away, it had any real resemblance to a skull; and the Jewish tradition
is modern. Others have suggested other hills north of the city. The
question cannot be settled in the present state of- our knowledge.

1 Isaiah, lxi, 2.

2 See Schmidt, The Significance of Christ 's Last Meal, in Journal of
Biblical Literature, 1892, p. 1 ff.

292 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

festivities began. If the Jews of the period had arranged
their festive calendar by the astronomical new moon, it
would be a comparatively easy matter to find in what year,
during the procuratorship of Pilate, the 14th Nisan fell on
a Friday. But they seem to have determined the appear-
ance of the new moon by ocular observation dependent on
the weather. In addition the system of intercalary months
is not sufficiently known to enable us to decide in which of
these years a thirteenth month was introduced. It, there-
fore, seems hopeless to settle the question. Ginzel1 has
again called attention to the fact that of the nine lunar
eclipses that occurred between 29 and 33 A. D. only the par-
tial eclipse on April 3d, 33, was visible in Jerusalem. "While
an eclipse of the moon on the day when Jesus died may have
given rise to the story of a great darkness covering the
whole land for three hours, it is not safe to draw any con-
clusions from this bare possibility. He must have died
before the end of 36 A. D., the last year of Pilate's admin-
istration. If he was born about 6 B. C. and began his min-
istry in 29 A. D., he may not have reached his fortieth year,
when, misunderstood and abandoned by his disciples, dis-
trusted and feared by the common people whose cause he
had espoused, scorned and hated by the representatives of
every popular form of religion, and condemned as a blas-
phemer by the highest court of his nation, he paid the
penalty for spiritual independence by a cruel and ignomin-
ious death.

1 Spesieller Kanon der Sonnen und Mondfinstemisse, 1899, p. 200.

CHAPTER XI

THE TEACHING OF JESUS

It is a significant fact that none of the historic creeds of
Christendom devotes any attention to the great ideas that
occupied the mind of Jesus. The framers of these vener-
able statements of Christian belief were deeply concerned
about philosophical questions, important in their way,
which were wholly foreign to the thought of Jesus, and
laid heavy stress upon theological notions that had re-
ceived no emphasis in his teaching. Their thoughts were
not like his thoughts. The so-called Apostles' Creed be-
gins by affirming the faith of the Church in "God the
Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth." This
"God the Father" is not the Heavenly Father whose im-
partial love for all his children, the sons of men, Jesus
proclaimed; it is the first of three divine persons, whose
distinction from "his Son" lies in his being the source of
all creation. Jesus no doubt believed that God had
created heaven and earth, but that was not his message
to men. Concerning himself the Creed goes on to affirm
that he was the "only begotten Son," "conceived by the
Holy Ghost," and "born of the Virgin Mary," ideas
never expressed by him, and probably altogether unin-
telligible to him. Concerning his manner of life, his spirit,
his convictions on moral and religious questions, his con-
flict with popular Judaism, his work as a physician and as
a reformer, the words and deeds by which he exercised his
influence upon the world, this creed has nothing to say.
It passes by his life to dwell upon his death, descent to
hell, resurrection, ascension, and expected return to judge
the quick and the dead. There is not the slightest hint in
the Synoptic Gospels that Jesus ever spoke about descend-

293

294 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

ing to hell or ascending to heaven, and it is recognized
by critical students that there is not sufficient evidence to
warrant the assumption that he prophesied his resurrec-
tion on the third day and his return as a judge. Jesus no
doubt believed that a holy spirit was sent out by God
through which prophets spoke and wrought mighty deeds ;
but it is quite certain that he had never heard of "the
Holy Ghost," the third person of the Trinity. He prob-
ably neither hoped for nor feared the development of a
"Holy Catholic Church." "The communion of the
saints," which originally meant the worship of the de-
parted saints, though not unknown among Hellenistic
Jews, is never mentioned by Jesus, and is not likely to
have been practiced by him. There are unmistakable
indications that he did not believe in a general resurrec-
tion on the last day, or in a restoration of the flesh. The
later creeds, Catholic or Protestant, whether dealing with
the Trinity, the person, natures, will and work of Christ,
the eternal decrees, the plan of salvation, or the perdition
sure to overtake all unbelievers, are equally silent on the
moral and religious issues that caused him to raise his
voice, and still more explicit in the statement of doctrines
unknown to him, or disapproved by him.

To some extent the New Testament is itself responsible
for this shifting of the interest from the message to the
messenger, from the ethical to the metaphysical. Already
in the Synoptics, but especially in the Fourth Gospel and
the Epistles, the personality of Jesus has become the ob-
ject of a reverent speculation that crowds his teaching
into the background. A reader not accustomed to com-
pare texts, eliminate interpolations, sift evidence, or test
the value of translations, might readily gain the impres-
sion from late additions to the Synoptic gospels, or early
misinterpretations by the authors of these works, that
Jesus on some occasions placed himself far above his
fellow-men, and demanded of them the obedience of slaves
to their master, or of subjects to their king. The eccle-
siastical tradition that made the Fourth Gospel a work

THE TEACHING OP JESUS 295

of the apostle John almost inevitably led persons who
failed to observe or appreciate its marked contrast with
the Synoptic representation to the conviction that Jesus
directed attention to himself, and declared it essential to
salvation to have a knowledge of his personality. The
Pauline literature completely ignored the earthly life and
the teaching of Jesus, finding the power of salvation in
the mystic union between the believer and that celestial
being who, though crucified, was the Christ, and had
been proclaimed as such by resurrection from the dead.
The influence for good that found its way through this
doctrinal development, begun in the New Testament and
continued in the period of the crystallization of dogma,
admits of no question. But as the mythical and leg-
endary conceptions that once were so necessary and use-
ful loose their hold upon men, interest returns with in-
creased momentum to the actual thought of Jesus.

The teaching of Jesus revolved about two focal points :
the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Father in Heaven. He
never seems to have given a definition of the kingdom of
heaven, and his conception can only be inferred from the
manner in which he speaks of it in parables and detached
sayings, and the relation it seems to have had to his gen-
eral teaching on moral questions. An additional diffi-
culty arises from the fact that there often is much uncer-
tainty as to the accuracy and even the meaning of the
Greek translations of his sayings. Hence some of the
most fundamental questions are still under debate. Did
he conceive of the kingdom of heaven as belonging to the
future, or as a present reality? Did he regard it as an
institution existing in heaven, or one to be established
on the earth ? Did he use the term to designate an organ-
ized state, or a dominating influence? Did he look for
its establishment suddenly and miraculously, or expect its
coming gradually by the spread of the truth and the
growth of righteousness? Though these questions are
closely allied, the answer to one does not necessarily de-
termine the replies to the others, and though the alterna-

296 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

tives are sharply marked, the acceptance of one does not
necessarily preclude the recognition of a certain element
of truth in the other. Thus the interpreter who realizes
that the kingdom of heaven is likely to be an eschatolog-
ical magnitude is naturally inclined to view it as a world-
empire to be established on earth suddenly and miracu-
lously by the power of God. On the other hand, the
scholar who recognizes the inevitable retouching of any
words of Jesus on this subject in view of the current apoc-
alyptic ideas, and deems it probable that the kingdom of
heaven was to Jesus a present reality, is easily led to the
opinion that the Galilean prophet only looked forward to
the gradual recognition among men of his doctrine, and
the increasing harmony of earth's life with the conditions
prevailing in heaven.

But the ideal that presented itself to Jesus may have
been recognized by him as essentially belonging to the
future, and yet in process of realization in his own time.
He may have regarded it as existing, not only in the
thought and purpose of God, but in the heavenly society
of angels and men accounted worthy of being raised from
the dead to an angel-like existence, and yet to be destined
also to appear among men on earth. He may have ex-
pected the kingdom of heaven in its full-grown power to
be a social organization taking the place of the kingdoms
founded by men on principles which he condemned, and
yet have looked upon the dominating influence of God in
the lives of individual men as an evidence of its presence
in the world, and an earnest of its complete manifestation.
And he may have wistfully gazed into the future for signs
of some impending judgment on his people, some great
political revolution, some mighty upheaval among the
nations, ushering in tremendous changes in the life of
man, and may have firmly believed, as did the prophets
before him, that such sudden, awe-inspiring and marvel-
ous events were the work of God bringing about his own
holy purposes, without committing himself on this account
to the view that the world was coming to an end, and that

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 297

God would by a miracle cause a new world to spring into
existence, with new conditions wholly unrelated to the
old ones. The a priori notion that he must have given to
this term the meaning likely to have been attached to it
in circles affected by apocalyptic writings is as unwar-
ranted as the a priori notion that, when he used it, he must
have had in mind either heaven above or the Church
below.

It is clearly necessary to examine philologically the term
that Jesus is likely to have employed, and to take note of
its meaning in the Jewish literature of the period ; but the
manner in which he used it himself, as shown by a critic-
ally investigated text, is alone decisive. The Aramaic
malkut dishemayya means "the reign of heaven." As
"heaven" was an exceedingly common substitute for
"God" at a time when the Jews avoided the use of any
divine name, the term is equivalent to "reign of God,"
as it was also understood by the later evangelists. There
is no clear instance where malkut means "kingdom" in
the sense of a geographical "realm" or "territory." or
of a "body politic" viewed from the standpoint of the
citizens composing it. But it is sometimes used more ab-
stractly for "reign," "regime," "royal power," some-
times more concretely -for "government," "monarchy,"
"empire." Thus the Roman empire is often referred to
as malkuta. In the book of Daniel the term denotes the
world-empire which passes from the Chaldaeans to the
Medes, the Persians, the Greeks, and finally the Jews.
Something more than the supreme authority over the na-
tions is suggested. The expectation is of an organized
Jewish empire in the form of a theocracy. The term
"theocracy," employed by Josephus to describe the po-
litical organization of the Jewish commonwealth, is prob-
ably a translation of malkut dishemayya. Dalman1 has
adduced ample evidence from Jewish literature of the
use of this term to designate the present authority of God
over the lives of men. It is a question, however, whether

1 Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p. 75 ff.

298 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

the great bulk of his proof-texts, quoted from works later
than the fall of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the peo-
ple, may not represent a modification of the earlier con-
ception. It would be in harmony with the general de-
velopment of Israel's religious life, if the eschatological
and political character of the kingdom of heaven, still so
marked in the book of Daniel, should have gradually given
place to a more spiritual conception, emphasizing the
present rule of the divine law-giver. In the time of Jesus
both of these ideas may have been suggested by the
expression.

There can be no manner of doubt that to the mind of
Jesus the kingdom of heaven was in a large measure a fact
belonging to the future. Jesus was a prophet. His eyes
were eagerly looking for the things that were to come.
This was no mere idle speculation. Present conditicns
did not satisfy him. He could not believe in the Heavenly
Father without believing with all his heart that he had
better things in store for men. He watched with pro-
found interest the signs of the times, and deemed it the
duty of all men to do so. It was a vital question with
him what God was going to do in the world. The more
painfully he was affected by the hunger and nakedness,
the physical ailments and mental diseases, the ignorance
and servitude, the worry and want of faith, the hatred,
lust and greed of men, the more ardently he hoped for a
better state of things, and the more earnestly he searched
for the disposition of heart and the principles of conduct
that would prevail in an ideal society. To find this ideal
and to hold it against the world appeared to him the most
commanding duty and the highest privilege. The kingdom
of heaven was to him the summum bonum. It was worth
the while to live and suffer and die for it. Hence his first
recorded utterance1 and his last2 referred to its coming.
Hence he called those blessed who would see it. Hence
he proclaimed its advent as good news to the poor, the suf-

1Matth., iv, 17.
2 Luke, xxii, 18.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 299

fering, the socially ostracized. Hence he described, in
matchless parables, its supreme worth and the joy of seek-
ing and striving for it. He made it perfectly clear that
the coming of the kingdom of heaven would mean a judg-
ment on all that was high and exalted among men, all that
was artificial and untrue, all that was built on the sand;
but his moral earnestness did not exhaust itself in a cry
of doom, as the prophetic messages of Amos and Hosea,
Isaiah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist had. His was the
voice of one crying in the wilderness: "Comfort ye my
people; prepare ye a highway for the Lord!"

With all this, Jesus did not picture in detail the ideal
that stood before him. He did not describe the fertility
of the soil, the clothing of the wilderness with all man-
ner of trees, the plenty of oil and corn and must, the joy
of sitting under one's own vine and fig-tree, the freedom
from political oppression, the submission of the Gentiles to
the yoke of the Law, the passing of the empire to the peo-
ple of the Most High, as post-exilic prophets had done.
Some of these things he did not expect, and some he did
not consider it worth the while to dwell upon. There
were other things, and far more important, that fas-
cinated him in his view of the future, and these he pro-
claimed with no uncertain sound. It was the righteous
life of the new social order that attracted him. The man
who spent so much of his time in healing the sick, reliev-
ing the needy, and bringing the joy of fellowship to the
outcast was not indifferent to the physical environment
and the social conditions. But he realized that, if men
would first seek the kingdom of God and its righteousness,
all these things would be added unto them.1 It was his con-
viction that the reign of God would produce a higher type
of righteousness, and that this would produce a good and
desirable life for man on the earth. In thus seeking for
righteousness above everything else and in holding up
his own ideal of righteousness against the views prevail-
ing in his social milieu, he was the son of the prophets

1 Matth., vi, 33 ; Luke, xii, 31.

300 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

whose denunciation of wrong-doing had made them the
spiritual factors in the nation's life, and a true son of
Israel whose sense of duty had produced such a prophetic
order.

His ideal of righteousness differed in several respects
from that prevalent among men who were generally re-
garded as paragons of piety and exemplars of virtue in
Israel. Most important was his contention that a truly
righteous character was not the sum of outward acts re-
garded as righteous. On the contrary, it was the right-
eous disposition that made the act valuable. "Make the
tree good, and its fruits will be good. "* "If the fountain
is good, all the water that flows from it will be sweet."
The important thing to Jesus was that a man should be
moved inwardly by love of God and love of fellow-man.
From this correct inner attitude of mind would then radi-
ate the words and deeds and helpful influences of a good
life. The demand for such a righteous inner disposition
was not new either in Israel or in the world. Among the
introspective Hindus and the clear thinking Greeks it had
often been expressed ; it was emphasized in the widespread
philosophy of the Stoics ; in later Jewish literature it had
found increasing recognition. But in the thought of
Jesus it dominated in a peculiar manner, and led to a
break with the established forms of religion at a point
where it could become of epoch-making significance for
the Western world. If conformity to an external stand-
ard, obedience in outward form to the rules laid down
in the Law, or by competent authority interpreting the
Law, was not to constitute an act as good, but the char-
acter of the act was to be determined by the inner dis-
position, the knowledge of what is true and right must
likewise be derived, not from an external authority, but
from the inner light. Jesus accepted this consequence,
and insisted that the inner eye must be sound and respon-
sive to the direct illumination of the divine, that men must

1 Matth., vii, 17 ff . ; Luke, vi, 43 ff.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 301

judge of themselves what is right.1 It was by heroically
throwing himself upon this inner source and sanction of
truth that Jesus gained his marvelous confidence, and was
led to an open breach with the current ethico-religious
ideal as it expressed itself in overt acts.

The common idea of his time, based on the law and
the natural inferences from its enactments, was that hu-
man society could not exist, or develop profitably, with-
out the killing of enemies, retaliation in kind, condemna-
tion of men, oath-taking, royalty, slavery, divorce, usury
and private capital. None of these things had a place in
the society for whose coming Jesus lived and died. There
would be no wars under the new regime. For war is pos-
sible only where men are willing to kill their real or sup-
posed enemies. It cannot be carried on where men, fol-
lowing their own judgment, refuse to obey any man's
order to kill indiscriminately the citizens of another
country for honor or conquest or to revenge a slight, and
where men cultivate a manly spirit of self-control, for-
bearance, patience, consideration and magnanimity to-
ward real enemies. Jesus was convinced that in the bet-
ter society to come, men would love their enemies, and
seek to overcome their evil disposition by kindliness and
active work for their welfare. This would, of course,
preclude the barbarity of war as completely as the out-
grown barbarity of cannibalism.

The penal code of the Hebrews was based on the princi-
ple of retaliation. Like the Code of Hammurabi, the
Mosaic Codes prescribed that an eye should be taken for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth,2 a life for a life.3 The harsh-
ness of this legal enactment was often relieved in civilized
countries by a provision for monetary restitution. Jesus,
however, attacked the principle itself as out of harmony
with his idea of justice. His criticism was that this legal
measure did not serve any purpose of correction, did not

lMatth., vi, 22 ff.
2 Leviticus, xxiv, 20.
'Lev., xxiv, 18.

302 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

reach the root of the evil, did not change an unrighteous
into a righteous life. In his judgment that could be ac-
complished only by destroying the evil in the man by bring-
ing good, wholesome, kindly influences to bear upon his
character. It is evident that, if Jesus had meant to re-
strict the operation of his superior principle to such
wrongs as the courts take no cognizance of, while approv-
ing the lex talionis as applied by the courts, he would not
have selected for his distinct rejection a statement in the
Law that, as everybody knew, had no reference to pri-
vate revenge, but to judicial action. As if to prevent any
minimizing of the import of his utterance, he added that
every condemnatory judgment was out of harmony with
his ideal of the method of dealing with evil-doers. Jesus
could find no place in the new society for so-called puni-
tive justice, by which one deed of violence is punished
by another deed of violence, but only for such corrective
measures as aim at the same time to the reclaiming of the
evil-doer and the protection of the innocent.

Jesus did not regard the oath as necessary to society.
He had observed the natural tendency of oath-taking to
invalidate the obligation or veracity in statements not
sworn to. But his chief objection seems to have been its
lack of modesty. A creature who cannot add a cubit to
his stature, and does not know what the morrow will
bring, impotent and ignorant both as to his own nature
and in regard to the future that lies before him, assumes
to swear by the ever-living God— for all oaths, however
worded, are essentially oaths by God—that he will do this
or that! The Law sanctioned swearing when the oath
was kept, but made perjury a crime.1 Jesus said:
' ' Swear not ! " * ' Tell the truth ! " The Church, less con-
fident in the potency and safety of just telling the truth,
was glad to learn from her scribes that Jesus probably
had in mind only some ill-sounding curse-words and
asseverations that too easily fall from the lips of Orientals
in the rush of conversation, not an oath that really had

1 Lev., xix, 12.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 303

any significance, and she continued to swear. But the
probability is against this scholastic construction. If
Jesus had meant to impress upon the minds of his disciples
such a distinction between private swearing and public
swearing, he could not have more completely forgotten to
mention the only thing for which he is supposed to have
called their attention to the ancient law, or more abso-
lutely have led them away from any thought of a subtle
distinction between public and private swearing to the
idea that he, like some other teachers, rejected the oath as
such. That is what the Essenes seem to have done.
Josephus relates that they rejected every oath, and con-
sidered the taking of an oath worse than perjury,1 and
that on this account Herod did not demand of them an
oath of allegiance, as he did of the Pharisees.2 In view
of this, his statement that at their initiation into the so-
ciety the members bound themselves with an oath3 is
subject to the same doubt as the similar statement in re-
gard to the Christians in Pliny's letter to Trajan.
Neither the Essene nor the Christian brotherhood prob-
ably looked upon the ceremony of initiation in the light
of an oath.

Jesus looked for a society where there would be no
kings or rulers, where no man would exercise authority
or lord it over his fellows.4 This principle rendered it
impossible for him to share the common desire for a Mes-
siah. He knew that what the world needed was not a
Messiah, a king of the Jews, or an emperor of the nations,
but a race of men subject to no man's bidding but eager
to serve, and counting him greatest who, with the least
desire to impose his authority on men, is able, by hum-
ble and faithful service, to exercise the widest influence
for good. In one sense Jesus was, therefore, like Plato, a
philosophical anarchist. But his anarchy was tempered

1 Bellum judaicum, II, 135.
'Ant., xv, 371.

3 Bellum judaicum, II, 139-142.
* Luke, xxii, 24 ff.

304 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

by his theocratic idea. He disbelieved in man's authority-
over man, because he believed so earnestly in God's au-
thority over man. If he reflected at all upon the need of
light and leading for the more and more complicated
activities of society, he may have looked for a special
prophetic order, or for the endowment of men in every
walk of life with the necessary insight and power. That
is what every democracy must depend upon. It must
have interpreters of the laws of the universe, moral and
physical, and men and women who, possessed of extra-
ordinary knowledge and skill, put these to the service of
the people. Jesus did not distinctly express his views on
the question of slavery. But there is every reason to be-
lieve that he shared the views of the Essenes, who had no
slaves but were all free, working one for the other.1 It
is certain that there were no slaves in his little society,
and his attitude on the subject of authority precludes ap-
parently the possibility of his approving slavery as an
institution.

In the future society there would be no divorce, accord-
ing to the view of Jesus. Marriage would be entered only
by some men and women for the propagation of the race,
and be absolutely indissoluble, except by death.2 He
seems to have regarded married life as a condition proper
for a certain class in society from which those physically
unfit for the sexual function should be naturally excluded,
and from which others, following his own example, might
profitably exclude themselves for the sake of the king-
dom of heaven,3 in order to serve its interests and to real-
ize in their own lives the strictest demands of its
righteousness.

1 Philo, II, 457; Josephus, Ant., xviii, 21.

2 This is clear from Mark, x, 11, 12. In Matth., v, 32, and xix, 9,
"save for the cause of adultery" has been added. The addition is
already found in the Sinaitic Syriac; but, weighty as this testimony
always is, it cannot prove that the phrase was an original part of the
saying of Jesus. Mark could have no motive in leaving it out; but
the motive for adding it is obvious.

3 Matth. xix, 11, 12.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 305

The Jew was forbidden by the Law from practising
usury on Jews but permitted to charge interest on his
loans to Gentiles.1 The result was that many a well-to-
do son of Abraham refused to relieve by a loan the dis-
tress of his fellow countryman, while he was quite ready
to accommodate a Gentile who had good securities, and to
charge such interest as he could get in view of all the
circumstances. Thus the often accidental and unmerited
possession of money gave a power over another man's life
apt to increase and to rob him of his independence. Jesus
could not conceive of this fruitful source of enmity con-
tinuing under the new regime. Men would not hold back
the needed loan,2 unless they could make profit out of the
necessities of their brothers. In fact, he deemed the heap-
ing up of vast private fortunes as an evil destined to pass
away with the coming of the kingdom of heaven. He
could not harmonize with his ideal of social righteousness
the co-existence of great wealth in the hands of few and
great destitution prevailing among the many. The prin-
ciple of a man getting for himself all that he can seemed
to him wrong, and he desired to see it superseded by the
principle of sharing. He appears to have reached his con-
clusions on this point, not only through the impression of
unjust inequalities, but even more by observation of the
evil effect upon character of wealth thus held. How far
he had given any thought to the manner in which a better
method of distribution could be developed, is difficult to
say. He felt that only the principle of sharing with
others could bring about a society in which the extremes
of wealth and poverty should no longer exist.

There can be no doubt that Jesus expected the full op-
eration of these principles only in the new social order or
theocracy which he designated as the kingdom of heaven.
But it would be quite unwarranted to infer from this, as
some have done, that he did not look for their application
until "the millennium" should come, and was well aware

1 Deuteronomy, xxiii, 19, 20.

2 Matth., vi, 42.

20

306 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

that they were impracticable under present circumstances.
The arguments adduced to prove that he did not regard
them as obligatory even upon himself, or that he did not
give them the radical sense they seem to bear on the sur-
face, are for the most part of a trivial nature. It is said
that he cannot have believed in the overcoming of evil
with good on all occasions, as he drove the money-changers
from the temple,1 and once commanded his disciples to
sell all that they had and buy swords.2 On the former
occasion he may indeed have given way to a passion of
anger, and it is by no means certain that he would have
afterwards wished his disciples to follow his example and
to defend it, though it should be remembered that there is
no element of revenge or of private or official punishment
in the act, and that he may have had no aim but correc-
tion, and no motive but kindness. The words with which
he rebuked Peter for his use of the sword3 are too plainly
condemnatory of all use of the sword to permit the
thought that he had ever contemplated a coup d'etat such
as must have been in his mind, if he actually ordered his
followers to sell all their possessions and buy swords, or
even had thought of the protection of his person against
private attacks by killing or maiming his enemies. The
evidence seems to show that he was loyal to the end to
the convictions he had so clearly expressed. It is further-
more averred that before the high-priest he was willing
to be put under oath, even though he did not swear him-
self. Even Merx, who with great learning has gathered
together the evidence that the phrase, "Thou sayest it,"
is virtually a refusal to answer the question, curiously
enough quotes the passage to show that Jesus had no ob-
jection to being put under oath.4 When it is recognized
that we have no knowledge of what occurred in the pres-
ence of the high-priest, this in itself futile argument must

1 Matth., xxi, 12 ff. and parallels.

2 Luke, xxii, 36.

3 Matth., xxvi, 52.

4 Cf . Das Evangelium Matthaeus, 1902, p. 101, and p. 392.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 307

be finally laid aside. The idea that Jesus cannot have been
opposed to autocracy, since he claimed for himself royal
authority, is based on a misunderstanding of his use of
the term "son of man" and on late additions to the gospel.
An approval of usury and of private wealth has been
found by many in the parables of the Talents1 and the
Unjust Steward.2 Did he not say that it was better to
put money in a bank and draw interest on it than to bury
it in the ground, and that it was still better to try to get
an enormous profit from a small outlay ? Yes, and did he
not say that it was better for a steward to swindle his
master and make friends of the debtors by forgeries, in
order to secure his own future, than to await the ignomini-
ous discovery of his embezzlement, since by such wise use
of money it was possible to obtain everlasting life? It
should not be necessary to indicate the point of the first
parable which passes no judgment on current business
methods, least of all contrary to the plain teaching of
Jesus without any figure of speech on other occasions, but
simply inculcates the necessity of cultivating such powers
as a man possesses, since they grow with use and are
lost if not used. As for the second, it seems impossible
to recover its original form. It is equally difficult to be-
lieve that Jesus could ever have looked upon so clumsy
a forgery as a wise and praiseworthy expedient, and that
he could have commended any wisdom in the use of the
unrighteous Mammon, having the faintest resemblance
to this, as likely to bring about a happy reunion of friends
in the everlasting habitations.

Some scholars have moved in the opposite direction.
Instead of regarding the principles laid down in the Ser-
mon on the Mount as applicable, in the judgment of Jesus,
only in the future condition of things, they have main-
tained that he must have formulated them in view of the
transitoriness of present conditions, for guidance until
the kingdom of heaven should come. Why should his

1 Matth., xxv, 14 ff. ; Luke, xix, 11 ff.
3 Luke, xvi, 1 ff .

308 THE PEOPHET OF NAZABETH

disciples take vengeance themselves or seek to secure it
through courts, bind themselves by oaths, care for places
of honor and authority, get married or obtain divorce,
keep their possessions or seek to increase them, when the
world is so soon to come to an end, and God himself will
avenge his own, give them to sit upon thrones judging
the twelve tribes of Israel, and restore to them manifold
the things they have abandoned? This view has certain
advantages. It does not need to twist the words of Jesus
out of their natural meaning, and it puts into relief the
eschatological temper that unquestionably existed among
the disciples of Jesus, and has found expression in utter-
ances ascribed to him in the Gospels. But it fails to do
justice to those sayings of his that prove their genuineness
most convincingly by being in contrast with this prevail-
ing apocalyptic mood.

His most characteristic utterances do not indicate a
view of the kingdom of heaven that could have led him
to share the ordinary hopes for vengeance, power and
wealth, when the good time should come, while preaching
a temporary ethics of self-renunciation as a preparation
for it. The parables of the Sower,1 the Leaven,2 and the
Mustard-seed3 bear testimony of a wholly different idea.
The ripe corn in the field, and the tree with its fruit-laden
branches only reveal the nature of the seed that was sown
in the ground. The piece of leaven that was put into the
lump has not changed in character by permeating the
whole. The old continues side by side with the new until
the former finally disappears. This thought is found in
the parable of the fishes4 as well as in that of the leaven.
The good and the bad cannot be separated, until at the
end of the process the latter are eliminated. The reign
of God, at first invisible, like the seed in the earth, be-
comes gradually manifest in its transforming power, like

1 Matth., xiii, 1 ff . and parallels.

2 Matth., xiii, 33.

9 Matth., xiii, 31, 32.
* Matth., xiii, 47 ff ,

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 309

the plant that puts forth first the stalk, then the blade,
and then the ear in the blade.1 It exists among men be-
fore it is seen and recognized as a new social order, and
it continues after that to reveal its nature in undreamed
beauty of blossom and sweetness of fruitage. It is in
harmony with this, when Jesus declares that the kingdom
of heaven cometh not with observation, nor shall they say,
"Lo, here! or Lo, there! for the kingdom of heaven is
within you."2 If the Aramaic term used by Jesus was
binetiru. his meaning seems to have been: the kingdom
does not come in such a manner that men may lie in wait
and watch for its appearance, and say, "Here it is," or
"There it is." If he said begawwekon, it can only have
meant "within you." But even if he said benekon,
"among you," the context makes it abundantly plain that
he meant that it was among men in such a manner that it
could not be seen and located, but existed as an inner
reality, in their lives.3

It is not by leveling down the ethical demands of Jesus
to the conventional ideas of any age, nor by construing
them as temporary counsels of perfection, by which a
handful of men might be prepared for a presently ex-
pected end of the world, that we gain a conception of the
real grandeur of that ideal which fired his soul with
enthusiasm, and made his life what it was. When it is
said that his ideal of a better social order is an idle dream,
and that his, type of righteousness is impracticable under
such conditions as prevail in the world, two facts are over-
looked. No dream of social righteousness can justly be
regarded as idle that has contributed so much to the
moral progress of the world as this hope of the growing
kingdom of heaven on earth has already done. And be-
fore it is pronounced impracticable, an application of its

1 Marie, iv, 26-29.

2 Luke, xvii, 20, 21.

8 This passage is well treated in Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, 1898, p.
116 ff.

310 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH

fundamental principles should be tried on a larger scale
than has hitherto been the case.

Jesus does not seem to have denned his conception of
the Father in heaven in any other way than he defined
his idea of the kingdom of heaven. Chiefly by parables
to the multitudes, and by short pithy sayings to his dis-
ciples, he intimated what he thought concerning God,
man's relation to him, and the proper manner of serving
him. His language, when speaking of these subjects,
is simple and unconventional, yet of great dignity and
beauty. There are abundant signs of deep and independ-
ent thinking, but no traces of familiarity with the
terminology of the philosophical schools or with the ques-
tions discussed by them. The idea of the fatherhood of
God, even in an ethical sense, existed long before the
time of Jesus, and had found fine expression in later Jew-
ish literature. The mind of Jesus seems to have dwelt on
its natural implications. As in the case of man his great
concern was about the rectitude of the inner disposition,
so in the case of God the question of his moral attitude
occupied him most. He did not doubt his unity, eternity,
omniscience and omnipotence. But was he the Perfect
Being in whom his ideal of rectitude, truth within and
adequate manifestation, justice and love in inseparable
union, was absolute reality? In our ignorance of the
early life of Jesus, we cannot deny that there may have
been a period of storm and stress when this question agi-
tated his soul, as it had once racked the mind of the author
of Job. There are in his teaching those frank admissions,
those resolute retrenchments, those bold deviations from
current views, that generally betoken conflict as well as
reflection. Was it without disenchantment he observed
for the first time how the wicked man's field flourished,
while the parched ground of some God-fearing widow
refused to yield bread for her starving little ones? Could
he always behold without flinching how some mighty
tower buried beneath its falling mass righteous men and
innocent children, and how the life of some rich hypocrite

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 311

passed on peacefully to its end without accidents to ter-
rify or bereavements to make sad? However that may
have been, in his public ministry he is animated by a
faith not in need of blinking the facts of existence that
belie the current doctrine of retribution, because it rests
upon the perception of a higher law of compensation.

In his parables of the Lost Coin,1 the Lost Sheep,2 and
the Lost Son,3 Jesus expressed most clearly his conviction
that active love is the world-conquering and world-trans-
forming power. There is nothing so insignificant, there
is nothing so bad, that Divine Love does not care for it
and cannot redeem it. The impartiality with which the
sun shines and the rain falls is not a sign of indifference to
moral cosmic ends, but only an indication that the impar-
tial Divine Love pursues these ends without necessary
regard to the imperfect system of rewards and punish-
ments with which human justice seeks to operate. It is
more conducive to the moral perfection of the human race
to let the sun shine and the rain fall without discrimi-
nation according to human merit and demerit than it
would be to allow the sun to shine and the rain to fall only
on the good man's field. No system of external rewards
and punishments can make men righteous.4 The actual
divine method works for righteousness. It is intrinsically
right, not only in view of the ultimate product, but also
at every point of its administration. For the law of
cause and effect operates unceasingly. In spite of appear-
ances, the divine book-keeping is very exact. The good
rewards itself, and the evil is its own punishment; the
effect inheres in the act and engenders a retribution that is
never unjust or unmerciful. The man who prays in
public and is seen of men has his reward.5 He who gains

1 Luke, xv, 8-10.

8 Luke, xv, 3-7.

8 Luke, xv, 11 ff .

4 Cf . Luke, xvii, 10. The parable of the workers in the vineyard,
Matth., xx, 1-16, also shows this connection of life and work, not
dominated by the ordinary ideas of retribution.

6 Matth., vi, 5.

312 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

the world is rewarded by what he gains. Had he sought
a good character or spiritual joy, these would have been
his. His loss is not less real, because he fails to appreciate
that of which he has deprived himself.

This view rendered it possible for Jesus to conceive of
the Heavenly Father as continuing to be the God of
those who by his power are raised from the dead, while
allowing others to return to their dust without a resur-
rection.1 This was no arbitrary act of God. In those fit
to survive the life-giving power of God appropriated by
living in harmony with his supreme law of love brought
about its own result ; as long as they were living his love
sought the lost children.

Jesus regarded God as the Father, not only of the Jews,
but of the Samaritans and the Gentiles also, not only of
the good but of the bad as well. That the Israelites were
the sons and daughters of their God, was a common notion.
Hence the members of the nation were regarded as broth-
ers, having one father, namely, God. The parable of the
Good Samaritan2 teaches that a member of this despised
people is a brother since he shows a brother's spirit, and
acts as a son of God should. Jesus took pains to empha-
size the fatherly care of God for members of other na-
tions.3 His parable of the Vineyard4 indicates that he
feared the overthrow of the Jewish theocracy and looked
forward to the establishment of the intimate relation
that it involved between God and a people living accord-
ing to the principles of righteousness in which he believed.
While he knew that God always acted as a father toward
all men, he also realized that his children both in Israel
and among the other nations did not always act as sons of

1Luke, xx, 27-40. "For all live to him" has been recognized by
many scholars to be a late addition.

2 Luke, x, 29-37.

a Luke, iv, 25-27, no doubt represents an actual saying of Jesus,
though Luke has placed it out of its true chronological position.

Matth., xxi, 33 ff . ; Mark, xii, 1 ff . ; Luke, xx, 9 ff . It has been
retouched in all recensions, but no doubt goes back in its original form
to Jesus.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 313

God. "If ye who are evil," he said, "know how to give
good gifts to your children, how much more shall the
Father in heaven give good things to those who ask."1
God cares for his children, though they are evil, better
than they ever care for their offspring. They should
therefore seek to be perfect, as their Father in heaven is
perfect.2 No honor can be greater than to be called sons
of God. But he did not single out any class of men, for
instance his own disciples, as worthy of this title. Still
less did he suggest that they should call themselves sons
of God, or children of God, in distinction from their fel-
low-men. Such a spirit of self-laudation he condemned in
the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.3 Least of
all did he think of applying it to himself exclusively.
The notion that he called himself "the Son of God," and
spoke of God as "my Father" in distinction from "your
Father, ' ' is based on manifestly late additions to the Syn-
optic gospels, and free and misleading translations into
Greek of the original, which did not use the possessive
pronouns. Nevertheless, it is certain that Jesus derived
both comfort and confidence from the thought that he
was a child of the Father in heaven, an object of his love
and care, an agent for the spread of his truth, a herald of
his coming kingdom, an interpreter of his holy will, a
man earnestly endeavoring to live as a son of God.

Jesus broke with the popular religious cult in regard
to sacrifices, sabbath-keeping, sacred washings, and the
distinctions between clean and unclean meat. He also
turned his criticism against such important matters as
public prayer, fasting and almsgiving in which piety was
especially wont to express itself. His fundamental objec-
tion to public prayer was that it was offered in the wrong
place. Prayer, in his opinion, should be offered in the
closet where the fact that a man was praying could not be

1 Matth., vii, 11.
2Matth., v, 48.
• LuTce, xviii, 9-14.

314 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

observed by men.1 The results of such private com-
munion with God where there was no temptation to con-
template the effect upon listening human ears, or to spin
out long addresses, would be manifest in the daily life.
But he felt that a truly reverent soul must shrink from lay-
ing bare its deepest experiences and most urgent needs in
the embarrassing presence of men. It seemed to him im-
modest and conducive to untruth and conventionality. His-
tory abundantly proves that he was right in this conten-
tion. When men pray publicly, there is a decided tend-
ency to make long speeches, to emphasize a thought by
repetition or slight variation, and to frame the address
with a view to its effect upon the audience. Seeing the
irresistible force of this tendency, Jesus counseled his dis-
ciples not to pray in public, and fearing the effect of long
habit on their private devotions, he warned them not to
use many words, since the Father in heaven knew all their
needs. The church has paid little or no attention to his
advice, but has vied with the heathen nations both in re-
gard to the publicity and the length of the prescribed
prayers.

The fact that Jesus and his disciples did not fast
aroused unfavorable criticism. His remarks about the
new piece and the old garment and the new wine and the
old wine-skins2 show how utterly foreign to his concep-
tion of religion this exercise was. In the Sermon on the
Mount he advised his disciples to anoint their heads and
wash their faces when they fasted so as not to be seen
fasting by men.3 Sack-cloth and ashes were the regular
accompaniments of fasting. The appearance of a man in
society dressed as for a festival, with face washed and
head anointed was quite incongruous with his observing
a fast. It would indeed be difficult for him to abstain
from food without being seen of men to fast. Men fasted
in order to show publicly their sorrow, humility and re-

1 Matth., vi, 5-8.

2 Matth., ix, 16, 17.

3 Matth., vi, 16-18.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 315

pentance. Jesus seems to have objected to the custom
on two grounds. A public display of humility and contri-
tion appeared to him immodest and absurd, inasmuch as
humility is already gone when it is professed, and repent-
ance has not yet been born until it manifests itself in
righteous conduct. Then a man should seek to bear his
own burden patiently and calmly, without betraying its
weight to others who have theirs, and rather add his daily
contribution to the common fund of joy and contentment
by which all are sustained. The larger branches of the
Church have continued the custom, without the slightest
regard to the warning of Jesus, while some of the Protest-
and denominations have abandoned the practice but not
without inventing new forms for the public display of
contrition and sorrow for sin.

The Hebrew word for "justice" became in later Juda-
ism a technical term for "almsgiving." This was not a
backward step. It was the addition to a noble word of a
still finer meaning, the supplementing of the idea of
righteousness by the element of active sympathy. Giving
to the poor became a part of religion. It was felt to be a
lending to the Lord, a support of his cause who was the
friend of the poor and the needy, the widow and the
orphan. A number of causes helped to make it one of
the most popular religious functions. That God was
served by the relieving of suffering fellow-men, was an
idea appealing to the noblest instincts in man. The
value of this service could be easily seen, and the con-
sciousness of doing an unmistakably good deed was com-
forting. Then there was the pleasure of acting as a hu-
man Providence, of receiving gratitude, of being called
benefactors, of enjoying popularity, of being gladly seen
and enthusiastically greeted by men, of exercising a
power over them apparently not based on violence, of
having a good reputation and comparative immunity from
the criticism to which obvious selfishness is always ex-
posed. Besides, there was the conviction that it is profit-
able to lend unto the Lord who pays a generous interest.

316 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

Jesus strongly believed in the principle of sharing with
the needy. But he desired the abolition of poverty by
such a distribution of wealth as would leave no dispro-
portionate fortunes in private hands. As he realized
that a great obstacle to such an equitable distribution was
the doling out of alms publicly in the name of religion by
men who had no scruples as to the methods by which they
gained their wealth and, in spite of their alms-giving, con-
tinued to hold on to and increase their large fortunes, he
directed his attack against the public bestowal of charity,
the giving of money to the Lord in such a manner as to be
seen of men.1 He seems to have looked upon the reliev-
ing of a brother's need in public as indecent. That a
brother was permitted to suffer appeared to his mind as a
matter to be ashamed of, a condition to be silently and
quietly corrected. That a man should hold in his hands
the ransom of a thousand lives, and seek to be known by
men when out of his abundance he threw some crumbs to
his starving brothers, seemed to him equally abnormal.
The Church has too often failed to take this ground and
encouraged rather than rebuked ostentatious giving to
the Lord.

A critical study of the records has shown with increas-
ing clearness that Jesus had no sympathy with the idea
of saving men's souls by sacramental magic. Whether
weight is given to literary and historical considerations,
or attention is limited solely to the restoration of the orig-
inal text, it becomes certain that Jesus did not command
his disciples to baptize the nations. It is equally evident
that he did not institute any Supper in remembrance of
him. The idea of salvation through any cermony was
utterly foreign to his mind. Nor is there the slightest
indication that he believed in salvation through human
sacrifice or human merits. He never taught that God
needed the blood of the Messiah, or his own blood, to sat-
isfy his justice and to enable him to pardon the sins of
men. On the contrary, he distinctly taught men to rely

1Matth., vi, 1-4.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS 317

upon God 's forgiveness, if they were themselves willing to
forgive,1 and to assure others of God's forgiveness without
any suggestion of a vicarious payment of their debts
through blood.2 Nor did he connect salvation with mem-
bership either in the holy nation or in an organized body
of believers. To inherit eternal life man must obey the
great commandments of the Law,3 love God and men ; he
must lose his life in humble, faithful, loving service in
order to find it. That is his doctrine of salvation. A
Samaritan or a Gentile may thus be saved from selfishness
as well as a Jew. Nor did Jesus connect salvation in any
way with belief in himself. There is no teaching of Jesus
concerning his own person to be gleaned by a careful his-
torian from the records of his life. What he thought
about himself is reflected in what he taught concerning
man, his duties and his privileges, his relation to the
Father in heaven and his future destiny.4

1Matth., vi, 14.

2Matth., i, 6.

8 Matth., xix, 18 ff.

4 The insight of genius and the sympathy of spiritual kinship often
travel faster than scientific research, with its cumbersome critical
apparatus and its exacting method. Leo Tolstoi perceives the thought
of Jesus more clearly than the majority of exegetes. Among trained
theologians, .Nathan JSoderblom has a keen sense of the larger bear-
ings of the moral ideas of Jesus (Jesu Bargspredikan, 1899). Well-
hausen understands that Jesus was a prophet, and has described, with
fine appreciation, his religious message (Israelitische und Jiidische
Geschichte, 3d ed. 1897, p. 374). He fails, however, to do equal jus-
tice of the ethical teachings of Jesus. From his otherwise so admira-
ble sketch one would not know that Jesus had taken a definite stand
against the killing of enemies, the legal principle of punitive jus-
Aj_ tice, te-4he ethical teachings of Jesus. From his otherwise so admira-
"autocracy, and the accumulation of private wealth. Yet the attitude
,^ / of Jesus upon these vital questions is likely to interest thoughtful
VM4j JPen quite as much as his theological views.

CHAPTER XII

THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS

During his life Jesus exerted a powerful influence
upon those who came into contact with him through his
teaching, his works and his spirit. Men were attracted
by the beauty and originality of his speech; they were
held by the grandeur and nobility of his thought. He
spoke with the authority of a prophet, and his message
concerned that kingdom of heaven for whose coming men
in Israel eagerly looked. His manner of life strengthened
the impression of his words. The cures he wrought
spread his fame abroad. Yet he laid up no treasures for
himself. What he had he generously shared with the
poor. Men were accustomed to associate such moral ear-
nestness and sincere piety as he showed with ascetic habits
and a zeal for legal observances. A man who drank wine
with tax-gatherers and conversed with harlots, defended
sabbath-breaking and neglected sacred ablutions, while
he criticised the law of Moses for not teaching a suffi-
ciently high type of righteousness, and exemplified in his
conduct the moral principles he taught, could not fail to
be observed by many eyes. But more than anything he
said or did, it was the charm of his personality that drew
men to him. Whether they understood his words or not,
whether they were able to share his view of life or not,
whether they followed him a day or a year, they could not
escape from his spirit. His disciples left him and fled on
the last night of his life. But his tragic death impressed
them perchance as deeply as the women who stood afar
off and heard his death-cry. "Those who loved him at
the first did not cease to love him."1 He had been their

1 Josephus, Ant., xviii, 64. The passage is spurious, but the senti-
ment is true.

318

THE HISTOKIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 319

leader while he lived. He continued to occupy their
thoughts and to be the directing force in their lives after
he was dead.

The spell of his spirit was upon his disciples. His
aphorisms, his parables, his answers to captious ques-
tions, could not be forgotten. The horrors of his death
could not efface the memories of his life. They clustered
about the hills of Galilee and its blue lake. Here he had
spoken, with manly courage to those in high station, with
gentle sympathy to earth's little ones, proclaiming good
tidings to the poor. Here he had lived his simple and un-
selfish life, healing the sick, helping the needy, comfort-
ing the sad of heart, befriending the outcast, and bringing
very near to all the kingdom of their hope. Here they
had walked with him and cherished in secret the convic-
tion that it was he who should redeem Israel. How far it
would have been possible for such a purely spiritual im-
pression to maintain itself and to transmit to later genera-
tions an attitude of loyalty to him and to his cause, is a
question that cannot be answered. If Jesus had lived in
the days of Jeremiah, his disciples would not have looked
for his return upon the clouds of heaven, or believed that
he had been raised from the dead, since the necessary con-
ditions, the hope of a Messiah and the doctrine of a resur-
rection, did not then exist. But the fall of Jerusalem
would have been likely to bring his words to honor, center
the interest on his personality, produce a more or less re-
liable biography, and give him a place of equal honor at
least with the prophet of Anathoth.

A wider influence was unquestionably secured for Jesus
through the expectation that he would soon return to
earth as the Messiah, and the belief that he had been
raised to life again on the third day after his death.
Early Christian literature shows how general and intense
was the hope of his coming to overthrow the Roman em-
pire and to establish the kingdom of heaven. There is
every reason to believe that the immediate disciples of
Jesus expected this even to occur in their own generation.

320 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

Already in his life-time they had looked forward to a day
when he should show himself to Israel as the Messiah.
At first his death would naturally seem to put a barrier
against the realization of this hope. But in large and in-
fluential Jewish circles death was no longer looked upon
as the end of sentient and self-conscious life. The Persian
doctrine of a resurrection had been introduced, and the
land beyond the grave had been mapped out and become
familiar ground. As the raising of the dead was not yet
ascribed to the Messiah, and not universally conceived of
as occurring on the last day, this act of God's power might
be looked for whenever circumstances seemed to warrant
it. Thus Herod Antipas is said to have feared that Jesus
was none else than John the Baptist raised from the
dead.1 At Caesarea Philippi the disciples report that
many regarded Jesus as John the Baptist, Elijah, Jere-
miah or some other prophet returned to life again.2 It
is not strange therefore that the belief should have grown
up that Jesus himself had been raised from the dead.
The emphasis placed in early Christian writings upon the
statement that his resurrection was "according to the
Scriptures"3 shows the influence of supposed Messianic
prophecies in the Old Testament in shaping this doctrine.4

1 Matth., xiv, 1, 2; Mark, vi, 14-16; in Luke, ix, 7-9, Herod only
wonders who Jesus is, while some of his suite regard him as John the
Baptist.

2 Hatth., xvi, 14; Marie, viii, 28 (Jeremiah omitted); Luke, ix, 19
(Jeremiah omitted). Cf. also Mark, vi, 15; Luke, ix, 8. The story
in Matth., xxvii, 52, 53, according to which many saints were raised,
came forth from their tombs, entered the holy city and appeared to
many at the time of Jesus' death, shows not less clearly how little
the thought of a resurrection was restricted to the last day. The ad-
dition "after his resurrection," made to bring the story into har-
mony with the doctrine that "Christ was raised from the dead as the
first-fruits of those that are asleep" (I Cor., xv, 20), is lacking in the
Evangeliarium Eierosolymitanum. This seems to have been generally
overlooked.

8 1 Cor., xv, 4; Acts, ii, 25 ff.; xiii, 34 ff.; John, xx, 9; Luke, xxiv,
46.

*Ps., xvi, 8-11, is directly quoted. If "he will not suffer his holy
one to see corruption" was thought to refer to the Messiah, since

THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 321

From the same source manifestly comes the vacillation
between "three days and three nights"1 and "on the
third day. ' '2 How early the disciples of Jesus became con-
vinced that he had been raised from the dead, cannot be
ascertained with certainty. There seems to be no good
reason for doubting that the conception goes back to the
immediate disciples of Jesus.3 If Romans i and I Corin-
thians xv, 1-2, 12 ff. were penned by Paul, the oldest docu-
ments referring to the resurrection of Jesus would have
been written not more than a quarter of a century after
his death.

In spite of the fact that the clouds never bore him back,
the followers of the prophet of Nazareth continued to
gaze steadfastly into the sky for the sign of the Son of
Man. Generations passed and he "delayed his coming";
but faith, scorning repeated disenchantments, drew
strength to meet the bitterest persecutions from the sure
prophetic word. Only as the fortunes of the Church

David had been allowed to see corruption, it followed of necessity
that the Messiah must be raised before the fourth day. For it seems
to have been commonly held that corruption set in on the fourth day,
when the face changed, and that the soul then took its final leave of
the body. Cf. Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth, 20a, and Bereshith
Eabba, 100; it is also to be observed that Lazarus had been in his
tomb four days in John, xi, 17. The basis of this idea was undoubt-
edly the occurrence of reanimation in cases of apparent death. Such
figures of speech as "after two days will he revive us, on the third
day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him" (Hosea, vi, 2),
current at a time when the idea of a resurrection was quite unknown
in Israel, clearly go back to this physical phenomenon. Three days
and three nights would consequently be the utmost limit, if the
Messiah were not to "see corruption." Matth., xii, 46, shows that
Jonah's sojourn in the belly of the fish exactly that length of time
(ii, 1) seemed to some typical of the sojourn of the Messiah in death
before his resurrection.

1 John, ii, 19-22 ; Matth., xii, 40.

2 1 Cor., xv, 4, and other passages. "The third day" is differently
understood in Matth., xxviii, 1, where Jesus is already risen "late on
the Sabbath day as the first day of the week drew on, ' ' i. e., Saturday
night, and in the other accounts where this event takes place the
next morning.

3 See Excursus C.
21

322 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

changed, did this hope lessen its hold. With the estab-
lishment of Christianity as the official religion of the
Roman empire men generally ceased to look for an imme-
diate return of Jesus to earth, and for a Messianic king-
dom of a thousand years. The term Christ was no longer
the equivalent of the Messiah; it meant the Son of God
in a metaphysical sense, the eternal Logos, the second
person of the Trinity. As God he was omnipresent; he
was always near to those who called upon him; in the
eucharist was his real presence ; the Church was his rep-
resentative; this Church was the kingdom of God on
earth; the kingdom of heaven was a celestial realm
whither the faithful member of the Church passed after
death to behold his Saviour face to face. Beside this
new conception there was no room for the earlier view,
and no spiritual demand for it. On the other hand, the
belief in the resurrection of Jesus could not be affected
by the disillusionings of history or the changed concep-
tion of the Christ. That the incarnate God had risen from
the dead was less difficult to believe than that he had died
at all, and there was no disposition to examine the ac-
counts critically.

The influence of Jesus in the period in which the Christ-
ology of the Church was defined by the ecumenic symbols
should not be underestimated. The Gospels were widely
read, and the strong impression of the human personality
of Jesus manifests itself not only in the dissenting bodies
that emphasized his humanity, but also in the Catholic
Church, whose endeavor it was to vindicate his true hu-
manity as well as his divinity. It was not merely an intel-
lectual curiosity to solve what is at bottom a permanent
problem of thought that led to the subtle distinctions be-
tween homoousion and Jiomoiousion, legitimate as this
would have been. It was quite as much the personal affec-
tion for Jesus inspired by the portrayal of his life and the
presentation of his doctrine in the Gospels. With the
moral impression of a noble divine personality, who
stood as the constant object of worship, fear, confidence

THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 323

and love, there blended the elevating influence of a human
life that inspired and called for imitation. While in the
interest of historic truth greater discrimination is needed
than is usually found in the claims made for Christianity,
the tendency to account for certain social changes on
purely economic grounds and to eliminate all spiritual
forces is apt to lead astray. The manumission of slaves,
or change from slavery to serfhood, in the Roman empire,
was no doubt in a large measure due to the diminishing
supply of slaves and their consequent increase in value
after the empire had reached its greatest territorial exten-
sion, as Gibbon and Adam Smith have pointed out ; but it
would be unjust to forget the moral and religious influ-
ences of Stoic philosophy and of Christianity. It was a
Stoic, Dio Chrysostomus,1 who, in the reign of Trajan,
first declared that slavery is contrary to the laws of na-
ture. The spirit of Jesus still brooding over his church
created a moral disposition that was distinctly favorable
to the emancipation of the slaves.2

Similarly, the great improvement of sexual morality,
showing itself in purer marital relations and in the con-
tinence of the monastic life, was to a considerable extent
the result of causes not connected with the life or teaching
of Jesus. The ebb and flow of physical life in successive
generations apparently causes periods of indifference and
aversion to pleasure to follow periods of over-indulgence
of the appetites. The Church only inherited the Hebrew
ideal of chastity, and even the monastic life had one of
its roots in Judaism, as the communities of Essenes and
Therapeutae3 testify. Besides, the attitude of the Stoics
must be considered. But there can be no question that in

1 Opera, ed. Emperius, xiv, xv, p. 265 ff.

2 The Deutero Pauline epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians and
Philemon recognize the institution of slavery and consequently insist
upon the return of fugitive slaves to their masters, but earnestly urge
kindly treatment and a fraternal spirit.

3 With Massebieau, Conybeare, Wendiand, Pfleiderer and Bousset,
the present writer considers Be vita covtemplativa as a genuine work
of Philo.

324 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH

two directions at least the influence of Jesus was impor-
tant. He had declared in favor of the indissolubility of
marriage, and he had exemplified celibacy in his own life
and apparently commended it for the sake of the king-
dom of heaven.

The missionary enterprises and crusades that charac-
terize the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages were, at
least in part, due to a sincere desire that Jesus as the
celestial king should reign over pagans and Muhammadans
living in rebellion against him and therefore doomed to
perish. If the interests were often those of the Church
rather than of Jesus, this distinction was seldom felt by
the pious missionary or crusader. That economic causes
operated in the background, they never dreamed. They
knew the loyalty of their own hearts to their king in
heaven, whose law they would impose upon the nations,
whose tomb they would rescue from the hands of the infi-
dels, and whose glory they would spread by the words of
their mouth or the blows of their sword. It is impos-
sible to recall the names of Columban and Gallus, of Em-
meran and Rupert, of Boniface and Ansgar, of Cyril and
Methodius, without realizing how truly this missionary
zeal could serve the real cause of Jesus. However radic-
ally opposed to the spirit of the gentle Nazarene the con-
test for the empire of the world between Christian Rome
and Muhammadan Baghdad may appear, however absurd
the combination of a cross on the breast and a sword in
the hand, and however lamentable the resultant exclusive-
ness, prejudice, distrust and unnatural relationship be-
tween two great historic religions, it cannot be questioned
that the cross very often meant the surrender of worldly
ambition, wealth and pleasure, the sacrifice of domestic
happiness, the risk of life, the willing acceptance and
patient endurance of hardship for the sake of the unseen
king. The chivalry of the mediaeval knight from which
our modern treatment of woman so largely is derived can-
not be regarded as solely a product of Christianity, for
it has a deep root in the dreamy reverence for woman char-

THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 325

acteristic of our pagan ancestors. Yet it would not have
become what it was but for the veneration accorded to the
Virgin Mary; and though this cult ultimately goes back
to the widespread worship of one or another mother god-
dess in the Roman empire, it was itself informed by the
spirit of Jesus. Even the papal contention, that there
is a sphere of morals and religion in which the consciences
of men ought not to be subjected to the authority of
princes or of civil government, reflects a thought of Jesus.
Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but also to God
what belongs to God. There are diviner rights than those
of kings. Unfortunately, papacy itself in its attempt to
represent Jesus on earth did not follow his leadership in
disentangling itself from all political ambitions, and in
leaving conscience free.

In Francis of Assisi another phase of the influence of
Jesus comes to view. The man of Nazareth is taken as a
model to be followed. His life is to be imitated. His man-
ner of living is to be copied. To be poor as he and de-
pendent on the gifts of others ; to be unmarried as he and
continent ; to be homeless as he and walking about among
men ; to be simple and joyous and brave and earnest as he
and occupied in doing good— this is to follow Jesus. It is
a most significant shifting of emphasis from metaphysical
speculation on his personality, appropriation of his saving
grace through sacred rites, or outward obedience to his
commands, to actual reproduction of his life. There is
much that is external and artificial in this imitation, doing
violence to individuality. But there is more that is of
permanent value. For it is in this direction of charac-
ter influencing character that the truest leadership of
Jesus is likely to be found. The spiritual kinsmen of
Francis of Assisi are chiefly to be looked for among the
mystics. Men like Gerhard Groote, Johann Tauler,
Thomas a Kempis, are only some of the best known repre-
sentatives of large groups who before the Reformation
discerned, with more or less clearness, that the greatest
service Jesus can render as a leader of the sons of men

326 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

consists in the moral influence of his spirit and character
upon the inner life.

The three great movements of organized dissent in the
sixteenth century, the Lutheran, the Zwinglian, and the
Baptist, reveal in different ways the leadership of Jesus
acknowledged by them all. Against the prevalent idea
that man could earn his own salvation by good works hav-
ing the value of assets to his credit, or purchase it from
the supererogatory works of other men, or secure it by
such purchases made on his behalf by friends or relatives,
Luther maintained, in accordance with Paul and Augus-
tine, that man is justified by faith only, without works,
through the grace of God. The object of this faith was
Jesus Christ for whose personality, after some hesitancy,
he adopted the definition of the Catholic symbols. The
great importance of this "material principle" of the ref-
ormation lies in the fact that it removes all priestly media-
tion between the soul and Christ, makes salvation depend-
ent solely upon a man's relation to his divine Redeemer,
and does away with the idea that he can merit it by his
good works. Luther, indeed, did not carry out this doc-
trine to its natural consequences, inasmuch as he ascribed
saving value to infant baptism without a conscious act of
appropriation of Christ by faith and, in the case of the
eucharist, assumed a communication of the flesh and
blood of Christ, "in, with and under" the elements, regard-
less of faith. The "formal principle" was the recognition
of the Bible alone as the supreme authority. In judging
of canonicity, however, he was inclined to apply the test
of agreement with the material principle, and to rule out
such books as Canticles, James, and Revelation. At first
he enlisted the warm sympathies of the common people.
But his attitude in siding with the princes in the upris-
ing of the peasants had a tendency to alienate the poorer
classes. The rulers, however, helped him to realize in a
measure his ideal of a Christian state, which could serve
as a bulwark against the aggressions of the papacy, and
guarantee the permanency of his ecclesiastical reforma-

THE HISTOBIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 327

tion. In making the theological faculties at the univer-
sities guardians of the faith, and placing the young men
to be educated for the ministry at these centers of varied
learning, he gave at once authority to the specialist, and
made provision against an one-sided development. Thus
Luther labored according to the light he had, and laid
the foundations better than several generations succeed-
ing him knew. If he lacked the self-control, the gentle-
ness of spirit, the catholicity of sympathy, and the depth
of intuition that some of his fellow-laborers possessed, he
loved the truth he saw, had the courage of his convictions,
showed much practical discernment, and sought by all
means to enhance the power, in state and church, of the
divinely-human Master whom he served in sincerity.1

Zwingli resembled Luther in many respects ; his concep-
tion of the Christ was similar; his loyalty to Jesus was
equally marked. But his outlook upon life was broader
and his spirit freer. This is manifest in his estimate of
the religious character of Pindar, Plato and Seneca, in his
assertion that the divine spirit was not limited to Pales-
tine, and in his conception of the Lord's Supper as simply
a memorial meal. In the manner of his approach to a
theological question Luther instinctively felt a spirit dif-

1 This estimate of Luther 's character remains unchanged after the
perusal of Denifle's Luther und das Lutherthum, 1904. There was
an element of coarseness and sensuality in Luther, accentuated by the
reaction against an unnatural mode of life. If Protestant theologians
have been too prone to gloss over certain facts in the life of Luther
and apologize, on flimsy grounds, for his vulgarity of speech and nar-
rowness of judgment, Denifle lacks the ability to perceive his real
greatness, which is more serious. It may be questioned whether,
without Luther, we should have advanced in four centuries beyond
Denifle, whose judgment upon Luther reminds of Luther, but has in it
no promise of larger views. Denifle's charge against Luther that he
abandoned the monastic ideal and broke his vows will not disturb the
world. That he abandoned the common people and the cause of social
progress is a more serious matter. But this was largely due to his
early training, which rendered it difficult, if not impossible, for him to
conceive of a state whose members were not from infancy forced to be
Christians, and Christians of a certain type.

328 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

ferent from his own. It is in harmony with this general
attitude that the question of infant baptism seriously dis-
turbed him, and he seems to have been led to retain the prac-
tice by considerations of the far-reaching effects upon civil
society of adopting the Baptist position rather than by
theological arguments. As he insisted upon a more rad-
ical reformation of the church service, so he put more
emphasis upon the reform of social institutions by the
people itself. While Calvin's logical mind developed the
material principle by accentuating the doctrine of predes-
tination and the symbolical character of the ordinances,
and strengthened the formal principle by an exegesis that
was remarkably objective, yet appeared to succeed in
exhibiting one doctrinal content in all parts of the canon,
his activity as a practical reformer showed the same
tendency to democracy tempered with theocracy. There
can be no question as to the genuineness of his desire to
see the will of his Master dominant in the life of the Chris-
tian community. That without the use of force the au-
thority of Jesus cannot be maintained, is an inference that
he could not avoid drawing from his conception of the
functions of government and the character of the church.1
But it is significant, in view of the subsequent develop-
ment of political life in the various countries affected by
the Reformation, that Luther and his colleagues leaned on
princes by whose aid they were able to carry out their
work, and whose authority over their subjects they em-

1 The position of authority accorded to Calvin in Geneva seems to
have caused a confusion from which his mind did not suffer, at least
to so great an extent, in 1532, when he wrote his commentary on
Seneca's Be Caritate. In the case of Servetus, his judgment was
further warped by wounded pride and personal resentment, as his
own statements unmistakably prove. It would be wrong to hold his
age responsible for his lamentable error. Yet the most powerful tra-
ditions and the strongest currents of thought in that period unques-
tionably rendered it difficult for him to reach the lofty position of a
Balthasar Hubmaier, a Hans Denck, or a Sebastian Chateillon, which
would have prevented him from playing such a disgraceful part in the
judicial murder of Servetus. The great reformer has certainly a
right to be judged by his best, and not by his worst.

THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 329

phasized, while Zwingli, Calvin and their associates leaned
chiefly on the burghers, and maintained the rights of the
people against unjust rulers.

The Baptists, as a rule, rejected both the material and
the formal principle. Characteristic of the whole move-
ment were the emphasis upon character and the doctrine
of "the inner light." With the current notion of
"works" as a commodity, with a fixed value on the
ecclesiastical exchange or in the celestial court, the Bap-
tists had no sympathy. In fact their leading theologians
were at pains to remove the remnant of this system of
salvation by negotiable works of merit. To Denck and
Tiziano faith did not mean belief in a transference of
man's guilt to Christ and an imputation of Christ's merits
to man, but trust in God and obedience to his laws, a con-
fidence and obedience impressively exemplified by the
man Jesus of Nazareth. This faith, they held, could never
exist, or even be conceived, without works. They dis-
carded all mercantile and forensic views of the atonement,
and instead of justification as a reward for believing
preached righteousness of life and works of kindness as
the natural result of the indwelling principle of love,
whose value and power may be seen in some lives more
distinctly than in others, and with especial clearness in
that of Jesus. According to these thinkers, man is not
in need of being saved from the devil or from an ever-
lasting hell, for they did not believe in the existence of
either, but from selfishness and ignorance. By "the
inner light" Denck understood the direct illumination of
every human mind, according to its capacity, by the
indwelling divinity. This light enables man to discern
the truth in the sacred books or elsewhere. Following it
holy men of old spoke as they were moved by the Spirit,
and through all ages divine truth continues to be revealed
to men. By placing the authority of the inner light above
that of the Scriptures, these early Baptists were naturally
led to recognize not only the right of private interpreta-
tion of the Bible, and the consequent diversity of beliefs,

330 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

but also the propriety of Biblical criticism, and the liberty
of prophesying new things. Denck's distinction between
the permanently valuable and the only temporarily sig-
nificant in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testa-
ment, leading him apparently before his death to regret
that he at one time had attached an abiding importance
even to adult baptism, is an instructive example. The
recognition by Servetus of at least a primary reference
of the supposed Messianic prophecies in the Old Testa-
ment to contemporaneous events and personalities is also
significant. The accounts of Giuliano of Milan, indicat-
ing that in Baptist circles the authenticity of the Fourth
Gospel was denied, the opening chapters of Matthew and
Luke and some chapters in Mark were regarded as inter-
polations, and some of the Pauline writings were ques-
tioned, affords another illustration. From the principle
of the inner light follows also the conception of the church
as a local society composed of persons who have been
enlightened. The rejection of infant baptism was there-
fore not exclusively caused by the absence of New Testa-
ment precept or precedent. A church thus constituted
could not be co-extensive with the state, or civil society.
It was a spiritual brotherhood, living in the world, though
not of the world. Its aims and purposes were connected
with the teaching and example of Jesus. Some of his
ideas such as those concerning the overcoming of evil
with good, war, oath-taking, judging, and private wealth,
the value of the simple, trustful, joyous life, the coming
of a better social order, the kingdom of heaven on earth,
were widely adopted among the Baptists ; and the testi-
mony of their enemies, who often ascribed their apparent
virtues to the inscrutable craftiness of Satan, the char-
acter of their preserved writings, their gentle demeanor
during lives filled with severest trials and persecutions,
and the noble courage with which they met the martyr's
death, show how deeply they were influenced by his spirit.
Thus it is possible to observe, in the case of a great his-
toric movement, whose significance becomes more mani-

THE HISTORIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 331

f est in proportion as the archives of Europe yield up their
secrets, whether the real leadership of Jesus decreases or
is enhanced by the recognition of his purely human
character.

On the other hand, it was only natural that the Baptist
position should be felt to be a menace both to church and
state. At first sight it might appear very harmless that a
good man prefers tilling his soil to killing his fellows,
weaving his cloth to wearing the ermine, telling the truth
to swearing an oath, bearing with patience insult and
injury to demanding the punishment of his assailant, shar-
ing his good things with others to heaping up wealth for
himself, caring for his child to sprinkling it with water,
loving and imitating Jesus to praising and describing
him. But if this man should be right, society would be
wrong in slaying its enemies, condemning its criminals,
binding its citizens with oaths, bringing its grievances to
courts, hoarding its treasures, saving its infants by bap-
tism and its adults by formulas, sending its heretics to
hell, and promising its saints heaven through the merits
of the God-man. In reality, his gentle life, in spite of its
innocent appearance, was a bold challenge hurled at all
that was high and exalted among men, at the throne and
the altar, the bench and the cathedra, the knight and the
bishop, the man of lineage and the man of wealth. The
challenge was accepted, and in a few decades these quiet
seekers after a country of their own had been hounded
to death, burned at the stake, or drowned in deep waters.
Then, in Gothic cathedrals, amid incense and gold and
treasures of art, Te Deums were sung, and in houses of
worship but recently deprived of all emblems or images
thanks were offered for the salvation of society to the
man who many centuries ago had himself for the same
crime been hanged upon a cross.

It cannot be denied that in the mother church the in-
fluence of the prophet of Nazareth was in some directions
preserved and extended through the Society of Jesus.
Its spiritual discipline, its educational system, and its mis-

332 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

sionary zeal were not only the most efficient means of re-
forming the Catholic Church and enhancing the power
of the papacy, but also became instrumental in making
the name of Jesus known in distant lands, his life re-
garded as an example, and his authority recognized with
unwavering fidelity. Never since the days of the Stoics
had the Western world seen an order of men exhibiting at
once such talents and learning and such masterly self-
control, indifference to outward circumstance and poise
of character as those who regularly drew their inspiration
from the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. Clearer
than other reformers the leaders of this society recognized
that, if the authority of Jesus is to be paramount over a
human life, the training must begin in childhood and
include the heart and the will as well as the intellect. To
their missionary work in Asia, Africa and America,
they brought a learning, an adaptability, a tact and a de-
votion, that for a time crowned their labors with re-
markable success. In some measure this success was no
doubt due to the method adopted by Xavier, Valignani,
Ricci and other missionaries of assuming the dress and
customs of the natives, and of adjusting the presentation
of Christian doctrine to already existing religious ideas.
There is no reason for questioning, on this ground, their
purpose to bring their converts to a full acceptance of the
teaching of Jesus as they understood it, and the readiness
with which for his sake they suffered martyrdom testifies
to their sincerity. But that which was the strength of
this society also constituted its weakness. It derived its
very existence from the desire of following Jesus. A Life
of Jesus and The Imitation of Christ by Thomas a Kempis
made a missionary of the soldier Ignatius. But while
absolute obedience to the will of Christ as interpreted by
his apostles or their successors may make an organiza-
tion very powerful, its members are deprived of that free-
dom of conscience and moral initiative without which
there can be no healthy religious development. And
while a facile adaptation of means in themselves ques-

THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 333

tionable to a high end may be fruitful of accomplishment,
the end itself is apt to become unconsciously lowered and
the work achieved to receive a taint.

The inherent weakness and gradual deterioration of the
Society of Jesus called forth within the Church itself a
significant protest. Whether or not Cornelius Jansen's
Augustinus contained in germ the views attributed to him.
there can be no doubt as to the Calvinistic tendency oi
thought among the Port-Royalists. Of more importance
however, were the independence of mind, moral discern-
ment and spiritual temper of Antoine Arnauld, Jean
Hamon, Angelique Arnauld and Pierre Nicole, and the
system of education that trained for the world a Racine
and a Pascal. Voltaire rightly regarded Nicole's Treat-
ise on the Means of Preserving Peace with Men1 as a
master-piece without an equal in antiquity. Original as
are the lines of inquiry pursued in this profoundly sig-
nificant work, the influence of the thought and spirit of
Jesus is quite unmistakable.

Whatever the historic connection may have been between
the radical party of the reformation period and the quiet-
ists of the seventeenth century, the latter share with the
former a certain approach to the Roman Catholic position
on the one hand, and a decided tendency toward ration-
alism on the other. The radical bias is already visible
to some extent in Michael Molinos, Madame de Guyon,
and Jean de Labadie ; in the Quakers it becomes more
marked and of greater practical significance, and in the
later Pietists it develops into full-fledged rationalism.
By their emphasis upon grace and good works and a spir-
itual enlightenment not confined to the authors of the
Bible, George Fox and William Penn, the Princess Eliza-
beth and Anna Maria van Schurmann, Jacob Spener,
August Francke, and their successors drew nearer to the
Catholic attitude than to Lutheran and Calvinistic prin-
ciples. In England it was especially the state that felt

1 Pierre Nicole, Traite des moyens de conserver la paix avee les
hovimes in Essais de morale, Paris, 1671.

334 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

itself menaced by the men who refused to swear, to ' ' bow
and scrape, ' ' to use the plural pronoun in addressing their
superiors, and to bear arms. In view of such conduct,
which was rightly considered as endangering existing
social institutions, the objection to "steeple houses" and
a hired ministry, the distrust of the trinitarian formula
and all creeds, the rejection of baptism in any form as well
as the eueharist, the doctrine of the inner light, and the
inclination to universalism, could only be regarded as of
secondary importance, however serious in themselves.
In filling its horrible jails with men and women who had
committed no crime, society only sought to protect itself
against what it felt to be very grave dangers. It was not
at all conscious of the fact that the Quakers in reality
followed the leadership of Jesus in adopting some of his
teachings that had been generally discarded, but to which
he had himself attached great importance.

In Germany it was particularly the Lutheran church
that found itself threatened by the pietistic movement.
The opposition to the established clergy and the insistence
upon a personal religious experience on the part of the
religious teacher, the dependence upon private judgment
leading to rejection of the creeds and critical treatment
of the Bible, the desire for a broader fellowship of Chris-
tian churches regardless of dogma, the indifference to the
sacraments and the active endeavor to gain influence in
chair and pulpit, made pietism a foe with which the
church had to cope seriously. In more than one field the
Pietists signalized an inevitable reversal of judgment.
The last began to appear as the first. Gottfried Arnold1
depicted the history of the church in such a manner that
the heretics were justified by their own suppressed writ-
ings, and bore off the palm of victory over the majorities
that had condemned and crushed them. In his defense
of Pietism against the common charge of hostility to cul-

x Ketsergeschichte, 1700.

THE HISTOKIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 335

ture, Dippel1 subjected what had been regarded as erudi-
tion to a searching criticism, and with rare insight placed
by the side of theology, within the sphere of erudite learn-
ing and liberal arts, jurisprudence and medicine, chemis-
try, metallurgy and mining, mathematics, industrial arts,
agriculture, cattle-breeding and horticulture, while dis-
counting the value to science and society of certain phases
of theology, philosophy and jurisprudence. Edelmann2
sought the value of Christianity and its chief claim to
the attention of men, not in its alleged supernatural char-
acter, but in its rationality. Thus the fruit of a long de-
velopment of thought in England, in which not only the
cultivators of the natural sciences, the philosophers and
the deists had participated, but also the theologians and
apologists whose aim it had been to reconcile reason and
revelation, was transplanted into German soil. From
Herrnhut Zinzendorf directed a foreign missionary work,
not relying on force or diplomacy, and not seeking the
glory and aggrandizement of a church, but trusting to the
Spirit and the Scriptures, and undertaken solely in the
interest of the non-Christian peoples.

The Quietistic movement had its serious limitations, but
it was <ie,aracterized by a strong personal devotion to
Jesus arh his teaching. If, nevertheless, its* subjectivity
inevitably led to a more and more pronounced rational-
ism, the question naturally arises whether a further de-
velopment of these radical tendencies would permit the
continuance at all of such a relation to Jesus. At first
sight the symbolical interpretation affected by the great
German philosophers, and widely adopted by theologians,
would seem to put this in doubt. Carrying out a sugges-
tion of Spinoza3 that it is not necessary to know Christ
according to the flesh, but that no man can be saved with-
out a knowledge of the eternal Son of God, the divine

1 Weg-Weiser sum, verlolirnen Licht und BecM, etc., durch Christi-
anum Democritum, 1704, Vorrede.

2 Die GottlichTceit der Vernunft, 1740.

'Epistola XXI, Hagae, in Nov., 1675, ed. Bruder, II, 195.

336 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

wisdom manifesting itself everywhere but especially in
Jesus Christ, Kant1 drew a distinction between the his-
toric Jesus and the archetypal, ideal man. According to
him, the idea of a perfect humanity which is present with
God from all eternity stands before the consciousness of
man as an ideal which it is his moral duty to follow.
Though it is possible that this ideal has once been real-
ized, faith does not depend upon this possibility ; and if in
Jesus the divine idea became a reality, it was not through
a supernatural birth or other miracles, but through a life
in harmony with the divine pattern. Horst2 looked upon
the narratives of the virgin birth, the miracles, the resur-
rection and the ascension, not as history, but as poetry,
setting forth an ideally conceived humanity, without the
aid of which Jesus could not have been raised out of the
common lot into an ideal attained, and yet again possible
to attain. Hegel's theology shows the same tendency to-
ward symbolism. When he suggests that the human
being who manifests the truth that God is man and man
is divine might be said to have the divine Spirit for his
father and a human mother, inasmuch as he unites into
one the transcendent divine nature and the sense-bound
human self, it is evident that he translates th<' language
of mythology into the language of philosophy, ^Acrificing
the historical character of the virgin birth. And his
treatment of the resurrection reveals the same peculiari-
ties. But as his doctrine of the historical development of
nations could not fail to direct attention to the difficulty
of assuming a fixed ideal of humanity or even the possi-
bility of its realization in an individual, it is not strange
that, in an age strongly influenced by cosmopolitan ideas,
the thought should arise and win favor that the true
Christ, the real Son of God, to whom alone the doctrines
deduced from the gospel can be applied, is the human race.
Humanity is the child of the invisible father, the spirit,

1 Die Religion innerhalb der Grensen der blossen Vemunft, 1793, ed.
Hortenstein, VI, 156, 217, 227 al.

2 Museum fiir Religionswissenscliaft, 1804, p. 755.

THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 337

and the visible mother, nature; it is the wonder-worker
through whose power nature is gradually subdued and
made subservient to the Spirit ; it is sinless inasmuch as no
blame can be attached to the general course of historic
development or to the race as a whole, but only to the
individual; it dies, arises from the dead and ascends to
heaven, in that the natural yields to the spiritual, the out-
ward separation of nations and classes ceases in the higher
unity of the race, and the mortal is thus swallowed up in
immortality. The man who believes in this Christ, and in
sincere faith lives and dies for humanity, is saved.1

But whether the term "Christ" was used to designate
the ideal human personality, or the human race in its
gradual realization of its ideal, the distinction between
the Jesus of history and the Christ of the creeds would
apparently tend to eliminate the significance of the for-
mer. This, however, was not the case. As the miraculous
element disappeared from the life of Jesus, his teaching
and example claimed more attention. There was, indeed,
a marked disposition to reduce his teaching to the level
of the generally accepted moral maxims of the day. Yet
these were themselves in a large measure the product oi
his influence, and were in advance of the ordinary conduct
of men. The fact that his life was relieved of its miracu-
lous features also rendered his virtues more real, and fos-
tered a desire to emulate them, while emphasis upon the
duty of following the highest ideal, whether it had ever
been realized or not, removed the anxiety to produce a
mere outward copy of his life.

It cannot be denied that these concepts of ideal hu-
manity suffered from a certain artificiality. The ideal
that one man should seek to realize can obviously not be
identical with that which another man should set before
himself. Beautiful and significant as the myths are that
cluster about the life of Jesus in the gospels, they do not

1 Such ideas are found in the first edition of Strauss 's Leben Jesu,
1835, in the LeichtfasslicJie Bearbeitung des Lebens Jesu von Dr.
Strauss, Zurich, 1841, and elsewhere.
22

338 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

naturally lend themselves as terms for the description of
the collective life of man on earth. Already the descrip-
tion of the church as a collective Christ in I Cor. xii, 12,
and in Augustine 's famous comment, Totus Christus, caput
et membra, threatened to deprive the term of its natural
connotation, but it at least suggested an ideal society.
Applied to the human race, it neither indicated a tran-
scendent human personality nor a nobler form of social
life, but the actual course of human history, or at best its
upward tendency. If the welding together of the two
names, Jesus and Christ, had originally caused a theolog-
ical development entirely foreign to the thought of the
Galilean prophet, their drifting apart seemed to signalize
a new growth of Christological speculation. But though
the symbolical interpretation of Biblical language and
ecclesiastical terms conveniently served to hide the real
thought, and to disguise its distance from the accepted
standards of faith, it was a relief alike to the inquiring
intellect and the religious sentiment to be brought back
from vague abstractions to the life of Jesus by historical
criticism. The long and painstaking investigations, car-
ried on with ever increasing precision of method, a keen
and cultivated historic sense, and a deepening religious
appreciation, have not been in vain.

Much is left to be done ; many problems still await their
satisfactory solution, and many fresh problems have arisen
as knowledge has advanced ; not a few questions of great
importance are still subject to serious debate among inde-
pendent and competent investigators ; some things historic
research will, in all probability, never ascertain. But
there is an unmistakable drift of responsible opinion to
certain conclusions. After a very thoroughgoing criti-
cism that has taken nothing for granted, but conscien-
tiously examined everything within its observation, it is
possible to-day to state, with assurance, that Jesus of
Nazareth once lived among men, approximately when he
lived, what were some of the external circumstances of his
life, what was the general trend of his teaching, how his

THE HISTOEIC INFLUENCE OF JESUS 339

personality affected different classes, and how he came to
his death. Out of the mists of tradition enveloping him his
majestic figure rises and stands out in bold relief against
the background of his time. All fair-minded men will
grant that he is worthy of respectful attention, admira-
tion, and love. Those who have earnestly sought to be-
come acquainted with him, allowing his thought to influ-
ence theirs, his manner of life to inspire them, and his
spirit to touch their hearts, will gladly confess that they
have found in this son of man something that the Christ
of the creeds could not give, that to them the old con-
ception, with all its splendor, is no longer glorious be-
cause of the surpassing glory of the new. As they look
back over the centuries that have passed since his death,
it is possible for them to trace to some extent the influence
of this real, historical personality, obscured but never
quite concealed by tradition, alongside with that of the
fictitious personality created by the identification of Jesus
with the Jewish Messiah and the Divine Logos. The for-
mer seems to them to have been more valuable in the past,
and to hold more promise for the future.

CHAPTER XIII

THE PEESENT PEOBLEM

Undoubtedly, the traditional conception of Jesus will long
continue in the world, and through it his power will be felt
as of yore. There seems to be no reason for expecting a
very marked change of attitude either in the Roman or in
the Greek Catholic Church on matters of doctrine that are
deemed of fundamental importance, and are closely con-
nected with the cult. But while the doctrinal system may
be left substantially intact, there are forces already at
work, especially in the Roman Catholic Church, that cannot
fail to bring about noteworthy modifications of intellectual
attitude and spiritual temper. The increasing demand for
advanced education, and the difficulty of competing with
well-equipped Protestant institutions of learning, will make
it a matter of growing concern that Catholic scholarship
shall be of the highest order. In course of time it must
become apparent to those who have the welfare of the
Church at heart that the greatest obstacle to the develop-
ment of such a scholarship is the bias given to the mind
by the assumption that in some important fields of inquiry
conclusions are not to be drawn from the facts, but facts
are to be interpreted in harmony with tradition ; that truth
is not to be sought, but certain statements are to be accepted
as truth without critical examination and defended as such.
In order not to lose its hold upon the young and its prestige
in the world, the Roman Catholic Church will be obliged to
grant, in ever increasing measure, freedom of investigation
and of academic teaching, and to tolerate a more extensive
divergence of opinion among its scholars. The constant
growth of popular self-government must affect the Church
in two ways, by gradually depriving it of all financial sup-

340

THE PEESENT PROBLEM 341

port and special favors by the state, and by extending the
scope of local and individual initiative and freedom of
action. The religious mysticism nurtured by the beauty
and suggestiveness of an elaborate ritual will surely lead
contemplative minds again and again into new paths, as
they seek in the depths of their own consciousness for more
immediate communion with the divine. The growing ac-
quaintance among the Catholic laity with translations of the
Bible, and on the part of the clergy1 with Biblical criticism
must also be assigned great importance. It is to be ex-
pected that the Catholic Church, living in the midst of vast
democracies on equal terms with other religious bodies, un-
able and unwilling to undertake the forcible suppression of
what it still deems heresy, will show its marvelous power of
adaptation by directing its forces of religious sentiment and
energy to the amelioration of human conditions and the ele-
vation of moral standards, thus seeking by its life to prove
its doctrine all divine. In so far it will reveal the influence
for good of that son of man whom it continues to worship
as a god.

In respect to dogmatic stability the condition of the
Protestant churches is more precarious. The collective
creed, whether expressed in officially adopted formulas, or
defined by virtual agreement without written statements, is
more exposed to the influence of private opinion. Symbols
are revised, made of no effect by a liberal construction, or
set aside completely. The Bible is put into the hands of
everybody ; the right of private interpretation is recognized
at least in principle ; a considerable measure of freedom is
granted to theological teachers to adopt scientific methods
in their work, and to follow the dictates of their conscience.
Even the more conservative denominations are drifting
away from the old doctrinal landmarks. A secular educa-
tion, based throughout upon a conception of the world in

1 The case of Abbe Loisy is not as isolated as it appears to many
Protestants. There are not a few Catholic scholars who have adopted
the main positions of modern Biblical criticism; and their number
will increase.

342 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

general and of human history in particular, totally different
from that of Hebrew and Christian antiquity, affects uncon-
sciously the mental attitude of the laity, and the higher
theological education of the clergy inclines to liberalism just
in proportion as it is thorough and efficient. In the great
universities of Europe and America and the leading theo-
logical schools there is not a single teacher of commanding
scholarship who still adheres to the traditional view of the
Old Testament. The line of cleavage between those inclined
to a more radical criticism and those satisfied with removing
the most obvious errors of tradition runs horizontally
through all denominations. In the field of New Testament
interpretation, the situation is indeed somewhat different.
Canons of literary and historical criticism universally recog-
nized by students of the earlier religious life of Israel are
wholly disregarded, or followed hesitatingly, partially and
inconsistently, or adopted as a matter of course, by equally
eminent scholars. This difference in the treatment of the
two parts of the Bible is also more marked in England and
America than on the continent of Europe. There are many
indications, however, that the time is at hand when the same
methods shall generally be applied by Protestant scholars
to early Christian literature and the Hebrew Scriptures.

Nevertheless, too much significance must not be assigned
to this trend of theological teaching. There are great prac-
tical activities of the church that tend to preserve the types
of thought vanishing from the centers of learning. The re-
ligious services, with their recitation of creeds and unex-
plained Scriptures, their doctrinal hymns and didactic
prayers, their sacraments and sermons, as a rule tend to
create a conservative mood, and to check the progress of re-
ligious thought. The various means employed to bring
about a religious decision early in life are of great im-
portance. The Sunday School, though narrowing its field
of religious instruction, which might profitably be much
wider, to Biblical exegesis, is for the most part wholly igno-
rant of modern methods of interpretation. By confirmation
in churches practising infant baptism, by the corresponding

THE PRESENT PROBLEM 343

ceremony of baptizing Sunday School children practised by
the Baptist churches, by Young People's Unions, Epworth
Leagues and Christian Endeavor societies with their curious
pledges exacted of everybody to talk in every meeting, the
consent of the young to certain forms of belief is sought,
and the adoption of certain stereotyped formulas of confes-
sion is encouraged, while the minds are still immature.
Even such laudable endeavors to unite Christians of all de-
nominations for common work as the Evangelical Alliance,
the Federations of Churches and the Young Men's Chris-
tian Association have sought a doctrinal basis of fellowship,
and in emphasizing what seemed essential without really
being so have excluded Unitarian Christians on the one hand
and Catholic Christians on the other. The foreign missions
undertaken by the Protestant churches have grown out of a
zeal which in some respects has not been according to wis-
dom, in so far as it has aimed, as enlightened missionaries
do not now aim, to save the souls of the heathen from ever-
lasting tortures in hell by an acceptance of the Christian
faith, has attempted to rid them of their ancestral religion,
root and branch, as of a wholly unclean thing, and has
sought to substitute for it the tenets and practices of some
Christian sect, as though these alone had a right to a place
in the religious life of man.

Such obvious intellectual limitations will lead no discrim-
inating observer to underestimate the value of the pulpit,
the Sunday School, the unions of Christian workers, or
foreign missions. The world owes much to the faithful and
unselfish labors of a long succession of clergymen whose
names have gone into oblivion, but whose ministry has been
a blessing to their fellows. Men of English speech will al-
ways recall with gratitude, according as one type or another
more strongly appeals to them, such preachers as Knox and
Wesley, Edwards and Finney, Channing and Parker,
Maurice and Robertson, Moody and Spurgeon, Beecher and
Brooks. In a society increasingly jealous of all undue sec-
tarian influences on the common schools, it has been the duty
of the church to provide religious instruction for the young,

344 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

and the work of Robert Raikes, carried on by men and
women sincerely devoted to the spiritual welfare of the
children, has been a means of saving many lives from moral
ruin and of developing many noble characters. Since the
days when the first Moravian missions were established one
denomination after another has sent out some of its noblest
sons, men distinguished for piety, learning and character, to
conquer the heathen world for Christ; and if they have
made comparatively few converts from among the educated
adherents of the various ethnic faiths, their success among
the outcasts of India, the hill-tribes of Burmah and Siam,
the cannibals of the Pacific islands would be worth every
sacrifice, even if it were less apparent than it is, that wher-
ever Protestant missions have gone all strata of society have
been benefited by the introduction of sanitary reforms, im-
proved methods of work, popular education, rational medi-
cine and surgery, a higher condition for woman, and a bet-
ter regulated domestic life. The names of William Carey
and Adoniram Judson, of Robert Moffatt and David Liv-
ingstone will live as long as mankind shall cherish the mem-
ory of its great heroes. Nor is this apostolic succession of
great missionaries likely to end. The church understands
as well as the state the value of a war upon a common
enemy in drawing attention from internal conditions; and
the more spiritual the weapons become, the more eagerly
will men of noble parts enlist in the ranks. Is the choice
difficult at home between a creed hoary with age and a
young science claiming jurisdiction in the name of reason,
between a venerable and elaborate cult and a simple and
spontaneous worship, between the ease of an establishment
maintained by the special favors of the state and the pre-
cariousness of an independent existence demanded by jus-
tice, between building up an organization with the as-
sistance and in the interest of the rich or preaching the good
news of a better social order to the poor? Let the moral
and material condition of the lower races be made the basis
of appeal, the best results already achieved the inspiration
for further efforts, the proclamation of the gospel in its

THE PEESENT PROBLEM 345

greatest purity to all the nations a matter of honor, an intel-
ligent cooperation with the native forms of religious life
instead of indiscriminate condemnation the method adopted,
and love of Jesus and his cause the controlling motive, and
there can be no doubt that vast forces of spiritual energy-
pent up in the Protestant churches may yet contribute to
the uplifting of mankind in a missionary movement of un-
paralleled proportions. Thus the leadership of Jesus has
not only maintained itself in various ways in the intel-
lectually freest part of the Christian church, but promises
to become more real than ever.

The most important question, however, confronting the
thoughtful observer is not whether the influence of Jesus
will continue to manifest itself more or less in the accus-
tomed fashion within churches that, even if they were
united, would include only a fraction of the whole popula-
tion, but what attitude will be taken to him and his teaching
by that large and increasing part of society which has
drifted away from, or cannot be brought under, the influ-
ence of the church. In so far as this estrangement may be
caused by moral perversity, a frivolous temper, or indiffer-
ence to all higher interests, it does not yet present a real
problem, as the church may reasonably hope for an ally in
the awakened conscience and the sobered mind. Far more
serious is the aspect of the case, when it is observed what the
great agencies are that lead minds away from the tutelage
of the church, or prevent them from accepting it. Chief
of these are science, philosophy, art, and social idealism.
The modern estimate of the universe, built up by careful
observation of innumerable facts by a host of especially
trained investigators, is fundamentally different from that
reflected in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. It will
no doubt itself be greatly modified by future discoveries.
But the change can by no possibility be in the direction of
the views once left behind, because palpably based on crude
impressions and unwarranted generalizations. There is not
the slightest probability that the scientific world will ever
return to the belief in miracles. The geologic ages will not

346 THE PROPHET OF NAZARETH

be wiped out of existence. The devil will never be raised
from the dead. The physician of the future is not likely to
revert to the theory of demoniacal possession or the prac-
tice of exorcism. Jurisprudence will continue to take
cognizance of the Jewish legislation only as an important
and suggestive chapter in the history of law. Theology
itself can vindicate its position as the science of the relig-
ious phenomena of man's life only by adopting the com-
parative method, and by critically sifting its material. The
former implies that the religious ideas and practices of
different peoples and different ages be placed side by side,
examined without prejudice, and judged with impartiality,
while the latter involves a thorough textual, literary, and
historical criticism of whatever sacred book may be studied.
The various branches of science are to-day becoming known
in ever widening circles, and the confidence in scientific
methods is steadily increasing. Not only is this the case in
Europe, America and Australia, but also in India, Japan
and China. Thousands of scientific text-books are accom-
plishing a missionary work in the midst of the old civiliza-
tions of Eastern Asia that can never be undone by any
church.

The tendency of science to emphasize the universality of
law and the unity of nature has furnished a fresh impulse
to philosophic speculation, and India has taken her place by
the side of Greece as a teacher of dialectics. In its search
for ultimate reality, philosophy is almost inevitably led
to some form of monism. Materialism is apparently the
simplest of these forms. But when the behavior of matter
is carefully observed, it becomes manifest that it is not what
it seems. The qualities that are perceived by the senses are
recognized as not belonging to the essence. Some type of
idealism is therefore most prevalent among philosophers.
If matter is but an appearance, the substance is supposed to
be mind, either as thinking subject, or as pleroma of thought,
or as both. Thus Berkeley, Fiehte, and Schelling in his
earlier period conceived of essential reality as a thinking
subject; Hegel regarded it as the unity of thinker and

THE PEESENT PEOBLEM 347

thought ; and Bostrom considered it as a system of personal
ideas. Between the two positions that matter only exists,
while thought is one of its products, and that mind only
exists, while matter is nothing but a semblance, there seems
to be room for other views. Kant was unwilling to admit
that ultimate reality is dependent upon that action of the
conscious subject which is reflected in the order of the
phenomenal world. Schelling in his later years emphasized
will as the realizing factor in opposition to thought, and
suggested an obscure, unconscious ground within the divine
being. From this position it is not as far as has been sup-
posed to that of Schopenhauer, who conceived of the world
as will and idea, or that of Hartmann, who looks upon the
world-soul as unconscious but generating consciousness by
the emancipation of the idea from the will.

The original cast given in these systems of thought by
fertile and vigorous German minds to the age-long en-
deavors of philosophy to solve the riddle of existence should
not be discounted. But the influence not only of Greek but
also of Indian speculation is unmistakable. When the
great Greek thinkers who for centuries had moulded the out-
ward forms of men 's reasoning in Christendom were at last
permitted to affect the substance itself, the natural result
was a certain similarity of the new structures to the cre-
ations of those ancient master-builders. A fresh and unex-
pected impetus came from the East when the philosophical
systems of India, antedating those of Greece, became known
in Europe. First came Brahmanism, then Buddhism. In
the former, the place of the vanished gods is taken by a liv-
ing universe, whose substance is spirit, and whose form is
an illusion. In Buddhism the gods disappear altogether,
and leave a world that is realized by the will to be, and from
whose evil escape can come only by cessation of desire.
The subtle philosophy of Bhagavadgita and the Upanishads
found a response not only in Germany but also in America,
where Emerson became the exponent of a transcendental
idealism profoundly influenced - by these works. In
Schopenhauer and Hartmann the keener criticism of reality

348 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

characteristic of Buddhism seems to find its counterpart,
familiarity with this type of Oriental thought is unquestion-
able, and Hartmann's hope for "the final redemption from
the misery of volition and existence into the painlessness
of non-volition and non-existence" exactly expresses Gau-
tama's. This earnest search for the truth is no mere idle
speculation. An ever increasing number of men and
women are convinced that no advance in our knowledge of
ultimate reality can be made except by comprehensive and
accurate observation of nature, and a careful study of its
reflection in the consciousness of man. To them the deistic
idea of an extra-cosmic divine personality, existing before
the universe, creating it out of nothing, ruling it from with-
out, and destroying it at will, is quite inconceivable. The
serious question with them concerns the essential character
of nature, whether its substance is wholly conscious or only
partially so, whether its infinite, eternal and exhaustless
energy, in every moment and at every point, waits on an in-
telligent design, or consciousness and self-determination are
only its incidental fruitage, and whether some of the indi-
vidual manifestations of this energy may or may not pre-
serve the continuity of consciousness in spite of apparent
disintegration. And upon their ontology they build more
or less consciously and consistently their theory of ethics
and their principles of conduct.

In modern life, art commands an absorbing interest.
With the increase and wider distribution of wealth archi-
tecture has become the concern of every citizen. Emanci-
pated from conventional designs, it has developed novel
combinations and pleasing varieties. Man is influenced un-
consciously, but therefore none the less really, by the char-
acter of the home in which he resides. He thinks and feels
differently in a Gothic cathedral from what he does in the
auditorium of a modern church. Painting and cognate
forms of artistic representation have become potent and
significant factors. When the predominance of ecclesiasti-
cal subjects ceased, painters began to draw their motives
from a wider range. Landscapes, animal life, portraits, do-

THE PRESENT PROBLEM 349

mestie scenes, historic events attracted their attention.
Through the engraver, the photographer and the printing-
press, artistic productions have found their way into the
humblest homes. Interest thus centers everywhere upon
works not immediately suggestive of religion. Music finds
a growing number of passionate lovers. To those whose
ears are attuned to harmonies of sound earth holds few de-
lights equal to those that a Bach, a Beethoven, or a Wagner
gives. Of the different forms of poetry it is especially the
drama that exercises a vital influence upon men to-day. On
the stage an interpretation of life in terms of beauty is at-
tempted. The grandeur of human nature is portrayed, and
its foibles are mirrored forth. The great passions that
make or mar humanity, that elevate and refine, or ruin and
degrade, are presented with the aim of likeness to life. Vast
moral problems are set forth with unequaled vividness and
power. The significance of character is brought out, and
the worth of gentle manners. Trifling incidents of man's
existence are pictured with a touch of humor that corrects
the perspective, relieves the strain, and mellows the temper.
Scarcely less important a place is held by the novel, which
clothes with flesh and blood the skeleton of history, delin-
eates character, depicts social conditions, sketches the pos-
sible interplay of circumstance and human action. These
modern creations of the imagination are nearer to reality
than the mythical lore of antiquity ; the actors are men and
not gods; the interest is fixed upon things regarded as
secular from the ecclesiastical point of view.

But profound as is the influence of science and philos-
ophy, art and literature, on that part of the population in
Protestant lands which is not attracted by the church, the
power of social idealism in some form is even more marked.
However imperfect the realization of democracy may have
been, the principle of popular self-government has gained
general recognition in most European countries as well as
in America and Australia. The theory of the divine right
of kings no longer commands serious attention. Whether
the chief executive is called president or king or emperor,

350 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

he is understood to be a servant of the state, such power as
he has being delegated to him by the people. There still
are many artificial limitations of the franchise, and the
methods of expressing the people's will are everywhere im-
perfect, but the whole trend of political development is in
the direction of universal suffrage and a more direct influ-
ence of every man and woman upon the management of
common concerns. If at first the extension of rights of citi-
zenship to the disfranchised seemed an end in itself, since it
implied the enthronement of a new principle of political
life, it gradually became apparent that its real significance
consisted in being a means for effecting far reaching changes
in social conditions. Many conditions once regarded as un-
alterable, imposed by Providence, or necessarily incident to
all social life, are now looked upon as wholly dependent
upon the will of the people and subject to any change it
deems wise to institute. Whether a nation shall be plunged
into war is for the most part no longer left in the discretion
of a sovereign ruler, and the time cannot be far off when
no enlightened nation will undertake a war without an op-
portunity being given to every man and woman vitally con-
cerned to register a vote for or against it. If in a democ-
racy sanitary and hygienic conditions are neglected, slums
are maintained, excessive hours of labor and inadequate
compensation for work are allowed, children are permitted
to grow up without sufficient education to develop native
capacities, a few are granted special privileges by which it
is possible for them to amass enormous fortunes and thereby
gain for themselves an illegitimate power over their fellow-
men, while the many are handicapped and deprived of the
full enjoyment of life, this is not because it must be, but
because the many who have the power to effect the desirable
changes do not yet perceive what ought to be, or realize
what might be.

But the perception of higher ideals has grown with mar-
velous rapidity during the last century. Each school of
earnest thinkers upon social subjects has contributed some-
thing of value to the forming ideal of society. If one group

THE PRESENT PEOBLEM 351

has brought out more clearly the advantages of partnership
and cooperation, another has rightly emphasized the value
of stewardship and individual initiative. Some have ren-
dered a real service by showing the inexpediency of leaving
in irresponsible private hands public utilities that society
would more profitably control, or own and manage through
responsible servants, while others have with equal wisdom
indicated a sphere of private activities still jealously
watched and subject to public interference, which would
more wisely be left to private discretion. As the pendulum
swings between socialism and individualism, the errors of
one-sided and exaggerated views become apparent. The
demand that every member of society shall be obliged to
render some form of useful service, and in return shall re-
ceive an equitable share in the common wealth, is not a whit
less valid or important because of any incidental error in the
theory of those who make it as to what constitutes legitimate
labor or economic value, or an equitable share, or the most
expedient method of securing a fair distribution. The views
one day derided as empty dreams the next day are proved
by sober tests to be based on good foundations. Economic
methods regarded in one place as full of danger or impos-
sible of application, in another place reveal their excellence
and practicability.

The attitude toward recognized social evils has undergone
a significant change. Antiquity said : Slavery is a neces-
sity; but masters should treat their slaves in a humane
manner; slaves should obey their masters, and make them-
selves inwardly free by a virtuous life. "With us this an-
tiquity reaches down to the last generation. The modern
conscience says: it is wrong for a man to own his fellow-
man; and slavery should therefore be abolished. And
slavery has been abolished. In the past, war has been
looked upon as an honorable pursuit or an unavoidable
evil, and civilized nations have been content with demand-
ing more humane methods, kindlier treatment of prisoners,
and better care for the wounded. To-day the conviction
is growing that it is a crime for one nation to wage war

352 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

upon another nation, that such indiscriminate mass murder
should be abolished, and that differences between states
should be settled, as differences between individuals are, by
the decisions of duly recognized courts. Disease, physical,
mental or moral, once considered as the work of gods or
demons, or deemed inevitable, is now seen to be preventable
and curable. The idea that the mass of men must of neces-
sity be ignorant, and fit only for work demanding little skill
or intelligence, while education and extensive training can
only be the special privilege of the few, is giving place to
the view that every child should receive all the education
necessary to develop a good and intelligent citizen, and to
unfold the special aptitudes by which the greatest service
can be rendered to society. Until recent times it has been
generally supposed either that wealth is a sign of the favor
of some god thus rewarding piety and virtue, while poverty
is a curse inflicted by a deity, as a punishment for sin, or that
the accumulation of vast fortunes in the hands of a small
number of men and the economic dependence or actual
penury of the masses are the necessary results of some mys-
terious law with whose operation it is dangerous or wicked
to interfere. There have indeed been significant protests
against one as well as the other of these superstitions, but
they have too often been vitiated by a morbid preference for
poverty, a narrow conception of human life, or an artificial
scheme of equalization. ' At present the degrading influence
of great wealth and of great poverty alike is seen by
thoughtful men; and the conviction is growing that the
grade of intelligence, freedom, virtue and happiness would
be higher in a society where there were neither rich nor
poor. It is widely recognized that the great fortunes are
not due to marked obedience to any laws, human or divine,
but in a considerable measure to clever circumvention of
equitable laws, corruption of legislative bodies, govern-
mental favoritism, and flagrant disregard of the most ele-
mental principles of justice. That the organization of in-
dustry and commerce has been of considerable value in
lowering the cost of production, improving the conditions

THE PRESENT PROBLEM 353

of labor, and obviating waste, is not overlooked by those who
demand that the capital shall be more directly controlled by
the people. Nor is the principle of private property, which
renders possible the gratification of varied tastes and safe-
guards individual liberty, in any essential respect sacrificed
when communities provide themselves, at the actual cost of
obtaining them, with such necessities as water, gas, elec-
tricity, sewers, tramways, garbage incinerators, paved
streets, parks, docks, wharfs, bridges, baths, schools,
museums, galleries, theaters, administrative buildings, resi-
dences, stores, workshops, gardens, playgrounds and the
like; or when nations take charge themselves of mails,
expressage, railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamships,
canals, forests, mines, universities, academies of art, scien-
tific expeditions, and a multitude of other legitimate com-
mon concerns. Conditions of life guaranteeing to each
member of society an adequate education, opportunity of
suitable work, stability of position, an equitable share in
the produce of common toil, a high degree of individual lib-
erty, a voice in the management of public affairs, and se-
curity against want in old age, are no longer regarded by
competent investigators of social phenomena as unapproach-
able ideals but as ends to whose realization the political
action of self-governing peoples should consciously and de-
terminedly move.

The attitude of the church to this mighty movement of
thought, endeavor and aspiration, involving the greatest
moral questions confronting the modern world, has too often
been one of indifference or positive hostility. During the
long years when the abolition of slavery was agitated in the
United States the pulpit in general aided and abetted the
trafficker in human flesh, while the champions of liberty
whose names the nation honors to-day were for the most
part outside the pale of the church. If a minister espoused
the unpopular cause, he frequently lost caste among his col-
leagues or jeopardized his position. The leading champions
of woman's cause, her economic independence and political

enfranchisement, have been without, the strongest defenders
23

354 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

of present inequalities within the church. Not without a
certain degree of justice has the church, especially as it
exists in the larger centers of population, been called "a
capitalistic institution." Though there are many honor-
able exceptions, the leaders of the church as a rule have
shown little sympathy with the aspirations of organized
labor, little understanding of the aims of social reform, lit-
tle courage to rebuke iniquity in high places, little capacity
for grappling with large moral problems, little disposition
to plead the cause of the weak. This applies to the Euro-
pean churches as well as to the American. No protest
against the martial spirit and the constant increase of arma-
ments has come from the Evangelical Church of Germany.
The greatest peace-organization in the world is the Social
Democracy, which recognizes no religion.

What can Jesus do for these millions for whom the church
as it is seems to be able to do so little ? What bread of life
has he to give ? What real needs of theirs can he meet ? It
is evident that if he is to give them anything, it must be
truth and example, spirit and life. It is also clear that he
cannot be their only teacher. In matters that must always
seem to them of vital importance they will seek other guides.
If a man would know the methods and results of investiga-
tion in any field of research, he must learn of those whose
special gifts and characteristics, opportunities and equip-
ment, have made them the best representatives of that par-
ticular branch of science. As a student of physical science,
he will sit at the feet of men like Copernicus and Galileo,
Newton and Laplace, Lyell and Agassiz, Faraday and Helm-
holtz, Linnaeus and de Candolle, Schleiden and Bichat,
Lamarck and Darwin. At the hand of accomplished phi-
lologists, historians, archaeologists and literary critics the
proper methods must be acquired by which it is possible to
gain a knowledge of ancient civilizations, their languages
and literatures, their social customs and forms of religious
life. To determine the authorship and date of the Hebrew
Scriptures and their true character, a thorough knowledge
of philology, literature, history, mythology and natural

THE PEESENT PEOBLEM 355

science is required. In so far as theology is a science deal-
ing with the religious phenomena of man's life, it must base
its conclusions upon a comprehensive survey of the facts
as they are exhibited in the various religions, and present a
critical interpretation of the different religious beliefs and
practices. No philosopher could without serious loss pass
by the great thinkers of India, Greece and Germany, or be
justified in the attempt to construct upon the reported say-
ings of Jesus a complete theory of the universe, ignoring the
subtlest and most penetrating thought upon the subject.
The artist would miserably fail, were he to seek for his mas-
ters in Palestine. Even the social reformer can ill afford to
neglect the patient and keen-sighted investigators of eco-
nomic conditions and political relations, while endeavoring
to derive from the Sermon on the Mount a complete descrip-
tion of what society should be. There are important
features of the modern ideal not touched upon in the extant
utterances of Jesus. He does not seem to have said any-
thing concerning the necessity of education, the duty of
work, the principles of distribution, the rights of woman,
the use of the franchise, the ministry of art. It is not pos-
sible to infer from the Golden Rule how he conceived of
its application to the complex relations of modern society,
any more than this can be done in the case of the similar
rule of Hillel.

Yet there are real and urgent needs of this intellectually
maturer section of society that are of such a character that
men may well inquire whether Jesus is not better qualified
than any other leader of mankind to meet them. Science
and philosophy, art and politics are far from being what
they should be, and those who seek to give to life through
them a greater worth and satisfaction often fail. While
science has many devotees consumed with a passion for the
truth and finding in this love an ample reward, there are
also many to whom it is only a means of securing a liveli-
hood, gratifying social ambition, or gaining notoriety, many
coarse natures filling the circumambient air with their dis-
cordant cries, their arrogant assertions, their ill-bred clamor

356 THE PKOPHET OF NAZAKETH

for recognition, their wearisome priority claims, their angry
denunciation of opponents, many unclean spirits slovenly
in all their methods, dishonest in the use of other men's work,
ignorant of the simplest commandments in the scholar's
decalogue, and a host of parasites swearing in verba magis-
tri, repeating the slogans of their clan, puffed up with
knowledge not their own and incapable of an independent
judgment or a fair and generous appreciation. If the great
problems of philosophy are examined by master-minds bas-
ing their conclusions on wide and accurate knowledge, and
preserving before the mysteries of existence a humble,
docile and reverent attitude, they also attract multitudes
who are ready to gloat over the downfall of ancient systems
without any perception of the elements of truth contained
in them, to accept the articles of some new creed without a
personal investigation of their validity, to strip the world
of its mythical veil without ability to look with chaste eyes
upon its undraped beauty, to discard old rules and sanctions
of morality without testing the foundations of a new
ethics, or guarding sufficiently the sense of obligation.
Much that goes under the name of art is a wretched counter-
feit injurious alike to taste, good manners and morality. A
mass of pictorial representations of woman's body, serving
no legitimate interest of art, and not satisfying the healthy
desire for beauty, but designed solely to excite sexual
passions, is spread broadcast over our Western lands. The
theater is too often false to its mission as an institution of
high art. Neglecting the immortal works of genius and
the better class of contemporaneous dramas, it frequently
stoops to the presentation of works marked only by their
inanity, coarse sensuousness and vulgarity. This evil
would be more easily cured if the responsibility lay only
with the managers whose financial interests lead them to
cater to depraved tastes ; but the public is equally at fault.
The influence is mutual. Without popular support there
would be no inducement to present anything but the best ;
without ingenious devices for whetting the appetite such
abnormal tastes would not develop. Novel-reading has as-

THE PEESENT PROBLEM 357

sumed such proportions as to constitute a danger. A mor-
bid craving for fiction may be developed even by the reading
of good novels, and create a dislike for more substantial
branches of literature, for scientific investigations, or for
the ordinary work and experiences of life. But there is an
abundance of bad novels, written in a wretched style, de-
picting crime in a fascinating manner, giving an exagger-
ated importance to the erotic element, tending to obliterate
all moral distinctions.

In the struggle between antiquated institutions and a
better social order the defenders are not always in the
wrong, and the assailants are seldom wholly right. Even
the best cause does not make so perfect a cleavage that all
the sheep are upon one side and all the goats upon the
other. The friends of reform have to reckon not only with
the force of habit, the power of prejudice, and the vested
interests arrayed against them, but also with their own
errors of judgment, lack of experience and moral failings.
How formidable are the obstacles that must be overcome, if
war is to be abolished! Millions of men gain their liveli-
hood by war. Millions of money are invested in machines
designed for the destruction of life and property. Millions
of children are brought up to look upon war as the highest
expression of patriotism. National vanity, national greed
and national prejudice urge the increase of armies and
navies. Eulers and ruling classes rely for their power upon
a soldiery sworn to blind and unquestioning obedience. On
the other hand, the opponents of war often fail to appreciate
the relative value of even an indignant and forcible pro-
test against wrong, or to recognize the inadequacy of extant
provisions for settling disputes between nations by civilized
methods, or to estimate fairly the moral significance of any
enthusiasm for the welfare of a people, any unselfish devo-
tion to larger interests, however mistaken the expression
may be. Still more deplorable is the fact that at critical
times friends of peace so frequently are disorganized and
inactive, allow themselves to be influenced to some extent
by the passions that rage about them, lose confidence in the

358 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

more excellent way, and fearing the stigma of cowardice
or treason become by guilty silence traitors to their deepest
convictions and to their country's highest interests. The
attempts to extend the suffrage to men of small means, men
of different color, or women, run counter to the powerful
instincts, strengthened by social conventions and religion,
that lead the rich to lord it over the poor, the white race
over the dark ones, the men over the women. But the way
of reform is also blocked by the ignorance, incompetence,
indifference to higher interests, ill-balanced judgment and
ill-governed temper of the disfranchised. In union there
is strength. Through organized efforts it has been possible
to raise the standard of living for millions of workers, fix a
maximum day and a minimum wage, make the employment
of little children in factories illegal, improve the sanitary
conditions of labor, and render the position of the inii-
vidual less insecure. If, forgetful of these advantages
gained for him by organized labor, a man thinks that he
can single-handed deal with a powerful syndicate, and
secure from it concessions that it is not in its interest to
grant, he is grievously mistaken. But not less wrong is
clearly the organization which resorts to violence to force
such a man to unite with his fellows. Eeproach is cast
upon a worthy cause and irreparable injury done, whenever
the passions are not restrained, and kept under the control
of reason and a due regard for the rights of others. It is
not sufficient in a democracy that there shall be a readiness
on the part of the minority to respect the decisions of the
majority ; there must also be a willingness on the part of the
majority to consider the rights and reasonable desires of
the minority. As long as the interests of one class seem
antagonistic to, or in reality conflict with, the interests of
another class, social strife is easily kindled and intensified
by success as much as by defeat. When the dumb and sul-
len resignation of a man to his lot, whatever it may be, gives
place to hope and active effort for the improvement of his
condition, a centering of all interest on material things is
apt to ensue which often does serious harm to the finer in-

THE PEESENT PROBLEM 359

stincts of manhood. It is not to be denied that the social
atmosphere at times seems saturated with avarice and lust
and spite, and that the moral progress of the race is re-
tarded by the lack of sterling honesty, unselfish devotion
and considerate judgment noticeable in all social relations.
Masses of men seem to be absorbed in the pursuit of things
which perish with the using. The higher interests of
human life seem to have no attraction for them. The igno-
rance and suffering and sin of their fellow-men do not fill
their hearts with compassion and a desire to help. They ap-
parently never ask themselves to what nobler use they might
put the intelligence and power they possess as men. They
appear to drift aimlessly toward ignoble destinies rather
than resolutely shaping their lives into harmony with some
exalted pattern. In their eagerness to satisfy every appe-
tite and every passing whim, they lose their lives and fail
of true self-realization. With mockery they treat every
dream of social justice. No vision of a better order of
society finds a hospitable reception in their minds. They
seek not first the kingdom of heaven and its righteous-
ness, and therefore know not how to use well any other
thing. They seem to have no sense of the deep and sacred
meaning of life. Neither the nature by which man is sur-
rounded, with its intimations of a rational order and in-
flexible laws, nor human history, with its suggestions of an
upward trend and of powers that work for righteousness,
is permitted to lead them to a reverent contemplation of the
infinite source of their existence and a willing submission
to cosmic moral laws, that they might have life, and have it
more abundantly. It is this need of moral strength to realize
a high ideal that constitutes the deepest problem of the age.

CHAPTER XIV

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS

Spiritual needs can only be met by spiritual means. If
men and women are to be filled with such a passion for
truth, such a hunger after righteousness, such a love of
beauty, as shall lift and purify their souls, make their
experiences deep and rich, render their characters strong
and resplendent, and flood them with joy unspeakable
and full of glory, flame must be kindled by flame, spirit
breathe upon spirit, life touch life. There is no force in
things to raise the sunken spirit. The power of gravita-
tion cannot straighten out a crooked disposition. The
treasures of a Croesus cannot fill the inner void. Cleans-
ing the outside of the cup does not make that which is
within pure. There is no balm in Gilead that will cure
the wounded heart. It is the touch of man that heals.
It is in human minds that those ideals are born which
blaze like beacon lights and guide the erring. In human
hearts spring up those mighty impulses, those powerful
emotions, that quicken zeal and strengthen moral purpose.
In the depths of great souls broods the destiny of the race.
In them are fountains of eternal life. Out of the bosom
of humanity deliverers come forth, each giving what he
has to give. | While other teachers may and will do much
for our modern world, the healing, purging, elevating in-
fluence of Jesus is of priceless value. When his teach-
ing, conduct, spiritual attitude and character are rightly
understood, they become a source of strength and inspira-
tion. No man can come in contact with him without feel-
ing that life goes out from him. His touch is quickening.
He is able to help the scientist in his investigation, the
philosopher in his search for ultimate reality, the artist

360

THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 361

in his creative work, the social reformer in his endeavor
to cast in nobler moulds the common life. He may have
known very little of astronomy or geology, history or lit-
erature, scientific methods or scientific results, but he pos-
sessed in a very marked degree such essential qualifica-
tions for success in any scientific work as a disposition to
examine the facts for himself, independence of authority,
confidence in his own judgment, capacity for inductive
reasoning, love of truth, gentleness and firmness in pre-
senting it, and willingness to make sacrifices for its sake.
No student can listen closely to his words without being
impressed with their ring of sincerity, their mission to
make known what he actually thought, their testimony
to careful observation and protracted reflection. His
mental freedom, his loyalty to conviction, his kindliness of
judgment are contagious. In his presence the scholar is
ashamed of petty squabbles and pedantic ways, pride of
knowledge and thirst for fame, denial of merit and nar-
rowness of sympathy, swallowing camels and straining
out gnats, and becomes reverent, truthful and considerate.
Jesus was a thinker, and can therefore help those who
think deeply and earnestly upon the great problems of
existence. He may never have dreamed of the numer-
ous problems concerning the constitution of the universe
and the faculties of the human mind that had for centuries
occupied the philosophers of India and Greece, and he
may have shared the current beliefs of his time in good
and evil spirits. But when his eyes sought the invisible '
reality behind the phenomena of nature and he whispered
"Abba," "Father," he recognized the inherent Tightness,
rationality and goodness of the ultimate reality. And
yet this was no superficial view conveniently overlooking
the facts that create difficulties. The gifted poet to whom
we owe the Dialogues in the Book of Job saw far less
clearly than Jesus the fallacy of the common belief that
the world is so arranged as to secure prosperity to the
good and to make adversity a sign of wickedness, or that
to be right the world must be so ordered. The men on

362 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

whom the tower of Siloam fell were not sinners above
those who escaped. The Father lets his sun shine on the
good and the bad, and he allows his rain to fall on the
just and the unjust. That, according to Jesus, is right.
He perceived a law of compensation working with unfail-
ing accuracy. "When a man prays in public, that he may
be seen of men, and men may see him, he has his reward.
In the midst of his poverty the righteous man is rich, and
when he is persecuted for righteousness' sake, he shares
the joy that swells the prophet's heart. He who loses his
life for the sake of the kingdom of heaven in reality finds
it. Jesus looked into the depths of his own consciousness,
and saw that, to be right, man's words and deeds must
flow from a correct disposition, and that to be right this
disposition must be characterized by the reverence and
obedience, the freedom and confidence, the gratitude and
affection of a son, as well as by the justice and equity, the
sympathy and kindness, the considerateness and forbear-
ance of a brother. This supreme regard for the inner
reality makes the thought of Jesus so significant. Could
the many in all lands whose minds are agitated by the
great questions of philosophy be brought to his confi-
dence in the essential Tightness of the course of nature,
his healthy acquiescence in the necessary conditions of
man's life, his chastened joy in existence, his filial and
fraternal attitude, his calm indifference to outward seem-
ing, his deep concern for the springs of action, the hidden
fountains of life, their vision would grow clearer, their
grasp upon the important elements of each problem firmer,
and their reasoning less exposed to the danger of being
vitiated by undue moral influences.

In one province of art Jesus was a master. No man
ever spoke as he. The beauty of his speech was as
marked as its originality. Even the handful of frag-
ments that has come down to us gives an impression of
his extraordinary power. Though Oriental oratory
abounds in figurative language and illustrative anecdote,
and volumes of wise sayings prized "as apples of gold in

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 363

baskets of silver" have been preserved from Hebrew an-
tiquity, there is nothing that even approaches the parable
of Jesus. It has the excellence that forbids imitation.
There are works of art so perfect in their kind that the
world instinctively leaves the sacred ground preempted
by genius for other fields of endeavor. The beauty of
nature impressed itself upon the sensitive mind of Jesus,
and was reflected in the simplicity and grandeur, the har-
mony and radiancy, of his speech. Each work of art in
the Galilean master's gallery stands forth in maiden
purity, chaste, modest and unconscious of its loveliness,
yet breathes the breath of life. These characters of his
creation will live as long as the human race. Churches
may rise and fall, theological systems may come and go,
works of great merit may be dropped into the limbo of
forgotten things, but the love of inspiring art will itself
secure against oblivion the Good Samaritan, Dives and
Lazarus, the Foolish Virgins, the Prodigal Son, the Sow-
ers, the Widow, the Shepherd, and their companions.
Jesus may have known next to nothing of sculpture and
painting, of music and drama, and may have had no idea
of their place in the moral and spiritual development of
man ; but he knew as few know the art of touching all the
chords that vibrate within the soul, the emotions, the
will and the mind, and to lift and refine whenever
he touched them. It is better that men should eat
than that they should starve ; but without art the richest
community is a poor-house. Yet art passes quickly from
splendor and ripeness to a state of putrescence. If its
educative and ennobling influence is to be maintained it
must be held to high ideals. The tendencies that drag it
down can only be counteracted by a general improve-
ment of the moral tone. This the spirit of Jesus never
fails to accomplish.

The gradual evolution of society is never the carrying
out in detail of some seer's dream or some reformer's
scheme. The noblest Utopias embody features that in the
light of maturer thought and riper experience appear un-

364 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

desirable or positively harmful. The best laid plans of
reform contain some dangerous and unwise elements.
They should be judged by their general trend, their most
distinctive features, and their spirit. However slow the
progress may seem, the leadership in the thoughts and af-
fairs of men goes ultimately to those whose ideas are
greatest and have most intrinsic worth, and whose pur-
poses are most benevolent and have the widest reach.
The Sermon on the Mount may be far from giving a com-
plete programme of social reform or a complete theory
of social relationship. But in these and other utterances
of Jesus he expresses ideas of such far-reaching impor-
tance, lays down principles so startling and revolutionary,
that, if they should in the main commend themselves to
men and find embodiment in their social life, a transforma-
tion of human society would be the result, and his leader-
ship would become a more momentous fact than it has
ever been. It was his conviction, to which he was faithful
even to the end, that men should love their enemies, do
good to those who use them ill, abstain from all retalia-
tion, and overcome evil with good. The adoption of this
principle would abolish war, do away with armies and
navies that are a constant menace to the world, send mil-
lions of men back to productive and profitable work, and
give millions of capital to useful industry and needed im-
provements, to education, art and science. As yet no
Christian denomination except the little body of Quakers
accepts the view of Jesus in its literal and unqualified
statement, but outside of the Church there is a growing
disposition to regard his attitude as both wise and prac-
tical. It is true that the millions in Europe and America
who do not count themselves as Christians, but who stren-
uously oppose war, are more or less inclined to differ with
Jesus as to the possibility or desirability of loving one's
enemies. Nevertheless they are in perfect agreement with
him on the crucial point, that one nation should not treat
another nation as an enemy, and go forth to kill its peo-
ple on account of some slight or injury done to it, or be-

THE LEADEKSHIP OF JESUS 365

cause of a difference in religious views or social customs.
And great would be the gain in refinement of sentiment,
gentleness of temper and nobility of character, could they
be persuaded to adopt more of the principle of Jesus.
This principle goes far beyond the establishment of inter-
national arbitration. But this is a step in the right di-
rection. The day when the battleflags of nations shall
be furled in the parliament of man, will be a day of tri-
umph to the Galilean prophet. Nor can the approach of
this day be doubted. Cannibalism, once rampant, scarcely
exists in the world to-day. Slavery, once universal, is to-
day banished from the civilized world. War belongs to
the same category of institutions, and will fare as they.

Jesus applied this principle in other directions. He
criticised severely the law of retaliation which was re-
garded as essential to the welfare of society and lay at
the basis of all administration of justice. "An eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth" was a legal enactment, a
provision of the Jewish penal code. Jesus rejected it as
out of harmony with his conception of righteousness. If
a man's eye had been gouged out by his enemy, Jesus
would not have him secure through judicial proceedings a
similar operation upon the eye of this enemy. According
to his judgment, a higher righteousness would be shown
by returning good for evil, by seeking to eradicate the
angry passion, to awaken a sense of shame and to arouse
a desire for reconciliation through kindly treatment. The
carrying out of his idea would lead to an abandonment of
the current systems of punitive justice, and the introduc-
tion of methods designed to prevent the development of
criminal tendencies and to effect a change in the criminal
by example and environment. It would render obsolete
both capital punishment and enforced idleness in jails. It
would tend to remove that spirit of violence which ex-
presses itself in murders and lynchings. Concerning the
means to be employed in order to cure mental and moral
disease, and to protect society against its ravages there
may be room for differences of opinion; and it may be

366 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

doubted whether Jesus had given much thought to the
various applications of his principle. But his general con-
ception of how men should deal with evil-doers is gaining
recognition in modern society.

Closely allied with the treatment of moral perverts is
the passing of judgment upon men. The advice of Jesus
was "Judge not!" With his deep intuition he perceived
how impossible it is for any man to gain such a knowledge
of the subtle workings of another mind, such a freedom
from prejudice, and such a disinterested, impartial and
sympathetic disposition as to justify his assuming the part
of a judge, while his deeply religious nature shrank from
assigning to fallible man a function belonging only to
God. The present generation appreciates as men have
never done before the tremendous power of heredity and
environment, the complexity of human nature, the multi-
tudinous motives leading up to every act, the impossibility
of ascertaining all these influences, and the incompetency
of judgments based on assumptions of knowledge not
possessed and of freedom not exercised. Minds influenced
by modern science are more and more inclined to abstain
from judging. Even judicial proceedings assume increas-
ingly the character of scientific investigations leading to
conclusions, tentative and subject to revision, as to the
most expedient course to be pursued in order to secure
for all members of society the greatest measure of profit
and happiness during their life on the earth. If the
thought of Jesus should become widely prevalent, the
tendency would be to eliminate all condemnation, and to
narrow the sphere of judicial inquiry. His words to the
woman taken in adultery, "Neither do I condemn thee,"
indicate his customary unwillingness to drag before the
gaze of men and submit to their judgment what essentially
belongs to the privacy of life. In this society may wisely
follow his example.

Jesus laid down the principle that when men live to-
gether as they should there is none among them who lords
it over the rest or who exercises authority over them, but

THE LEADEKSHIP OF JESUS 367

they vie with one another in rendering service. It would
be impossible to reject more emphatically the divine right
of kings, or to express more beautifully the ideal of de-
mocracy. It is not only the reign of anointed monarchs
that Jesus looks upon as wrong, but all lordship. His
ideal is not a dead level of mediocrity. He recognizes the
legitimacy of the desire for greatness. But greatness
should not consist in power to rule over men. It should
consist in increased power to serve. "With the growing
demand for popular self-government and the constant ex-
tension of the suffrage, it is only a matter of time when
the kings and emperors of Europe and Asia shall have lost
such autocratic powers as still remain to them, and shall
have been obliged to surrender their dynastic claims. Far
more serious is the question how long the oligarchies of
wealth that form the real power behind all governments
and exercise a lordship kings might envy, shall be able
to maintain themselves. But vastly more important than
the elimination of irresponsible authority in any form is
the temper of the developing democracies. Ill fares so-
ciety when ruled by mobs. The power wielded by masses
of men egged on to deeds of violence and injustice by
hatred, selfishness and thirst for vengeance is never so
terrible as when it is used in the name of the whole people.
Then the reaction inevitably comes. The horrors of the
Napoleonic wars follow the horrors of the French revolu-
tion. A people can successfully manage its own affairs
only in proportion as its citizens are enlightened and un-
selfish, capable of service and eager to render it, regard-
ful of the rights of others and anxious to help the largest
number, content with giving directions as to the general
policy, and willing to leave the details to specially trained
and responsible servants, courageous in their protests
against wrong, and peaceful in their methods of righting
it. When in a quiet and dignified manner Jesus criticised
a tax imposed on him that was prescribed in the Law, and
yet paid it under protest so as not to cause offense, he set
an admirable example of the most successful social agita-

368 THE PKOPHET OF NAZARETH

tion. It would be wise in those who have earnestly at
heart the cause of popular self-government to follow the
leadership of Jesus, whose aim is sufficiently high for the
most thoroughgoing reformer, and whose method is justi-
fied by the lessons of history.

To maintain the authority of kings and governments,
the obedience of soldiers, the orthodoxy of theologians,
the veracity of witnesses, the fidelity of husbands and the
subordination of wives, the oath has been deemed a neces-
sity. Jesus said, "Swear not at all!" The nominally
Christian state has never recognized the wisdom of his
counsel, and the Church for its convenience has furnished
a wholly improbable interpretation, by which Jesus did
not have in mind any oath that really meant anything, but
only the senseless curse-words with which the ordinary
conversation of some men is too redolent. The early
Christians, the Baptists of the sixteenth century, and the
Quakers understood him, and manifested by their lives
the profitableness of his teaching, since no legitimate
interest of society suffered by it, and the regard for truth
and the fidelity to duty on which all social order rests
were strongly enhanced by it. Thoughtful men at the
present time look upon the oath as an anachronism in a
society that does not demand or enforce belief in a god.
Believers in republican institutions regard oaths of al-
legiance to monarchs and dynasties as prejudicial to the
best interests of a people. When a soldier is requested to
swear that he will obey his sovereign without a question,
even though he order him to shoot his father and mother,
or to follow blindly his general, even though he lead him
to deeds of brutality and treachery, this is so palpably an
insult to his manhood that civilized men would not toler-
ate it for a moment, were it not for the mistaken notion
that differences between nations can only be settled by
war, and that a strong army pledged to unquestioning
obedience is a protection to the state. The more liberal
sections of the Church are thoroughly ashamed of the
oaths by which ministers and teachers bind themselves not

THE LEADEKSHIP OF JESUS 369

to depart from certain doctrinal statements, not to ad-
vance in the knowledge of the truth, and people outside
the Church look with pity upon men who are not free to
investigate and to proclaim their convictions, with cen-
sure often upon those who in spite of their oath claim lib-
erty of conscience, and invariably with more or less dis-
trust upon leaders who are not expected to lead. Truth-
ful men will not lie in a court or anywhere else, and in
this age of the world few wicked men are deterred by the
fear of hell from bearing false testimony in a court or
anywhere else. If the relations of man and woman are
based on true love, no oath can give an added guarantee
of faithfulness ; if love is not the basis, no oath can make
the union moral. There is no reason why a woman should
pledge herself to obey a man. "While strong prejudices
still prevail against the view of Jesus, and powerful
interests are arrayed against it, the tendency of modern
thought is distinctly in favor of his position. If men
would follow where he leads, they would come to a society
where oaths are never heard.

Some of the most delicate and important social ques-
tions of the present day deal with the economic, political
and domestic position of woman. It is not probable that
Jesus was led to consider the possibility of woman's eco-
nomic independence, or the desirability of her political
emancipation. But he had occasion to meditate pro-
foundly upon the treatment accorded to woman in his
age and by his people, and he expressed in word and deed
convictions on this subject that are as important to-day
as they were then. When he criticised Moses for hav-
ing given in the Law a concession to the men, on account
of the hardness of their hearts, contrary to the will of God
as expressed in the beginning in the creative act, he em-
phasized the equal right of man and woman in the mar-
riage relation. In view of this unmistakable import of
his saying, the errors that lie on the surface fade into in-
significance. It is readily seen to-day that Moses had

nothing to do with the Deuteronomic legislation, that the
24

370 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

dismissal of wives was no innovation at the time when
this code was written, that there never was a first man,
that man in primitive conditions did not practise mon-
ogamy, that the law was very far in advance of the rules
regulating sexual intercourse in earlier forms of social
life,1 that this law was intended to secure to woman, and
in reality did afford her, protection, inasmuch as by the
letter of dismissal the husband renounced all his rights
over her, and could not legally interfere with her mar-
riage to another man, and that the absolute indissolubility
of marriage would result in greater misery to woman than
that produced by the law, by perpetuating immoral rela-
tions, annulling the existing rights, and making her sla-
very complete. The important fact is that his sympathy
with woman led him to condemn the Mosaic legislation in
this matter, and to contrast its discrimination in favor of
the man with the equality implied in the narrative of
man's creation. At bottom it is an appeal from human
legislation to the divinely ordained nature of man and
woman. Such is the relation between man and woman as
a result of their creation, and consequent natural pecul-
iarity of forming a unity by supplementing each other,
that it cannot be right to allow a man to send away his
wife in order to take another, and thus to leave a woman
at the mercy of her husband's caprice. In so far as Jesus
by taking this position declared his conviction that man
should not be accorded rights withheld from woman in
the married relation, he made himself one of the great
champions of woman's cause.

That his attitude on this question was born of sympathy

1 On the other hand, it is decidedly inferior to the Law of Ham-
murabi, which recognizes the right of a woman to divorce a husband
she cannot love and marry "the man of her heart," Code of Ham-
murabi, ed. R. F. Harper, Chicago, 1904, §142, Cf. §137. This code
confirms the impression already gained that both socially and econom-
ically woman's position was higher in Babylonia than in Syria. Cf.
the interesting observations on woman as a cultic official in Babylonia
by I. Peritz in Journal of Biblical Literature, 1898, p. 119 f., and
note the civic rights of hierodules recognized by the Code.

THE LEADERSHIP OF JESUS 371

with the weaker part, is manifest from his protest against
social ostracism of woman. He not only administered
stinging rebukes to the pious and respectable scribes and
Pharisees who cast off their wives that they might marry
more desirable women, and then hypocritically drew
about them their skirts not to come in polluting con-
tact with those whom they had themselves driven into a
life of shame, but he fairly invited adverse criticism upon
his conduct by eating and drinking with women of ill
repute. Neither did he think that aught would be gained
by socially ostracizing the scribe and the Pharisee. It
seems to have been the prevailing view in the church that
his attitude and example in this respect should not be
recommended. The policy of Christian society has dif-
fered little from that of Jewish society attacked by Jesus.
In order that the home might be protected, thousands of
tender-hearted women who have loved not wisely but too
well, thousands of ignorant and confiding victims of man's
lust, thousands of weak and sorely tempted children un-
able by the pittance that their hands could earn to keep
the wolf from the door, have been thrust out of society
to form a class by themselves, living in idleness, shut off
from helpful influences and noble associations, forced to
simulate affection or to center all attention on the sexual
function, outraged by police inspection, scorned by those
they cared for, preyed upon by persons coining money out
of their misfortune, themselves becoming misers by the
unnatural trade, or reckless spendthrifts during the brief
hey-day of their beauty. But this segregation has in no
way tended to protect the home. It has only separated
one group of women from another to the physical and
moral injury of both. The men have not been subject to
such a division. Whether they have thoughtlessly yielded
to an impulse of youthful ardor, or sought an illicit com-
pensation for their social or economic inability to con-
tract marriage, or wickedly designed and brought about
the ruin of young lives for the satisfaction of their morbid
cravings, they have often seemed to go scot-free, and re-

372 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

tained their position in society. It is natural that a sense
of the injustice of such discrimination should lead to a
demand for a similar social ostracism to be applied to the
men. But it is perfectly clear that this plan cannot be
carried out, and that our present evils would not be reme-
died, if it could. The maturest study of the situation
indicates the wisdom of the attitude of Jesus. Let hu-
man intercourse be natural, kind, sympathetic, free from
hypocrisy, self-righteousness and condescension, dignified
and self-controlled, yet marked by thoughtfulness and
chivalry.

This disposition on the part of Jesus is all the more
significant as in his own life he seems to have suppressed
the sexual instincts. He was a celibate and apparently
commended to others celibacy for the sake of the king-
dom of heaven. As an answer to the question whether it
is well to marry at all in view of the demanded indis-
solubility of marriage, Matth. xix, 10-12, can only be
understood as affirming that celibacy is to be preferred,
especially by those who care for the kingdom of heaven.1
And celibacy with Jesus meant absolute continence. This
is evident from Matth. v, 27-30, where the man who looks
upon a woman to lust after her is characterized as an
adulterer and the sacrifice of a member for the salvation
of the whole body is recommended. According to Luke
xx, 27 ff. and parallels those who are accounted worthy to
rise from the dead and have a share in the world to come
neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like
angels in heaven. Our fragmentary record of his sayings
does not tell us whether Jesus ever suggested that men
might marry, and women bear children, and parents bring
up their little ones for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Would that it did ! But a warning against entering upon
marital relations without a careful consideration of per-
sonal fitness for propagating human life is as timely now
as in the first century ; an admonition not to cherish sexual
desires tending to express themselves in faithless deeds is

1The text referred to is, however, of doubtful genuineness.

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 373

as necessary; and a protest against giving to the sexual
relations an exaggerated importance is as wholesome as
then.

But Jesus not only objected to the law of divorce be-
cause of its discrimination in favor of the men, and its
permission to sunder relations originally intended to be
indissoluble ; he also indicated his disapproval of the pun-
ishment of a woman taken in adultery. The law pre-
scribed that such a woman should be put to death (Lev.
xx, 10; Deut. xxii, 22 ff.). If Jesus had believed that the
law on this point expressed the will of God, and that the
welfare of the community depended upon the punishment
of such crimes, he would naturally have referred to the
passages in the law that determined the procedure in this
case. Instead of that, he skillfully shifted the whole ques-
tion from the ground of legal procedure to that of justice
and fairness. "Let him who is without sin among you
first cast a stone at her!" The moral effect of these
words, revealing like a flash of lightning how little right
these men had to bring about this woman's death, was
such as to prevent any action on their part. But if this
principle were admitted, and the administrators of jus-
tice were to consider not only whether a crime has been
committed, and what the legally prescribed penalty is,
but also whether their own lives and hearts were so free
from sin that they would feel competent to condemn a
fellow-man, the most far-reaching consequences would fol-
low. ; In the case of a woman taken in adultery the prog-
ress of civilization has to a certain extent justified the
position of Jesus. In most civilized countries she is
neither burned at the stake nor stoned to death. She is
still set in the pillory, made a target for a thousand ar-
rows, publicly exposed to insolent questioning and ribald
jest, obliged to furnish an interesting chapter to the
chronique scandaleuse, forced to tear out her heart and
reveal the intimacies of her life, driven under the lash of
judicial inquiry to gratify the hunger for piquant details
of countless newspaper readers. Nor are the cruelty and

374 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

indecency of these divorce proceedings to any marked
extent abated by the fact that the erring husband may be
subjected to the same treatment. Here again the matur-
est reflection of the age moves in the direction of the
thought of Jesus. The scene which closes with the shame-
faced departure of the would-be judges, the solemn word,
"Neither do I condemn thee," and the return of the
woman to her fire-side with the impression of a new and
nobler type of humanity, prefigures the course of social
development that the human race is likely to follow. The
chaste and loving heart of Jesus protested against the in-
dignities heaped upon woman by man, his wantonness in
using her, his cruelty in abandoning her, his hypocrisy in
condemning her. In the same spirit we may go on to de-
mand for woman equally great advantages of education,
equally good opportunities of economic independence,
equal rights of citizenship, freedom to work out her own
life, to seek or to be sought, to give or to withhold, respect
for her private relations, for the intimacies of maiden-
hood, wifehood and motherhood.

Profoundly significant are also the views that Jesus ex-
pressed in regard to wealth. There are indeed numer-
ous questions upon this subject that in all probability
never presented themselves in any form to his mind, and
whose far-reaching moral significance he would not have
been prepared to grasp. Even a man far more familiar
than he can have been with the economic condition of the
Roman empire and the other kingdoms of the world would
have been quite unable to understand the commercial and
industrial situation of the present time. The questions
that confront us affecting the relations of capital and
labor, the control of either through the suffrage, the free-
dom or constraint of trade, the principles and methods of
taxation, the rate of wages, the standard, denomination,
and issuance of money, cannot be solved without a careful
observation of the facts of modern life and deep reflection
upon the significance of these facts, upon economic laws
and social tendencies. Each age must grapple with its

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 375

own problems. But behind these there loom up vaster
ones that belong to all ages. Jesus watched the effect of
wealth upon the character of men. He also observed the
influence upon character of the practice of sharing with
others. And he perceived both the danger and the need-
lessness of worry.

As a reason why a man should not lay up treasures for
himself on the earth he pointed to the danger of this occu-
pation. The mind and the affections would naturally
center upon the object of constant pursuit. Longing for
possessions, respect for wealth, worship of Mammon would
insensibly take the place of love of God and fellow-man.
A desire for more than is needed and more than is fair
would unconsciously lead to a disregard for the needs and
rights of others, and consequently become a source of all
evil. It was this conception of the detriment to character
inevitably resulting from the pursuit of wealth, and not
a notion that he was himself exceptionally prone to the
vice of avarice, that caused him deliberately to choose the
poor man's lot, though he might have made money as a
rabbi or exorcist. It was this sense of danger in the pos-
session of wealth, and not any extraordinary cupidity
manifest in the attitude of the young man who so strongly
attracted him, that led him to give his famous advice. In
thus emphasizing the deteriorating effect of wealth upon
character, Jesus presented a conviction, the truth of which
is borne out by the observations of thoughtful men, and
should have a wider recognition in the world than it has.
Even if, with the advance of human civilization, social
conditions should undergo such a change as to eliminate
completely the type of poverty now existing as well as the
abnormal fortunes that at present constitute so great a
menace to society, the spirit which seeks for things with-
out knowing how to use them, heaps up treasures for its
own satisfaction only, desires more than it needs, delights
in individual comfort more than in the common weal, and
loves the things that perish with the using better than the
spiritual possessions of man, would still be a danger. As

376 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

conditions are to-day, it is perfectly evident that just in
proportion as the laying up of treasures for himself be-
comes the absorbing interest in a man's life, justice and
mercy, regard for the rights, liberties and welfare of
others, search after truth, love of goodness, simplicity,
uprightness and moral heroism, tend to disappear. There
may be no St. Peter at the gate of heaven revising the care-
fully considered judgment of the church in such matters,
but it remains a truth that, in the very nature of things,
a man whose heart is set on riches cannot enter the king-
dom of righteousness, love and truth. It should therefore
be the endeavor of all good men so to modify by wise
measures the methods in vogue at present as to render it
increasingly difficult for a man to secure an inordinate
share of the common wealth to the ruin of his character.

This attitude toward wealth does not seem to have
sprung from a morbid love of poverty for its own sake. On
the contrary Jesus seems to have regarded poverty as an
evil. In the coming kingdom there were to be no paupers.
His gospel was good tidings to the poor. His sympathy
went out to the needy ones. He shared with them his
homely fare, his bread and fish. Considering how difficult
it was for a poor man to secure even a much needed loan of
money, and to pay the interest on it, he counseled those who
had money to lend gladly, and to look for no interest. Con-
sidering how difficult it was for many a man in destitute
circumstances to assume any financial obligation, he ad-
vised his disciples to share such things as they had with
the needy. A saying that escaped the attention of the
evangelists declares that "it is more blessed to give than
to receive."1 In order, however, to enjoy the full bene-
fit of this blessing, a man should avoid not only public
attention but also self-consciousness and pride. He must
not let his left hand know what his right hand does. A
sense of decency should prevent him from feeding his
starving brothers in public. Sharing with others should
be as natural as breathing, and as unconsciously per-

1Acts, xx, 35.

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 377

formed. Jesus and his disciples led a simple life, holding
things in common. The early church to some extent
seems to have followed this example. Whether the nar-
rative in Acts is strictly historical or not, it reveals a
Christian ideal. In the case of such and similar com-
munistic experiments, it is not the outward form that is
important, but the spirit. It matters little whether the
common property of the church in Jerusalem was man-
aged wisely by the apostles, how many sympathizers
Ananias had, how far the distress that Paul's collections
sought to relieve was the result of the form of communism
practised, or to what extent the example set by the first
church was followed by other disciples of Jesus in the
early centuries. It is of profound significance that, under
the influence of the spirit of Jesus, some of his followers
proclaimed the great principle, "from each according to
his capacity, to each according to his need."

The deteriorating effect upon the inner life of man of the
constant anxiety for the morrow did not escape the atten-
tion of Jesus. He saw men shrunk and shriveled by corrod-
ing cares, dwarfed in their development and marred beyond
the semblance of humanity by the all-subduing, all-absorb-
ing thought of bread. He heard men ask, ' ' What shall we
eat?" and "What shall we drink?" and "Wherewithal
shall we be clothed ? ' ' until all other questions were hushed,
all other interests disappeared. And he understood that
the deepest cause of this worry that kills is not to be found
in abnormal social conditions but in an abnormal mental
attitude. Men fail to apprehend the fact that their liveli-
hood depends not only on their own exertions, but even more
on the good will of their fellows and the bounty of nature.
They fail to see that just in proportion as they seek the
kingdom of heaven and its righteousness, the perfect order
of society and its correct relations, their own needs as indi-
viduals are met. They lack confidence. Nature is rich.
Our planet is stocked with all things needful for the support
of the human race, and the gratification of its varied tastes.
Jesus was impressed with this ample provision for the

378 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH

humblest life, this beauty lavished on the most ephemeral
creation. He reasoned from the less to the greater, and
grew serene. The human race is rich. It possesses in its
primal relationships a wealth of social sympathy that inures
to the benefit of every individual, and in its collective enter-
prises a potent means of conferring good upon all its mem-
bers. Whatever the peculiar forms of domestic life may be,
the facts indicated by such terms as husband and wife,
father and mother, son and daughter, brother and sister,
suggest protection, care and sympathy. Kinship means
security. Gradually, the moral forces operating through
kinship seek a wider field. By covenant or conquest new
social organisms develop, and a new kinship, not based on
blood, but on community of interests, and similarity of intel-
lectual and moral life. This fraternity without blood-
relationship secures even more effectively the safety and
welfare of the individual. Jesus reflected much upon the
significance of the principle of brotherliness. In view of
the abundant resources of our home in nature and of the
human family, a child of man may well cultivate an atti-
tude of quiet confidence, banishing worry and care by broad
interests, generous sympathies, resolute activity and a trust-
ful disposition, even though the utilization of nature's
forces and the fraternal organization of society be as yet
very imperfect. We may hold in firmer grasp the present
aspects of the great question, and may readily observe cer-
tain limitations due to time and circumstance, but the un-
derlying principles which alone are of permanent im-
portance were touched by Jesus in such a masterful manner
as to challenge forever the attention and serious considera-
tion of men.

The attitude of Jesus to the popular religious customs and
institutions of his time, to sacred persons, places, days and
acts, to public prayers, almsgiving, and fasts, is calculated to
increase the confidence of modern men in his leadership.
He claimed for all men the rights accorded to a priestly
class. He seems to have cared nothing for the continuation
of sacrifices, would make the temple a house of prayer for

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 379

all nations, and feared no evil for the cause of religion from
its destruction. The evangelist who put upon his lips the
statement that the time would come when men would
worship neither in Jerusalem nor on Gerizim but would
worship in spirit and in truth1 understood the mind of his
Master. He maintained that man has a right to determine
what to do on the sabbath, since the sabbath was instituted
for man's benefit. He neglected and criticised sacred ablu-
tions. He never ordained either baptism or eucharist. He
disapproved of public prayers, publicly announced or dis-
tributed gifts to the poor, and public fasts or displays of
spiritual contrition. He was opposed to taxation for the
maintenance of the religious cult, and to the use of force in
the interest of religion. He criticised freely the scriptures,
chose what seemed to him good, rejected what seemed to
him bad. He appealed directly to the judgment of men.
There is nothing about him that savors of the priest. It
is impossible to conceive of him as smearing the horns of the
altar with sacred blood, or swinging a golden censer, or
chanting a litany, or elevating the host. In all these re-
spects he appeals very strongly to those who seek to make
religion a private affair, neither hindered nor assisted by
the state, to free the religious sentiment from its bondage to
formalism by relegating the modesties of the soul to the
closet, and to insure the supremacy of the ethical element.
His position is at once instructive and inspiring. It shows
how gentleness and reverence may blend with liberty and
boldness to achieve the most lasting results.

That Jesus declined to assume the position of a Messiah,
a king of Israel, though many ardent nationalists appar-
ently urged him to head an insurrection, some of his most
intimate disciples hoped that he might appear in the role
of a Son of David, and not a few pious souls longed and
prayed for a just and God-fearing native ruler, but pre-
ferred to be known to the world as the Prophet of Nazareth,
as one of the heralds of righteousness and truth his people
had had, does not decrease, but increases, his glory in the

1 John, iv, 23.

380 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

eyes of thoughtful men. Had he actually cherished a desire
to rule over the Jews, and the other nations so far as they
could be conquered, or to come back upon the clouds after
his death with flaming fire to take vengeance upon his
enemies,1 some of his profoundest and most touching senti-
ments would sound like hollow mockeries. He appears to
us a nobler man because he resisted the temptation. For
his sake and for ours we rejoice that he forbade his disciples
to say that he was the Messiah. "When he humbly depre-
cates the title ' ' Good Master ! " on the ground that none is
good but one, namely, God, a majesty invests his figure such
as no self-assertion could have lent it. There is nothing
monarchical about Jesus. It is quite impossible to conceive
of him either as a despot or as a figure-head, sitting on a
throne, with a crown upon his brow and a scepter in his
hand. His ambition was, not to rule, but to serve. It was
a deep-seated conviction with him and not a well-sounding
phrase, that he is great who serves, and he is greatest who
serves the most. Even his disciples failed to see his real
greatness. Almost unwittingly and with the best intent,
they misinterpreted some of his most significant utterances,
and the early church handed down his sayings in a form
that left the impression that Jesus, far from seeking him-
self to realize the high ideal he held up before others, was
anxious to secure the honors of royalty, eager to obtain
power over the nations, jealous of his authority over men,
yea, even thirsting for vengeance upon his foes.1 Fortu-
nately, it is possible to remove the later accretions and to
perceive the truth that is better than the best thought of
many generations.

This ideal of service, however, would not be of so great
a value, if it were not joined to a very high conception of
human nature. The spirit of the autocrat was not more
foreign to Jesus than the spirit of the slave. There was no
touch of base obsequiousness in him. His ministry was that
of a free man. And he did not wish to see servility in
others. He did not raise himself above the level of human-

1 Such were the notions cherished by the author of II Thess., i, 8.

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 381

ity demanding authority and exercising lordship over his
followers; he looked upon all men as his brothers, and
wished to help them to live as sons of God, seeing the ele-
ment of goodness and the vast potentialities in them. His
sense of the worth of every human personality, his tender
treatment of the bruised and wounded spirit, his delicacy
in dealing with the tattered fragments of humanity, his
reverence in the devastated shrine, characterize the spirit
that is needed to lift mankind again.

At the first view, Jewish and Christian eschatological
schemes no doubt have the appearance of being utterly at
variance with the order of ideas fostered by modern science.
Sudden transformation scenes are no longer expected.
Though we have no absolute guarantee that the earth may
not perish at any time by what we are accustomed to call an
accident, there is a strong and widespread confidence that
our planet will live out its natural life and that long ages
of human history lie before us, during which the race will
gradually work out its destiny without any cataclysmic
change or catastrophe. How far Jesus may have shared
the common expectations of his time as to the ushering in
of a new age by marvelous changes in nature and in human
society, is extremely difficult to determine. But the
prophet's eyes are always on the near future, and there
is some reason to believe that Jesus expected the kingdom of
heaven to come with power, the new social order to become
manifest, in his own life-time. In fact he seems to have
looked upon certain spiritual phenomena as indicating not
only its approach but its actual presence. On the other
hand, some of his parables apparently show that he did not
expect a sudden and complete change of the world, but a
gradual transformation. After all, the prophet is as
clearly justified by the course of human events in looking
for a sudden turning point in history, a judgment day upon
things long undermined and ready to fall, a bursting forth
of unexpected light, as he is forced by considerations of
science to assume that the new will grow out of the old, and
that the hour of birth will only reveal the life that has been

382 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

long hidden. From the cold scepticism that sees in history
a meaningless play of social forces, questions the value of
any social ideal, and doubts whether one course of conduct
should be followed rather than another, men may well turn
again to the prophet of Nazareth to rekindle their faith in
themselves, in duty and in destiny.

A greater importance is given, in the teaching of Jesus,
to the advent of the kingdom of heaven, the perfecting of
human society, than to the future of the individual. This
is an exceedingly significant fact. In his judgment, it was
worth the while to live and to work, to suffer and to die, for
the sake of the kingdom of heaven. No sacrifice, not even
life itself, could be too great to hasten the coming of that
heavenly society. He considered that in losing his life for
what he conceived of as the highest good of the human race,
a man in reality gained his life. Jesus seems to have hoped
for himself and for those who should be accounted worthy
of a resurrection from the dead a conscious, sexless, angel-
like life beginning immediately after death. But his al-
lusions to the fate of the individual are very few and of
contested interpretation. It is perhaps possible to discern
a conception of man's destiny beyond, developed at a time
when Jewish eschatology was still in a fluctuating state,
with a considerable degree of independence, but under the
influence of surviving animistic ideas and a modified form
of the Persian doctrine of a resurrection. On the other
hand, Jesus dwells repeatedly and at length upon the com-
ing kingdom of heaven, the social life that was to be, whose
laws were binding upon the sons of the kingdom. Essen-
tially this is the temper of hosts of men and women to-day,
who are willing to live and strive and suffer, as suffer they
must, and die, if need be, for the hope that is in them of a
better social order, marked by greater justice, kindness, in-
telligence, and beauty; who seek and find life for them-
selves, rich, glorious and satisfying, in spending it to bring
about the highest good of all ; and who maintain a calm and
cheerful mood in the presence of the mystery of death, per-
suaded that whatever survives, and in whatever form, of

THE LEADEESHIP OF JESUS 383

physical force or spiritual energy, will continue to serve the
high ends of existence to which life's work was devoted.

The supremacy of the ethical sense in Jesus is seen also
in his peculiar religious attitude. Like the great prophets
of his people he seems to have discarded the sacrificial cult,
and he certainly looked with distrust upon all ritualistic
performances, while he occasionally expressed his thought
in spontaneous acts of symbolism. Unlike them, he never
seems to have claimed mantic inspiration. None of his
utterances has an oracular form. He did not speak in the
name of Yahwe; he spoke for himself. He expressed his
own convictions, and knew that they came from his own
mind. Though a mystic, he does not appear to have been
subject to fits of ecstasy or similar psychopathic conditions.
He put no emphasis upon doctrinal belief. He judged men
by their deeds rather than by their creeds. He did not
qualify his approval of the good Samaritan by lamenting
his heresy. But he esteemed the righteous inner disposition
higher than the correct outward act, and regarded neither
as meritorious. His God was not a task-master driving his
slaves upon the earth, nor an employer of labor paying so
much wages for so many hours of work, nor a director of a
penitentiary punishing with so many stripes the sins of
each culprit, but a father, just and kind, seeking by the best
means the education and welfare of his children. Specula-
tions upon the nature of the divine being seem to have been
alien to his spirit. He would have been utterly bewildered
by the Nicene creed. With all his heart he believed in the
Good Spirit ; but it was the moral perfection of his heart 's
ideal that attracted him. He longed to be like unto The
Highest. Such a leader can only be welcomed by the many
who have grown weary of sacramental magic, genuflexions
and processions, ablutions and libations, infallible oracles
and infallible priests, strange psychic experiences and
wranglings over creeds, salvation by good deeds or orthodox
professions, sales of indulgences and merits of the saints,
fear of an angry God, and worship of an ignoble character.
Such a guide is greatly needed by the many who have yet to

384 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

learn that man cannot live by bread alone, but that by walk-
ing in the path of duty, by following the vision of truth, and
by seeking and loving The Highest shall man live; that,
however the conventional standards may vary, our sense of
obligation points to cosmic laws; that failure of adjust-
ment is responsible for the impression of arbitrary power
and irrationality in nature, which disappears with the grow-
ing light and strength and rectitude of man ; that the deep-
est secret of the infinite life in which we are imbedded can
never be known to a finite being, but that the pure in heart
may approach it and, in reverent contemplation, find a
peace which passes understanding.

Thus the thought of Jesus may, in numerous directions,
become a stronger force in the life of the world than it has
yet been. But far more potent than his word is his wonder-
ful personality. It cannot be defined; names and titles
utterly fail to do justice to it. Its subtle influence cannot
be explained ; it can only be felt. The hearts of men burn
within them, when he talks with them in the road. When
he breaks to them the bread of life, their eyes are opened;
and though he vanishes from their sight, they can never for-
get him. To have once come under his spell, is to be his
forever. To know him, is to love him.

It is an encouraging sign of the times that Israel, scat-
tered among the nations, is beginning to appreciate the
greatest of the prophets it has given to the human race.
Some degree of acquaintance with his life and thought
already exists among other non-Christian peoples. But it
is very imperfect. In Asia and Africa there are hundreds
of millions who have no knowledge of him. The leading
representatives of the great missionary religions of the East,
Buddhism and Islam, have as yet taken little interest either
in studying the life and teachings of Jesus, or in encourag-
ing their people to do so. The reasons are in part religious
and in part political. They are under the impression that
the true interests of the prophets whom they revere would
suffer from a wide-spread knowledge of Jesus. In this
they are quite mistaken. Those who have set before men

THE LEADEKSHIP OF JESUS 385

high ideals, raised their standards of morality, and inspired
to noble conduct, have labored in a common cause.
Gautama and Muhammad and every other prophet of the
soul will be more truly honored and better understood by
the nations to whom their names are dear, when Jesus of
Nazareth shall be known and loved by them as well. There
is more justification for the feeling that the spread of Chris-
tianity may be a peril to their political independence and
peculiar organization of society. But the exclusion of the
thought of Jesus will not obviate this danger. For it is not
responsible for the martial spirit and the commercial greed
too characteristic of the so-called Christian nations.
Thoughtful Brahmins, Buddhists, Muhammadans, and ad-
herents of other forms of religion in the East should learn
to distinguish between the things that Jesus stood for and
the things taught and practised in his name, and also to
make a distinction between the messages of their own
prophets and the beliefs and customs to which their names
have been forced to give sanction. There is much in the
social life and the political institutions of the races living
outside the pale of Christendom which is harmful, and
doomed to perish with the advance of civilization. Those
who rightly love and cling to what is noblest in their ances-
tral faith should gratefully avail themselves of the added
strength and light a knowledge of Jesus would give in the
common conflict against error and wrong. Christian mis-
sionaries are endeavoring to make Jesus known throughout
the earth. So far as they bring with them his spirit, they
cannot fail to accomplish their noble end. But they fre-
quently conceive it to be their mission to wean the affections
of men away from the prophets whom they have loved, to
root up and destroy one form of religious life in order to
establish another form. This is a grievous error. A mis-
sionary should be careful first to take out the beam of for-
malism that is in his own eye in order to be better fitted to
take out the mote that is in his brother's eye.

The contact between different races, nations and classes
of men grows closer every day. Elements of civilization,
25

386 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

creating a community of interests, are constantly diffused.
Isolation becomes increasingly difficult. Strong moral and
intellectual forces at work anywhere in the world quickly
become operative over wide areas. Large bodies of men are
bending their efforts, consciously and determinedly, to the
realization of social ideals that seem to them desirable. The
currents of human life point to changes, political and
economic, social and religious, compared with which the
revolutions of the past will seem insignificant. Prophets
are heard announcing, in strident tones, the judgment that
will come upon a world where are the slayers and the slain,
the oppressors and their victims, the impostors and their
dupes, the self-indulgent and the needy. There are also
seers who proclaim visions of good things to come, corn and
oil and wine, short hours of labor, rich amusements, pleas-
ant homes, long life and numerous offspring. Both classes
are needed. But in the ages that lie before us men will
learn to listen, with a deeper gratification, to the great
prophet of Nazareth who, in the fullness of time, went forth
to proclaim as good news the coming of the kingdom of
heaven to earth as a reign of righteousness, mercy and truth.

EXCURSUS A

GNOSTICISM

The importance of this great movement was first appre-
ciated by Gottfried Arnold whose Kirchen- und Ketzer-
geschichte (1699-1700) treated the Gnostics with unprece-
dented sympathy and fairness. Massuet, in his edition of
Irenaeus (1710), abandoned at least the patristic explana-
tion of Gnostic heresy as due to moral depravity and hostil-
ity to the Christian religion, though he characterized the
Gnostics as "fanatics." Mosheim also spoke of them as
"fanatics," but earnestly endeavored to understand their
thought as an expression of Oriental philosophy (Kezer-
geschichte, 1748). Semler significantly compared them
with theosophists like Boehme and Dippel (Einleitung zu
Baumgarten's Untersuchungen, 1771, p. 119). Neander, in
his Genetische Entwicklung der vornehmsten gnostischen
Systeme, (1818), traced Gnosticism to Philo, while Lewald
(De doctrina gnostica, 1818), looked for Zoroastrian influ-
ences. A most important contribution to the study of Gnos-
ticism was Baur's Die christliche Gnosis, (1835). Our
knowledge of one important source was advanced by the re-
searches of Bunsen (Hippolytus and his age, 1852), Volk-
mar (Hippolytus und die romischen Zeitgenossen, 1855),
and Lipsius (Der Gnosticismus in Ersch und Grubers En-
cyklopedie, 1860). Heinrici undertook a careful study of
the Valentinian system (Die Valentinianische Gnosis,
1871). Hilgenfeld presented, in his Eetzergeschichte des
Urcliristentums, (1884), what is known from patristic ac-
counts in an admirable manner. New light has been thrown
by the discovery of some of their own writings, notably the
Pistis Sophia, translated into English by Mead (1898), the
Books of Je'u published by Carl Schmidt in Texte und Un-

387

388 THE PEOPHET OF NAZAEETH

tersuchungen, VIII, and other works preserved in the
Coptic, and a collection of Gnostic hymns in the Syriac.
Harnack, in his Dogmengeschichte (1886-1890) and Chro-
nologic der altchristlichen Literatur (1897), bases his ap-
preciation upon these as well as upon the patristic testi-
mony.

Friedlander has sought to establish a Jewish origin for
Gnosticism (Der vorchristliche jiidische Gnosticismus,
1898) and has rendered it probable that the Ophites and
other sects had a pre-Christian origin; but his attempt to
prove that the Talmudie Minim are Gnostics rather than
Christians and that the gilyonim are diagrams like the one
described by Celsus rather than ' ' gospels ' ' must be regarded
as a failure. While the contention of the Tubingen school
that the apostle Paul was caricatured by Jewish Christians
under the masque of Simon Magus still holds true, there ;s
at present a tendency to assume that Simon actually existed
and exercised an influence in shaping the Gnostic move-
ment. The philosopher Kreyenbiihl, who looks to Gnos-
ticism for the salvation of the modern world, regards the
Apophasis Megale, or Great Revelation, found in the Philo-
sophumena of Hippolytus, as a genuine work of Simon, and
the Fourth Gospel as a work of his disciple Menander of
Kapparetaea (Das Evangelium nach der Wahrheit, 1900).
Either assumption seems to be untenable. But the sym-
pathetic study of Gnosticism by this thinker cannot fail to
be productive of good results. Delff, in his Geschichte des
Rabbi Jesu von Nazara (1889), assuming a large part of the
Fourth Gospel to come from an eye-witness, the presbyter
John, maintained that Jesus himself was a Gnostic. Honig
(Die Ophiten, 1889) called attention to some indications of
Jewish Gnosticism likely to be older than the appearance
of the Ophites as a Christian sect.

W. Anz made an important contribution to the study of
Gnosticism (Zur Frage nach dem J] r sprung des Gnosticis-
mus, 1897), by pursuing the central idea of the ascent of
the soul and the important cultic performance of baptism
back to Babylonian conceptions and practices. He was

EXCURSUS A 389

aided by the publication in recent times of numerous re-
ligious texts from different periods of Babylonian history
and especially by Brandt's translations of Mandaic texts.
The Mandaeans are the only known pagan Gnostic sect, but
it is no easy task to separate the early stratum in the Genza
and the Qolasta, not yet affected by a superficial knowledge
of Judaism and Christianity, from the later parts. There
is no doubt that Anz is right in assuming a dominant influ-
ence of Babylonian speculation in the formation of
Gnosticism. He admits an additional Persian element.
But the close relations between India and Bactria must not
be overlooked. With a strong missionary religion then
flourishing in India, its influence upon the types of religious
thought in the Parthian empire cannot be questioned.

Grill has forcibly argued that Indian thought had much
to do with the origin of Gnosticism (Entstehung des vierten
Evangeliums, 1901). It is evident that the great Gnostic
systems of the second century were the products of ideas
and tendencies of thought, of different provenience and age,
existing in the Hellenistic world before it came in contact
with Christianity ; but the historian is not justified in assum-
ing the existence of a Valentinian system before Valen-
tinus or in overlooking the later coloring given to the
thought of great teachers by their disciples and the distor-
tion of their statements in the reports of their enemies.

EXCUKSUS B

THE COLLEGIA VICENTINA

Wiszowazzi, a grandson of Fausto Sozzini, relates in his
Narratio compendiosa, written before 1678 and published
as an appendix to Sand's Bibliotheca antitrinitariorum
(1684), that about the year 1546 religious meetings were
held in Vicenza, near Venice, attended by circa forty mem-
bers, at which the doctrine of the Trinity was questioned.
Among the participants he mentions Lelio Sozzini, Giulio
(Gherlandi) of Treviso, and Francesco (Segga) of Rovigo.
Sand himself, who may have had access to further sources
or made larger excerpts from the Biography of Lelio, men-
tions, besides these three, Bernardino Ochino, Nicolao Pa-
ruta, Valentino Gentile, Francesco Negri, Paolo Alziati,
and others. Lubieniecky, in his Historia reformations
Polonicae, 1685, pp 38 ff., tells substantially the same story.
While maintaining that this family tradition contains a his-
toric nucleus, Treschel (Die protestantischen Antitrini-
tarier, 1844, II, 391 ff.) thought that the questions said to
have been discussed at Vicenza had not at that time been
raised, but represented later "Socinian" speculation.

The discovery of the document of the Inquisition in Ven-
ice (see pp. 19, 137) puts these famous Collegia Vicentina
in an entirely new light. It is seen that numerous Baptist
churches in Italy and Switzerland cherished views concern-
ing the person of Jesus far more radical than those held by
the later Socinians. Well known reformers, like Curione,
Negri and Camillo, not hitherto suspected of being Baptists,
are found to have been members of these churches. Discus-
sions of precisely the kind intimated by Wiszowazzi had ap-
parently gone on for some time in the Baptist churches of
Italy, when the Council was held. The prevailing type of

390

EXCUKSUS B 391

doctrine was that of the churches in Switzerland which had
adopted Denck's position, while the influence of Servetus
was less marked. And some of the participants in the
Vicentine gatherings appear again four years later at the
Council of Vicenza. There is no reason to doubt that there
was a Baptist church at Vicenza in 1546, or that it was oc-
cupied then with questions concerning the person of Jesus.
The only serious difficulty about Wiszowazzi 's account is the
presence of Ochino. We know that he was appointed
preacher to the Italians in Augsburg in December, 1545,
and that he escaped from the city during the siege in Janu-
ary, 1547. Unless it be supposed that he went to Ferrara
and Venice in 1546, which is not wholly impossible, was in-
vited by his friends to the meetings of the Baptists, and re-
turned again to Augsburg, his presence must be seriously
doubted. It is also noticeable that in his published works
he never can be said to question the Trinity, though he is
persistently charged with anti-trinitarian views. Yet his
last defense of the orthodox doctrine is weaker than one
would expect from a man of his ability, when speaking his
mind freely and setting forth deep-seated convictions.
Concerning Lelio Sozzini himself, we know that he was in
Venice in 1546.

EXCURSUS C

THE EESURRECTION

The later narratives (Luke xxiv, John xx, Mark xvi, 9-20)
describe appearances of Jesus after death to his eleven
disciples in Jerusalem. An earlier tradition knows of no
such appearances in that city. According to Matth. xxviii,
16-20 it was in Galilee he was first seen by his disciples.
Mark's account is a torso. But the angel announces that
Jesus will appear to his disciples and Peter in Galilee. In
the Gospel of Peter 58 ff. the appearance can occur nowhere
else than in Galilee, though the text breaks off before it is
described. That the authors of Matthew and Mark should
have passed by these appearances to the disciples in Jeru-
salem on the third day as unworthy of record, if they had
ever heard of them, is quite inconceivable. Luke 's account
of the two disciples of Emmaus and his casual allusion to an
appearance to Simon are not supported by John, while his
description of the appearance of Jesus to "the eleven and
those who were with them," his leading them out to Bethany
and his ascension to heaven from that place on the third
day differs widely from John 's narrative of the appearances
of Jesus first to all the disciples except Thomas but to no
other persons with them, on the third day after his death,
and then, one week later, to all the disciples including
Thomas. While our two earliest gospels reveal no knowl-
edge of any such experiences on the part of the disciples
in Jerusalem, Luke makes no mention of any appearances of
Jesus in Galilee, either on a mountain (as Matth. xxviii, 16)
or at the sea (as Peter 60 and the appendix to the Fourth
Gospel, John xxi, 1 ff . ) Luke 's attitude can be readily ac-
counted for, as the earlier appearances in Jerusalem must
have seemed to him far more important than the later one

392

EXCURSUS C 393

in Galilee. The same is probably true of the author of the
longer appendix to Mark. The editor of the Fourth Gospel
felt that for completeness sake this should be added, espe-
cially as his version gave an opportunity of presenting the
relative importance of Peter and John. Hence the addition
of xxi, 1-23.

Already Matthew and Mark are familiar with the tradi-
tion that some women had found the tomb of Jesus empty
and had been told by angels to inform his disciples that he
would go before them into Galilee. The women, the angels,
and the empty sepulchre appear also in the later gospels,
but the appointment of a meeting in Galilee has disap-
peared. Characteristic of the freedom with which the
earlier accounts were treated by later writers is the change
of Matthew : ' ' Tell his disciples .... he goes before you
into Galilee" (xxviii, 7) into Luke's "Remember he spoke
to you when he was yet in Galilee" (xxiv, 6). Concern-
ing the events at the tomb there is the most bewildering dif-
ference of statements. There is no agreement as to who
the women were (Mary Magdalene, Mary Magdalene and
another Mary, the two Marys and Salome, or the two Marys
and Joanna) ; and whether they were alone or accompanied
by Peter and John on a second visit ; when they started put
(on Saturday night or Sunday morning) ; why they went
(to view the sepulchre or to anoint Jesus with spices) ;
whether the tomb had a military guard or not ; whether one
angel or two appeared ; whether the angel sat on the stone
outside or sat within the tomb ; what the angel or angels
said ; whether or not Jesus himself appeared to the women ;
and whether or not the women reported what they had seen.
No careful historian would feel justified in drawing from
these confused, contradictory and mutually exclusive stories
the inference that a tomb closed with a heavy stone into
which Jesus had been laid was by some women found to be
empty on the third day. Schmiedel, in his admirable dis-
cussion of the Resurrection and Ascension Narratives in En-
cyclopaedia Biblica, goes so far as to see in Mark's state-
ment "they said nothing to any one" an admission that the

394 THE PEOPHET OF NAZARETH '

story of the empty sepulchre was a novelty first introduced
by himself. But the bearing of this phrase depends upon
what followed it in the original Mark. It is difficult to be-
lieve that the author who recorded a solemn injunction to
the women by an angel to deliver a most important message
from the risen Master should have wished to leave the im-
pression that they not only failed immediately to carry the
good news to the disciples but never communicated their
marvelous experience until he came into possession of the
facts and proclaimed them. Harnack (BrucJistuecke dcs
Evangeliums des Petrns, 1893, p. 33) thinks that Peter
58-60 was taken from the original ending of Mark, and in
this he may be right. But the women are not instructed in
the Gospel of Peter to give any message to the disciples.
"And they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid"
is probably an editorial gloss, introduced after the present
close of the gospel (vss 9-20) had been added, having for
its purpose to explain why the disciples did not go to Gali-
lee but remained in Jerusalem to see their risen Lord there.
Matth. xxviii undoubtedly contains much late material.
The last verses have clearly been worked over, MSS. used
in the fourth century still containing a simpler, non-trini-
tarian form of the baptismal formula; vss 9 and 10 are
generally recognized as late interpolations; vss 11-15 are
probably also later than 1-8, 16, and vs 17 has the appear-
ance of being secondary. In some respects Matth. xxviii,
1-8 seems more original than Mark xvi, 1-8. There is a
distinct advance from the more natural visit to see the tomb
on Saturday night immediately after the Sabbath had ended
to the visit on the following morning with spices to anoint
the body of Jesus ; the number of women is increased in
Mark ; the coming of an angel to roll away the heavy stone
and seating himself upon it is far more natural than his
sitting within the tomb and being discovered there; "the
Nazarene" is added in Mark; Peter is mentioned in addi-
tion to the other disciples in Mark ; to avoid repetition Mark
omits in vs 7 an essential part of the message "he is risen
from the dead ; ' ' Mark changes ' ' Behold, I have told you ' '

EXCUESUS C 395

into "as he said to you." On the other hand, Matth.
xxviii, 4 is occasioned by the story of the watch which ap-
pears to be a late insertion. Unfortunately, we have no
means of knowing whether the original Aramaic gospel con-
tained the story of the empty sepulchre.

As for the fulfilment of the angel's promise that Jesus
should show himself to his disciples in Galilee, Matthew de-
scribes an appearance which took place on a mountain there,
the eleven disciples seeing him and worshiping, though
some doubted, while the appendix to John relates how Jesus
showed himself to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias, and
the Gospel of Peter likewise sets out to record an appearance
at the sea, though Andrew and Levi who are especially men-
tioned in Peter are not referred to in John xxi. Here again
there is an advance from "the eleven disciples" in Matth.
to the emphasis upon Peter in John xxi and Peter 60, pos-
sibly also from the apparition before whom the disciples
prostrate themselves in Matth. to the Lord who eats bread
and fish with his "little children" in John xxi.

It is doubtful whether critical students would have been
inclined to assume a kernel of historic truth in Matth.
xxviii, 16 ff. if it had not been for I Cor. xv, 3-8. The ac-
count given in this passage differs from all others especially
in two respects : it seems to assume that the appearances of
Jesus to his immediate disciples were of the same character
of celestial visions as those of Paul and it gives an enumer-
ation of such visions apparently intended to be exhaustive
which by its exclusions, inclusions and order distinguishes
it in a marked degree from the gospels. Jesus is said to
have appeared first to Cephas, then to the twelve, then to
five hundred brethren at once, then to James, then to all the
apostles, and finally to Paul as to one born too early. That
the last phrase, wholly inapplicable in its ordinary sense,
can only be explained by a reference to its meaning in the
Valentinian system of Gnostic thought, was first seen by
Straatman (Kritische Studien, II, 196 ff.) who was led to
reject the whole passage as spurious. Brandt (Evangelische
Geschichte, 1893, p. 414 ff.) recognizes the correctness of

396 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

Straatman's observation on the meaning of ektroma, but
deems it sufficient to regard this word as a later gloss, and
to assume that vss. 3-7 constitute an earlier account quoted
by Paul. Schmiedel (I. c.) thinks that Paul received this
information when he visited Jerusalem three years after his
conversion. Either assumption is exposed to grave diffi-
culties. If already within a decade or two after the death
of Jesus a tradition concerning the number and order of
his post-mortem appearances had fixed itself so firmly in
apostolic circles in Jerusalem as to take the shape of a creed
preached and believed, it is not easy to account for the de-
velopment of our greatly divergent gospel narratives. The
elements of faith that are allowed to drop are as remarkable
as the elements added. An appearance of Jesus to five hun-
dred brethren is permitted to vanish completely ; an appear-
ance to James, the brother of Jesus, disappears everywhere
except in the Gospel of the Hebrews where it occurs in a
highly legendary form at least in the days of Jerome; an
appearance to the twelve which, if the text is sound, would
include Matthias who was elected to take the place of Judas
is passed by ; an appearance to all the apostles, by which in
distinction from the twelve a larger circle of missionaries is
likely to be intended, is likewise eliminated, even the ap-
pearance to Peter is no longer deemed worthy of more than
a passing allusion. Of even greater importance than this
abandonment of testimony to the appearances of Jesus him-
self is the change of emphasis. The gospels put the most
stress upon the appearance of angels at the empty tomb
announcing the resurrection, and from this starting-point
go on to narrate the manifestations of the Master who has
come out of the tomb with flesh and bones, increasing their
emphasis and wealth of details as they are further removed
from the time of Jesus. Is it probable that Matthew should
have deliberately slighted the tradition current in the
mother-church, stamped with the authority of the apostles,
and handed over from Jerusalem to the Gentile churches,
and instead of this taken his stand upon the report of some
women that they had seen an angel and found the tomb

EXCUESUS C 397

empty? And is it likely that no subsequent evangelist
should have come upon this tradition or deemed it worthy
of serious attention ? Can it be supposed that authors who
set such store by the visions of angels actually were preju-
diced against "mere visions" of the risen Messiah? These
questions become especially pertinent, if it is assumed that
an epistle containing this original apostolic tradition had
for half a century or more been in circulation among those
for whom the gospels were written. That every evangelist
should have "happened" to overlook one of the earliest
Christian classics, is a somewhat hazardous supposition.
The more closely the account in I Cor. xv, 3-8 is examined,
the more clearly its peculiar features point to a compara-
tively late date, when "the twelve disciples" were the ob-
ject of much reverence, the term "apostles" designated a
larger body, as in the Didache, facts gleaned from different
sources were joined together into brief creedal statements,
the tendency to extend over a long period the appearances
of Jesus was marked, and at least in some circles the ac-
counts of such appearances were interpreted as referring
to visions of a heavenly figure, in harmony with a peculiar
view of the character of the celestial body possessed by those
who are brought from death into eternal life.

When the character of this passage is scrutinized, the
theory that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus originated
in visions loses its strongest support. While it is by no
means improbable that the nervous tension caused by the
daily expectation of his return as the Messiah here and there
led to genuine ecstatic experiences in which his face was seen
and his voice was heard, the documentary evidence of such
visions is not sufficient. Nor could such visions have pro-
duced the conviction that he had risen from the dead on the
third day. That conviction was engendered by faith in the
prophetic word and in its application to Jesus. It was
probably in Galilee that the disciples began to proclaim
their earnest conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead
according to the Scriptures and would soon return to them.
The expectation of such a return of a dead ruler or teacher

398 THE PROPHET OF NAZAEETH

is not an uncommon phenomenon in history. With dread
or hope the people looks for a Nero, Charlemagne, or Bar-
barossa to come back from long, mysterious concealment.
The expected reappearance of some dead Imam or Mahdi
is a constant source of anxiety to the Muhammadan author-
ities. If in some such instances the belief has been that the
heroes in reality never died, a quite miraculous preservation
is always assumed, and at bottom the early belief in the
case of Jesus was not very different. God would not allow
his holy one to see corruption, or hand his soul over to
Sheol. Before the soul had finally left the body, reanima-
tion had taken place, and the suspended life was miracu-
lously continued. As long as the place where they had lain
him was unknown, there was no motive for further specula-
tion about his resting-place. He was not there, he was risen.
But when a fulfilment was sought for the prophecy in Isa.
liii, 9 that the Servant of Yahwe should "have his tomb
with the wicked and be with the rich in his death, ' ' interest
in his tomb would naturally develop. When the desire to
know what had happened at this tomb had once awakened,
the growth of legend could not be stopped. And this is
likely to have occurred at an early date. At first the assur-
ance of an angel on the third day that he had risen and
would be seen in Galilee sufficed. Then faith demanded
that he should have been seen on that very day in the vicin-
ity of the tomb. Gradually the thought seems to have
grown familiar that during a longer period he had often
come back to convince and instruct his disciples for their
world-mission, while the outward form of his appearing
would naturally be conceived in harmony with the more ma-
terialistic or more spiritual idea entertained of the resur-
rection body. But as the ultimate cause of this entire
development was the ineradicable impression of the person-
ality of Jesus, so each step reveals something of the grow-
ing sense of his worth and attachment to his cause.

INDEX

I. INDEX OF SUBJECTS

Abba! 33, 153, 154, 361.
Abel's sacrifice, 54, 58.
Adam, 39, 57.
Ablutions, 60, 275, 379.
Abraham, numen of Hebron, 40,
54, 57.

his sacrifice, 54, 59.

his seed, 37, 40, 41.
Acts of the Apostles, 185-187.

of John, 170-185.

of Paul and Thecla, 185.

of Peter, 170.
Adapa, 119.
Adoptionism, 136.
Advent, second,

of dead prophets, 46.

of translated heroes, 83.

of Jesus, 321.
Akiba, Eabbi, 89.
Albigenses, 136.
Allegorical method, 7, 12.
Alexander the Great, 245, 249.
Alexander Balas, 76.
Alexander Jannaeus, 66.
Alziati, Paolo, 137, 390.
Alogi, 160, 207.
'Anani' "the Man on the Clouds"

130.
Angel of the Covenant, 54, 63.
Angels, degraded gods, 63.
Animal sacrifices, 59.
Anointing of kings, 71.
Antiochus Epiphanes, 55, 63, 75.
Antichrist, 64.
Antitype, 36.

Apophasis Megale, 388.
Aramaic Gospel, 205, 218, 219,

220, 223, 228, 230, 231, 232.
Aramaic Targums, 3, 90, 91, 166,

167, 229.
Aramati, 45, 67.
Arianism, 16.
Aristobulus I., 73.
Aristobulus II., 71.
Ark of the Covenant, 60.
Arminianism, 22.
Arnauld, Antoine, 333.
Astrological view of the world, 65,

243 ff.
Assumption of Moses, 82.
Avatars, 213.

Babylonian mythology, 118.

Balaam's curse, 37, 41.

Balder, 17.

Banus, 86, 256.

Baptism, 53, 56, 60, 222, 257, 259,

261, 313, 316, 379.
Baptists, 19, 22, 136 ff, 160, 207,

326, 329, 331, 390, 391.
Barbarossa, 398.
Bar Elaha, 145.
Barnabas, 187, 200.
Bar 'nasha, 107, 111, 112, 114,

115, 117, 120, 127, 128, 129,

130, 131, 133.
Bar nefele, 130.

Baruch, Apocalypse of, 83, 184.
Basilides, 15, 211.
Bathsheba, 68.

399

400

INDEX

Bau, 82.

Begotten 'God' or 'Son,' 13, 14

Bene Elohim, 142, 143.

Ben-Sotada, 250, 251.

Bereh-de-gabra, 127, 128, 130.

Bereh de- 'nasha, 127, 128.

Bereh de-bar 'nasha, 127, 128.

Beth Ephrathah, 38, 46.

Bethsaida, 266.

Bhagavadgita, 347.

Bogh, Slavonic divinity, 17.

Biandrata, Giorgio, 137.

Boethusians, 182.

Brethren of the Free Spirit, 136.

Brethren of the United Life, 136.

Buddhism, 384, 385.

Bythos, 170.

Caiaphas, 286, 287.

Cain-Kenites, 58.

Calvin, estimate of, 328, 329.

Camillo Benato, 390.

Canaan, curse of, 37.

Canticles, character of, 38, 45.

Capernaum, 263, 267, 268, 270,

276, 278.
Catholic Epistles, 191-193.
Cerinthus, 160, 247, 250.
Chaamu- Venus, 83.
Chalazath- Venus, 83.
Charlemagne, 398.
Chorazin, 266.
Chrestus, 178.
Christ-conception, 3, 4, 7-9.
Christian experience, 5.
Christo-centric theology, 27.
Christus, 174, 177, 178.
Christiani, 177, 178.
Ciasca's Diatessaron, 208.
Circumcision, 55, 56.
Cities of refuge, 61.
Claude of Savoy, 137
Clementine Epistles, 187, 188.
Collegia Vicentina, 390, 391.
Conjunctio maxima, 243-245.
Cosmic moral laws, 359.

Cosmic year, 65.

Council of Venice, 19, 391.

Covenant, the new, 38, 53.

Creed-making, 1, 2, 11, 30.

Criticism of Jesus, 32.

Crusades, 324.

Curione, Celio Secundo, 390.

Cyrus, Yahwe's King, 47, 74.

Daniel's 'Son of man,' 38, 50,

85, 97, 100, 115, 118, 119,

128, 132.
Darius Hystaspis, 70.
David as a poet, 42.
"Davidic," or royal hymns, 69,

70.
"Davidic" prophecies, 37, 42,

43, 44.
David, Francis, 140.
Dedication, feast of, 66, 214.
Deification of men, 2, 3.
Deists, 21.
Dionysus, 14.
Deluge myth, 56.
Denck, estimate of, 329.
Didache, 183, 194.
Divinity of kings, 43, 44, 144.
Dusares, 83.

Easter, 54.

Ebionites, 16, 27, 91, 136, 182.

Ebionitish Acts of the Apostles,

185.
Ecclesiastes, 81.

Ecclesiasticus xliv ff, author-
ship of, 75.
Ektroma, 395, 396.
Eleazar, Bar Kozeba's associate,

90.
Elipandus of Toledo, 136.
Elusa-Chalazath, 83.
Enoch, Ethiopic, 78, 79, 84, 85,

132.
Enoch, Slavonic, 81.
Ephod, 60, 61.
Erythraean Sibyl, 77.

INDEX

401

Esau, 53, 58.

Essenes, 27, 86, 110, 254, 256,
323.

Eucharist, 53, 284, 285, 379.

Euhemerism, 3.

Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum,
128, 153, 219.

Evolution, doctrine of, 25, 28,
29, 66, 67.

Ezekiel 's ' ' Messianic ' ' prophe-
cies, 38, 49.

Ezra, Apocalypse of, 83, 117, 144,
145, 184.

Fatherhood of God, 152-155, 295.
Felix of Urgel, 136.
Fourth Gospel, 211 ff.
Fox, George, 333.
Francis of Assisi, 18.
Francke, August, 22.

Garden of Eden myth, 39.
Gentile, Valentino, 138.
Gherlandi, Giulio, 137, 390, 398.
Gilyonim, not diagrams, 388.
Giuliano of Milan, 330.
Gnosticism, 12, 15, 16, 133, 151,

160, 213, 214, 387-389.
Gnostic Acts of the Apostles, 185.
Gods having human offspring,

143, 249.
Gog and Magog, 91.
Gospel aec. to Matthew, 218 ff.

1 ' Mark, 224 ff .

' ' Luke, 225 ff .

" John, 207-217.

" Peter, 206, 207.

" Hebrews, 205, 206.

" Ebionites, 206.

" Egyptians, 206.

" Nicodemus, 207.
Gribaldo, Matteo, 137.
Groote, Gerhard, 18.
Gula, 82.

Haetzer, Ludwig, 137.

Hagar, Arabian tribe, 53, 57.

Haggai's "desire of all na-
tions," 39, 50.

Hammurabi 's Code, 301, 370.

Hamon, Jean, 333.

Hasmonaean kings, 44, 68, 69.

Hegelian philosophy, 24.

Hellenism, 4, 200-204.

Herborn Bible, 21.

Hero-worship, 2.

Herod the Great, 241, 242, 243,
247.

Herod Antipas, 257 ff.

Herod Boethus, 266.

Herodias, 266.

Hesu, Keltish divinity, 17.

Hesychius, 13.

Hezekiah, 70.

Hillel, 355.

Hofmann, Melchior, 138.

Homoousion 17, 322.

Homoiousion, 322.

Hosea's prophecy of resurrection,
38, 45.

Hubal-Allah, 60.

Hyrcanus, son of Tobias, 30, 50.

Ignatian Epistles, 188-191.

Imitatio Christi, 325.

Immanuel, 47.

Indian influence, 169.

Invisible Church, 63.

Isaac, numen of Beersheba, 48,
57.

Isaiah 's ' ' Messianic ' ' prophe-
cies, 38, 46, 47.

Ishara, 82.

Ishtar, 57, 82.

Islam, 384.

James, Epistle of, 191.
Jacob, numen of Shechem, 40, 58.
Jacob of Kefar Sekanyah, 252.
Jason, the high-priest, 50, 71.
Japhet in Noah's curse, 40.
Jehoiachin, 69.

402

INDEX

Jeremiah's "Messianic" prophe-
cies, 38, 48, 49.
Jerome's "Hebrew" Gospel, 205.
Jesus,

born in Galilee, 240.

in the town of Nazareth, 243.

not in Bethlehem, 243, 246,
247.

not a Davidic descendant,
247, 248.

not illegitimate, 255.

son of Joseph and Mary, 240,
248.

probably 6 B. C, 240, 243 ff.

a carpenter, not a rabbi, 251,
252..

familiar with Hebrew Scrip-
tures, 251.

especially attracted by the
prophets, 252.

acquainted with Essenic
thought, 254, 255.

influenced by John the Bap-
tist, 259.

baptized, probably early in
29 A. D., 259-261.

alone in the wilderness, 262-
263.

appearing as a prophet, 263.

claiming no mantic inspira-
tion, 383.

curing diseases, 264, 265.

befriending the outcast, 268.

not an ascetic, 269.

rejecting Sabbath-laws, 269,
270.

gathering disciples, 270, 271.

preaching on the mount, 272,
273.

visited by Pharisees from
Jerusalem, 274.

rejecting ablutions, 275.

breaking with O. T. tabus,
275.

going into exile, 276.

visiting Caesarea Philippi,

276.
rejecting Messiahship and all

lordship, 277, 278, 280.
coldly received in Caper-
naum, 278.
criticising temple tax, 279.
going through Peraea, 279.
quietly entering Jerusalem,

281.
attacking the sacrificial cult,

282.
attacked by the Sadducees,

282.
rejecting dream of inde-
pendence, 283.
anointed by a woman, 283,

284.
eating with his disciples,

284, 285.
praying in Gethsemane, 285.
arrested in the garden, 285.
tried by irregular session of

Sanhedrin, 286.
delivered to Pilate by Caia-

phas, 287.
delivered to the Jews by Pi-
late, 288.
probably neither mocked nor

scourged, 288.
crucified by the Jews, 288,

289.
having his garments divided,

288.
relieved with wine and

myrrh, 288.
uttering inarticulate cry, 288.
probably buried in Joseph's

tomb, 290.
on a Friday, 14 Nisan, 291.
in some year between 29 and

36 A. D., 291.
exercising great post-humous

influence, 319 ff.
through the impression of his

life, 319.

INDEX

403

through his death as a mar-
tyr, 318.
through his teaching, 319.
through the Messiahship

ascribed to him, 319, 320.
through his deification, 322.
claiming present leadership,

360 ff.
as a seeker after truth, 361.
as a deep and earnest think-
er, 361, 362.
as an artist, 362, 363.
as a social reformer, 364 ff.
having a message to the mod-
ern world, 354, 360 ff.
interested in its vital ques-
tions, 360 ff.
capable of inspiring and

guiding, 360 ff.
uniting his influence with
every upward tendency in
the race, 385, 386.
Job's Eedeemer, 37, 41, 42.
Jochanan ben Torta, 89.
Jochanan ben Zakkai, 182.
Joel's predictions, 38, 45, 46.
John, the Apostle

alleged residence in Ephesus,

209-211.
probable martyrdom in Pales-
tine, 209-211.
epistles ascribed to, 191.
John the Baptist, 256 ff., 266, 267.
John, the Presbyter, 192, 210, 211.
Jonah as a sign, 38.
Jonathan, the high-priest, 71.
Joshua ben Hananiah, 182.
Joshua ben Jehozadak, 71.
Jozedek, the ' ' shoot, ' ' 48.
Josephus

disciple of Banus, 86, 256.
acquainted with Messianic

idea, 86, 87.
silent as to Christianity, 180,
181.

familiar with story of John
the Baptist, 257, 258.
Jubilees, Book of, 82.
Judas, son of Ezekias, 87.
Judas, the Galilean, 87.
Judas Iscariot, 37, 43, 285, 286.
Jude, Epistle, 191, 192.

iTa-conception, 165

Kautz, Jacob, 137.

Kenites, 58, 59.

Kingdom of heaven, 32, 36,
295 ff., 323.

Kossuth, Louis, Bar Kozeba com-
pared with, 90.

Labadie, Jean de, 22, 333.
Ladders for the gods, 63.
Legitimist tendencies, 72, 73.
Leontopolis, temple of, 76.
Levi, son of Alphaeus, 268.
Logos

mythical basis of, 161.

foreign influence on idea of,
161, 162.

in Greek thought, 163-166.

in Philo, 166-168.

in the Fourth Gospel, 159,
169-170, 213 ff.

in the Targums, 166, 167.

in Gnosticism, 170.

spermatikos, 165, 168, 172.

endiathetos, 165, 168, 171,
172.

prophoriJcos, 165, 168, 171,
172.
Logia Jesu, 170, 227.
Lollards, 136.
Loisy, A., 341.

Luke, origin and date of, 235 ff.
Luther, estimate of, 326, 327.

Machaerus, 266.
Magnificat, the, 250.
Marcion 's Gospel, 225 ff ,

404

INDEX

Marcionites, 136.

Mark, origin and date of, 224 ff .

Marduk, 75, 118.

Martini, Kudolph, 137.

Mary Magdalene, 269.

Matthew, origin and date of,

221 ff.
Melchizedek, 57, 58, 153.
Melito, 210.
Memra, 166.
Menelaus, 50.
Menander of Kapparetaea, 211,

388.
Messiah ben Joseph, 91, 92.
Messiah,

anointed by Elijah, 90.

first reference in 60 B. C,
68 ff.

translated Davidic descend-
ant, 83.
Messianic prophecy,

a misnomer, 51.

thriving only in Palestine,
51.

examined, 35-52.
Michael, 50, 75, 82, 118, 132.
Minim, 181, 388.
Missions, 324, 344, 345.
Modein, 46, 88.
Muhammadanism, 385.
Muratorianum, 184.
Mysticism, 18.

Naravana, 133.

Nazaraeans, 182.

Nebuchadnezzar, 55, 63.

Negri, Francesco, 137, 390.

Neo-Kantianism, 27.

Nehemiah, 72.

Nero, 398.

Neronie persecution, 177.

New moons, 62.

Ninib, 82.

Noah, Apocalypse of, 85.

Noetus, 16,

Noetians, 136.
Nominalism, 17, 18.

Panthera, 200.

Paraclete, 215.

Parthenogenesis, 249.

Paruta, Nicolao, 390.

Pagan references to Christianity,

174-179.
Parables of Enoch, 30, 85, 132,
Parables of Jesus

lost coin, 228, 311.

lost sheep, 228, 311.

lost son, 288, 311.

vineyard, 312.

talents, 307.

unjust steward, 307.

sower, 308, 363.

leaven, 308.

mustard seed, 308.

fishes, 308.

plant, 309.

Pharisee and Publican, 228,
313.

Good Samaritan, 228, 363.

Dives and Lazarus, 363.

foolish virgins, 363.

widow, 363.

shepherd, 363.
Passagii, 136.
Passover, 52, 62, 214.
Pataliputra, 162.
Patarenes, 136.
Paul of Samosata, 16.
Paul of Tarsus,

acquainted with Stoic
thought, 202.

representative of Helenism,
202.

author of five extant Epis-
tles, 195, 196 ff.
Paul and Seneca, 174 f .
Paidianists, 136.
Paulicians, 136.
Pauline Epistles, 193-204.
Pentecost, 54, 66.

INDEX

405

Periodicity of history, 64-66.
Peter, Epistle of, 192, 193.
Pharao, — type of the devil, 55,

63.
Philo,

silence concerning Christian-
ity, 179.

Messianic idea of, 81.

Logos-conception of, 166-168.
Pietism, 22, 23, 334, 335.
Pistis Sophia, 387.
Plan of salvation, 35, 36.
Pompey, 68.
Port-Koyalists, 333.
Poverty, 352.
Priene-inscription, 144.
Prophets,

as soothsayers, 73, 74.

like Moses, 37, 41.

false and true, 73, 74.
Protestant Church, 341 ff.
Protevangel, 36.
Protevangelium Jacobi, 207.
Public utilities, 353.
Purusha, 133
Pythagoreanism, 255.

Quakerism, 22, 333, 334, 364.
Quirinius, 241.

Rachel's lament, 49.
Racine, Jean, 333.
Rationalism, 23, 24, 337.
Resurrection in general,

Pharisaic view of, 283.

Essene view of, 255.

Jesus' view of, 125, 255, 283,
384.

of prophets, 46.

of John the Baptist, 320.

of descendant of David, 83.

of many when Jesus died,
320.

not necessarily on last day,
320.

Resurrection of Jesus,

not predicted by him, 126.
not prophesied in the Scrip-
tures, 42, 45, 320 f.
not historical, 320, 321, 392-

398.
not believed because of empty

tomb, 393.
not believed because of vis-
ions, 397.
believed because the Scrip-
tures suggested, mythology
allowed, and love demanded
it, 320, 321, 397, 398.
Revelation of John, 184.
of Peter, 183.
of Paul, 183.
Revenants, 46, 83, 321.
Ritschlian School, 4, 27.
Rizzetto, Antonio, 137.
Roman Catholic Church, 340 f .
Royalist psalms, 43 f .

Sabellians, 136.

Sabbath, 54, 62, 95, 108, 109, 110,

111, 133, 269, 270, 313.
Sacraments, 53, 316.
Sacred days, 61, 62.
Sadducees, 182, 282, 283, 286,

289.
Samaritan in Tirathana, 87.
Samaritan Messiah, 87.
Samaritans called Sebastenes, 81.
Saoshyas, 80, 93.
Sarah 53, 57.
Sattler, Michael, 137.
Saturnalia, 62.

Science and the Church, 346 ff.
Scriptures,

authority of, 6.

known to Jesus, 252 f .

criticised by Jesus, 272, 273,
275, 278 f., 282, 300 f.,
302, 304 f., 314, 318.
Servant of Yahwe, 48.
Segga, Francesco, 137, 390.

406

INDEX

Sheahbazzar, 47, 69.

Shiloh, 37, 41.

Sibylline oracles, 76 f., 80 f.

Sige, 170.

Simon, the high-priest, 77.

Simon bar Kozeba, 82, 88, 116,

217.
Simon Magus, 81, 87, 211.
Sinai, 62.
Sin-apal-uzur, 47.
Slavery, 323, 351, 353.
Socrates and his School, 164.
Socialism, 32, 349, 350, 351, 354.
Society of Jesus, 321-323.
Socinianism, 22.
Son of David, 68.
Son of God,

second person in Trinity, 135.

figure of speech, 138 f ., 141.

by physical birth, 143.

by accession to throne, 143,
144.

by translation or resurrec-
tion, 146.

known to the demons, 148 f .

alone knows the Father,
151 f.

not used at Caesarea, 149.

not used at the trial, 149 f .

not used by centurion, 150.

used by Jesus only in ethical
sense, 141.

not used by Jesus of him-
silf, 151, 152-154.
Son of Man,

in Ezekiel, 99.

in Daniel, 100, 116 f.

in Enoch, 110, 111.

in Jerome's gospel, 113.

in Canonical gospels, 121 ff.

not humanity by incarnation,
94.

not equivalent to "this
man," 95.

not ideal humanity, 96 f.

not lowly humanity, 97 f .

not Messianic title, 98.

not used by Jesus in Greek,

130 f.
not created by Jesus in Ara-
maic, 99.
translation of bar nasha,

95 ff.
used by Jesus only in generic

sense, 104 ff.
not used by Paul, 113.
not used in Eevelation, 113.
not created by the evangel-
ists, 102.
introduced through Greek
version of Synoptic Apo-
calypse, 103, 105.
misunderstood in Greek ren-
dering, 105.
fashioned into title, 105.
fused with Daniel's angel,

132.
fused with Gnostic ideas,

132 f.
made Jesus' self -designation,

133.
substituted for other ex-
pressions, 122 f.
variously rendered in Ara-
maic versions, 127 f., 130.
Star of Bethlehem, 242, 244.
Stoicism, 160, 165 f., 323.
Sunday, 62, 66.

Symbolic interpretation, 335-337.
Symbolum Nicaenum, 17.
Synoptic Apocalypse, 86, 184.
Synoptic Gospels, 217 ff., 230 ff.,
232-259.

Tabernacles, feast of, 61, 214.

Tammuz, 14.

Ta'eb, 87.

Talmud on Jesus, 181-183.

Taxon, possibly Jehudah ben

Baba, 82.
Teaching of Jesus,

on the kingdom of heaven,

INDEX

407

295-300, 308 f ., 382.
on the inner rectitude, 300 f.
on overcoming evil with

good, 281, 285, 301, 364.
on the slaying of enemies,

300 f.
on the treatment of crimin-
als, 301 f., 365 ff.
on oath-taking, 302 f ., 368 f .
on royalty and authority,

303 f ., 366 f .,
on marriage and divorce, 304,

369 ff.
on celibacy, 304, 372.
on private wealth, 305, 307,

374-378.
on sharing and lending, 305,

307, 315 f ., 376.
on the law of increase, 307.
on the law of compensation,

311.
on the Perfect Being, 310-

313, 383.
on the divine method, 311.
on the survival of the worth-
iest, 312, 382.
on ablutions, 275, 313, 379.
on tabus, 275, 313.
on Sabbath-keeping, 269, 313,

379.
on the sacrificial cult, 282,

313, 378, 383.
on public prayer, 313 f., 379.
on public fasting, 269, 314 f .
on public almsgiving, 315 f.
on taxation for religious

purposes, 279, 379.
on asceticism, 269, 369.
not meant for a millennium,

305.
not provisional, 307 f .
not impracticable, 309 f .
neglected in the Ecumenic

creeds, 293 f.
neglected by N. T. writers,
294 f.

helpful at the present time,
355, 360 ff.
Theodotion, 16.
Theodotians, 136.
Theologia Germanica, 18.
Therapeutae, 323.
Theudas, 87.
Tiamat, 118.
Tiridates, 246.
Tiziano, 137.
Travels of Peter, 185.
Travels of Paul, 185.
Travels of James, 185.
Travels of John, 185.
Two natures, 173.
Two-source theory, 227 ff.
Two Ways, the, 183.
Tubingen School, 24, 26, 141,

184 f., 196.
Typology, 35 f ., 52-67.

Unitarianism, 4, 22.

Cf. Baptists
Universalism, 22.

Cf. Baptists
Upanishads, 347.
Urim and Thummim, 60.

Vahu Mano, 45.

Virgin birth, 38, 46 f., 135, 137,

139, 249, 250, 251.
Virgin Mary cult, 325.

Waldenses, 136.

War, 32, 330 ff., 334, 350 ff., 354,

357, 358.
We-source in Acts, 186, 226.
Weeks, feast of, 54, 62.
Williams, Boger, 22.
Wisdom, book of, 81.
"Wisdom of God," 14, 85, 86,

184, 232.
Wolfenbiittler Fragmente, 22.
Woman 's emancipation, 353 f .,

370, 374.

408

INDEX

Yah we 's son, the king, 143.
Yaldabaoth, 82.

Zealots, 87.

Zechariah, son of Barachiah, 86,
185, 232.

Zechariah 's ' ' Messianic ' ' prophe-
cies, 39, 50 f.
Zerubbabel, 47, 50, 69 f .
Zir Amiluti, 119.
Zoe and Logos, 170.
Zoroastrian influence, 387.
Zwingli, estimate of, 326-328.

II. INDEX TO AUTHOES

Aal, Anathon, 163, 164, 166, 172.

Abbott, Ezra, 14.

Alford, Henry, 14.

Anaxagoras, 164.

Anz, W., 388.

Appel, H., 94.

Apuleius, 174.

Aristides, 183.

Aristo of Pella, 183.

Arnold, Gottfried, 334, 387.

Arrian, 60, 175.

Athanasius, 160, 172.

Athenagoras, 171, 183.

Augustine, 175.

Bacher, Wilhelm, 88.
Bacon, Benjamin Wisner, 208.
Baethgen, Friedrich, 83.
Baldensperger, Wilhelm, 29, 98,

106, 115.
Ballenstedt, G., 25.
Bardt, Karl Friedrich, 23.
Barnabas, 187.
Baudissin, Wolf, 83.
Bauer, Bruno, 22, 24, 101 f., 141,

167, 175, 185, 195 f., 202,

207.
Baur, Ferdinand Christian, 24,

97 f., 101, 141, 184, 194 f.,

196, 207, 387.
Beck, J. T., 25.
Beer, Georg, 45, 79.
Benrath, Karl, 137.
Benzinger, Immanuel, 55.
Berkeley, George, 346.
Bertholdt, Ludwig, 91, 107.

Beurlier, E., 144.
Bevan, Anthony Ashley, 106, 114.
Beyschlag, Wilhelm, 97.
Beza, Theodor, 96.
Blount, Charles, 21.
Blumenbach, J. F., 25.
Bolingbroke, Henry St. John, 21.
Bolten, Johann Adrian, 95 f.
Bonfrere, Jacques, 20.
Bostrom, Jakob, 27, 347.
Bousset, Wilhelm, 13 f., 63, 81,

88, 129 f ., 212, 323.
Bruston, C, 44.
Brahe, Tycho, 21.
Brandt, Wilhelm, 30, 60, 103, 150,

152, 252, 260, 389, 395.
Breasted, James H., 162.
Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb, 101,

207.
Briggs, Charles Augustus, 27, 81.
Bruce, James, 117.
Bruckner, W., 100.
Bruins, J. A., 103, 197.
Bruno, Giordano, 21, 140.
Budde, Karl, 48.
Buffon, G. L. L., 25.
Bunsen, C. K. J., 387.

Caldecott, W. Shaw, 61.

Calvin, John, 18, 189.

Cantu, Cesare, 136.

Carlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein,

20, 193.
Carpenter, J. Estlin, 100.
Cary, G. L., 99.
Cassel, Paul, 250.

INDEX

409

Cassels, W. E., 27, 208.

Castelli, E., 61.

Cellarius, Martin, 137.

Celsus, 12, 16, 90, 145, 179, 190,

208.
Charles, E. H., 30, 79, 81 f., 99,

106, 116.
Chateillon, Sebastian, 77, 328.
Chemnitz, Martin, 189.
Cheyne, Thomas Kelley, 27, 42,

45, 47, 72, 243, 256, 257, 271.
Chrysippus, 165.
Cleanthes, 165.
Clemen, Carl, 106, 120.
Clement of Alexandria, 105, 171,

205.
Clement of Eome, 187, 188.
Colani, T., 27.
Collins, Anthony, 21.
Comba, Emilio, 19, 137, 160, 207.
Conybeare, C. F., 148, 323.
Cone, Orello, 103.
Copernicus, Nicolas, 21.
Cureton, William, 189.
Curione, Celio Secundo, 137.
Cyprian, 259.

Dallaeus, Johannes, 189.
Dalman, Gustaf, 90, 106, 114 f.,

144 f ., 151, 250, 297, 309.
Darwin, Charles, 25.
Davidson, Samuel, 27.
Deissmann, G. A., 144.
Delff, Hugo, 388.
Denck, Hans, 19, 137 f., 139 f.,

328 f., 391.
Denifle, F. H. S., 327.
De Wette, W. M. L., 24, 193, 196.
Diderot, Denis, 23.
Dieterieh, A., 83, 246.
Dillmann, August, v, 25, S3.
Dio Cassius, 246.
Dio Chrysostom, 175, 323.
Diodorus Siculus, 55.
Dionysius of Corinth, 187.
Dippel, Conrad, 22, 335.

Dodge, Ebenezer, v.
Driver, Samuel E., 106, 122, 130 f.
Drummond, James, 106, 120, 144.
Duhm, Bernhard, 28, 42, 44, 50,

76 f.,
Dulk, Albert, 32.

Edelmann, August, 22, 140, 335.
Eerdmans, B. D., 30, 104, 105.
Eichhorn, Albert, 284.
Eichhorn, J. G., 25, 193, 199, 247.
Eliezer, Eabbi, 182.
Emerson, Ealph Waldo, 24, 347.
Empedocles, 164.
Epictetus, 175.

Epiphanius, 82 f ., 160, 250, 260.
Erasmus, Desiderius, 18, 138.
Eusebius, 88, 181, 218, 257.
Evanson, E., 193, 196, 207.
Ewald, Heinrich, 25, 151.

Fairbairn, Patrick, 53.
Fenelon, Francois, 22.
Fichte, Immanuel Hermann, 346.
Fiebig, Paul, 106, 128.
Flacius, Matthias, 189.
Flemming, J., 116.
Freytag, G. A., 212.
Friedlander, M., 388.
Fries, Samuel, 208, 211.
Fritzsche, K. F. A., 96.

Galilei, Galileo, 21.
Geiger, Abraham, 48, 80.
Genebrard, Gilbert, 95..
George, J. F. L., 24.
George, the Sinner, 210.
Gerlach, E., 181.
Gfrorer, A. F., 163.
Gibbon, Edward, 323.
Gieseler, J. K. L., 180.
Ginzel, Friedrich Karl, 292.
Ginzberg, Louis, 83.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang, 23.
Graf, Karl Heinrich, 26..
Gramberg, C. P. W., 24.

410

INDEX

Grill, Julius, 50, 163, 169, 208,

389.
Grossmann, C. G. L., 168.
Grotius, Hugo, 95, 138, 193.
Gunkel, Hermann, 63, 106, 118,

184.
Guyon, Jeanne Marie, 22.

Hackmann, H., 47.

Haeckel, Ernst, 25.

Hadrian, 178.

Halevy, Joseph, 242.

Harnack, Adolph, 13, 105, 113,

175, 184, 193, 206 f., 208,

212, 250, 388, 394.
Harper, Eobert Francis, 370.
Harris, J. Kendel, 250.
Hartmann, Eduard, 347.
Hase, Karl, 26.
Hasenclever, A. H. F., 176.
Hausrath, Karl, 87, 99.
Havernick, K. F., 25.
Heath, Eichard, 19.
Heberle, K., 137.
Hegel, G. W. F., 24, 336, 346.
Hegesippus, 183, 188.
Hengstenberg, E. W., 25, 53.
Henke, C. F., 25.
Heinrici, G., 387.
Heinze, J. M., 163.
Heracleon, 208.
Heraclitus, 160, 163, 164.
Herbert of Cherbury, 140.
Herder, J. G., 23, 96.
Herrmann, Wilhelm, 27.
Hermas, 183, 184.
Herodotus, 55.
Heuzey, Leon, 55.
Hilgenfeld, Adolph, 26, 77, 98,

106, 113, 127, 196, 207, 241,

387.
Hilgenfeld, Eudolph, 241.
Hillmann, J., 148, 250.
Hippolytus, 171, 388.
Hitzig, Ferdinand, 100.
Hoekstra, S., 100.

Hofmann, J. C. K., 25, 100.
Hollmann, G., 196.
Holsten, Karl, 98, 195, 196.
Holtzmann, H. J., 13, 97, 101 f .,

123, 196, 207, 258.
Holtzmann, Oskar, 13, 259.
Hommel, Fritz, 57, 119.
Honig, W., 388.
Horst, G. C, 207, 336.
Hort, F. J. A., 13, 14.
Houbigant, Charles Francois, 21,

138.
Hubmaier, Balthasar, 19, 328.
Hulsius, Anton, 52.
Hume, David, 21.
Huxley, Thomas, 25.
Huyghens, Christian, 21.

Ibn Ezra, Abraham, 18, 100.
Ibn Hisham, 71.
Ignatius, 170, 187-191.
Ilgen, D. F., 140.
Irenaeus, 171, 208, 242.

Jacobsen, August, 102.
Jansen, Cornelius, 333.
Jehudah, Eabbi, 181.
Jensen, Peter, 56, 82.
Jeremias, Alfred, 119.
Jerome, 113, 175, 205, 259.
Joel, Marcus, 182, 197.
Joris, David, 138.
Jose bar Zabda, 181.
Josephus, 31, 86 f., 179 f., 181,

241, 252, 258, 303 f., 318.
Jiilicher, A., 123, 124, 152.
Julius Afrieanus, 88.
Justin Martyr, 90, 171, 183, 290.
Justus of Tiberius, 181.
Juvenal, 175.

Kalthoff, A., 197.

Kant, Immanuel, 23, 336, 347.

Keil, C. F., 25.

Keim, Theodor, 26, 137, 181, 242.

Keller, Ludwig, 19.

INDEX

411

Kepler, Johann, 244, 245.
Kirkegaard, Soren, 27.
Kittel, Eudolph, 68.
Klopper, A., 106, 120, 151.
Koch, A. (Opsopaeus), 77.
Kohler, Kaufmann, 155.
Kreyenbiihl, Johannes, 208, 211,

388.
Krop, E. J., 106, 117.
Kuenen, Abraham, 26, 28, 74.
Kuinoel, C. T., 96.

Lagarde, Paul de, 30, 103, 104.
Lamarck, J. B. P. A., 25.
Lawrence, Bichard, 117.
Leclerc, Jean, 22.
Lessing, G. E., 22 f.
Levy, Jacob, 91.
Lewald, J. K. A., 387.
Lietzmann, Hans, 30, 105, 114,

116.
Lightfoot, G. B., 194.
Lindgren, H. G., 27.
Lipsius, Bichard A., 83, 105, 387.
Locke, John, 22, 140.
Loman, A. D., 181, 185, 197.
Lubieniecky, Stanislas, 390.
Lucian of Samosata, 179, 190.
Lucius, P., 255.
Ludolph, Senior, 136.
Luther, Martin, 18, 326, 327.
Lyra, Nicolas de, 94.

Madden, F. W., 88.
Malalas, Johannes 190.
Manchot, C. H., 175.
Manelfi, 136, 137.
Marcion, 15, 112, 193.
Marcus Aurelius, 178, 190.
Marquart, J., 77, 246.
Marti, Karl, 47, 77, 106, 110.
Massebieau, L., 323.
Massuet, Bene, 387.
Matthes, J. C, 33, 74, 197.
Mayerhoff, L., 194, 197.
Mead, G. B. S., 387.

Megethius, 105.

Menzies, Allan, 131.

Merx, Adalbert, 91, 147, 150, 248,

306.
Meyboom, H. U., 197.
Meyer, Arnold, 30, 105, 106.
Meyer, Eduard, 70.
Michaelis, Johann David, 23.
Minucius Felix, 190.
Moore, George Foote, 61.
Morin, Jean, 20.
Mosheim, Johann Lorenz, 387.
Miiller, Herrmann, 24.
Minister, Sebastian, 138.
Muss-Arnolt, W., 60.
Myrberg, O. F., 27.

Neander, August, 25, 96.
Nestle, Eberhard, 14.
Newman, A. H., 19.
Newton, Isaac, 21.
Nicole, Pierre, 333.
Niese, Benedict, 181, 258.
Noldeke, Theodor, 26, 106.
Nosgen, C. F., 99.
Noyes, George B., 24.

Oefele, Felix, 244.

Ohle, E., 255.

Olshausen, Justus, 42.

Oort, H. L., 103.

Origen, 82, 145, 171.

Overbeck, Franz Camillo, 178.

Paine, Thomas, 23.
Palfrey, John G., 24.
Papias, 183.
Parker, Theodore, 24.
Parmenides, 163.
Pascal, Blaise, 333.
Paulus, H. E. G., 23, 96.
Peiser, F. E., 50.
Penn, William, 22.
Pereira, Bento, 20.
Peritz, Ismar, 370.
Pfleiderer, Erich, 164.

412

INDEX

Pfleiderer, Otto, 26, 106, 184 f.,
196, 202, 208, 246, 323.

Philo, 31, 55, 81, 146, 160, 162,
164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169,
179, 249, 304, 323.

Philaster, 160.

Photius, 181.

Pierson, Allard, 74, 197.

Piscator, Johannes, 21, 138.

Plato, 160, 164, 165.

Pliny the Younger, 175, 192, 195.

Ploss, H. H, 55.

Polycarp, 189, 191, 194.

Polycrates, 210.

Porphyry, 12, 16.

Porter, Frank C., 47.

Preuschen, Erwin, 80.

Ptolemy, 15.

Quadratus, 183.

Rab Abina, 181.
Rab Jose, 181.
Ramsay, William M., 241.
Reimarus, Hermann Samuel, 22.
Reinach, Solomon, 181.
Renan, Ernest, 29.
Renato, Camillo, 137.
Reville, Albert, 30, 207.
Reville, Jean, 163, 169, 208.
Rhees, Rush, 105, 115.
Ritschl, Albrecht, 27, 102.
Roehrich, G. G., 139.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 23.
Rydberg, Viktor, v, 27, 101.

Sand, Christoph, 390.
Sanday, William, 130 f ., 263.
Scaliger, Joseph, 189.
Schaff, Philip, 14.
Schechter, Solomon, 90.
Schelling, F. W. J., 346, 347.
Schenkel, Daniel, 14.
Schleiermacher, F. E. D., 24, 96,

193.
Schmidt, Carl, 387.

Schmidt, J. G. C, 193, 196.
Schmiedel, Paul, 106, 109 f.,

112 f., 177, 208, 393, 396.
Sehmoller, Otto, 32.
Sehueckenburger, Matthias, 60
Sehnedermann, G. H., 99.
Scholten, J. H., 26, 207.
Scholten, W., 98.
Schopenhauer, Arthur, 347.
Sehulz, David, 13.
Schiirer, Emil, 164, 181, 241, 258.
Schuster, Paul, 164.
Schurmann, Anna Maria van, 22.
Schwegler, Albert, 25, 193, 207.
Schweizer, Alexander, 212.
Scrivener, F. H. J., 14.
Sellin, Ernst, 47.
Semler, Johann Salomo, 13, 23,

175, 193, 199, 387.
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus, 174.

198 f ., 328.
Serapion of Antioch, 206.
Servetus, Michael, 20, 137 f.,

139 f ., 328, 330, 391.
Siegfried, Karl, 163, 167.
Simon, Richard, 21.
Smith, Adam, 323.
Smith, W. B., 197.
Smith, William Robertson, 27,

29, 71.
Soderblom, Nathan, 80, 317.
Soulier, A., 163, 168.
Sozzini, Lelio, 137, 390, 391.
Sozzini, Fausto, 140.
Spallanzani, Lazaro, 25.
Spencer, Herbert, 25.
Spener, Jakob, 22.
Spinoza, Baruch, 22, 335.
Spitta, Friedrich, 208.
Stade, Bernhard, 28, 47, 59, 76.
Staerk, Willy, 106.
Stave, Erik, 45.
Steindorff, Georg, 55.
Steck, Rudolph, 176, 185, 194,

196, 197.
Stevens, George B., 106, 120.

INDEX

413

Storr, G. C, 101.

Straatman, J. W., 199, 395 f .

Strabo, 55.

Strauss, David Friedrich, 24, 85,

98, 207, 387.
Suetonius, 177, 178.

Tacitus, 176, 177, 178.

Tatian, 171, 183, 208.

Tauler, Johann, 18.

Tertullian, 105, 171, 241.

Trajan, 176.

Tregelles, S. P., 13.

Thales, 163.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, 150.

Theodotion, 16.

Theophilus of Antioch, 171, 208.

Thoma, A., 208.

Thomas a, Kempis, 18.

Tiele, C. P., 45.

Tischendorf, A. F. C, 14.

Toland, John, 21, 140.

Tolstoi, Leo, 317.

Torrey, C. C, 73.

Toy, C. H., 27.

Treschel, Friedrich, 390.

Turner, C. H., 241.

ITloth, C. E. B., 104.
Usener, Hermann, 56, 246, 249.
Usteri, J. M., 99.
Usteri, L., 193.

Valdez, Juan, 138.

Valentinus, 15, 29, 170, 208, 211,

389.
Van Loon, F., 197.
Van Manen, W. C, 103, 106, 113,

175, 185, 186, 195, 196, 197,

199, 200, 208.
Vatablus, F., 138.
Vatke, Wilhelm, 24.
Vermigli, Pietro, 138.
Vernes, Maurice, 77.

Vischer, Eberhard, 184.

Volter, Daniel, 250.

Volkmar, Gustav, 30, 102 f ., 181,

191, 257.
Vollborth, J. C, 387.
Voltaire, F. M. A., 23.
Volz, Paul, 47.

Weinel, Heinrich, 71.

Weiss, Bernhard, 13, 98.

Weiss, Johannes, 32, 104.

Weisse, C. H., 26, 96 f ., 101, 212.

Weizsacker, Carl, 26, 99, 208.

Wellhausen, Julius, 28, 44, 50, 72,
82, 104 f ., 106, 108, 112, 114,
150, 184 f ., 243, 317.

Wendland, P., 323.

Wendt, Heinrich, 98, 212.

Wernle, Paul, 123.

Westcott, B. F., 13.

Westerburg, E., 175.

Whiston, William, 140.

White, Andrew D., 34.

Whiton, James M., x.

Wieseler, K. G., 180.

Wikner, Pontus, 27.

Wilamowitz-Moellendorf, Ulrich,
64.

Wilke, C. G., 101.

Williams, Eowland, 27.

Willrich, Hugo, 50.

Winckler, Hugo, 57, 65.

Wiszowazzi, Andreas, 390.

Wittichen, Carl, 99.

Wolf, Christian, 23.

Woolston, Thomas, 21.

Wrede, Wilhelm, 30, 103, 149, 196.

Xenophanes, 163.

Zeller, Eduard, 25, 255.
Zeno, 165.

Zinzendorf, Nicholas, 22, 23.
Zwingli, Ulrich, 18,

414

INDEX

HI. INDEX OF TEXTS

Genesis

i, 2

.65

iii, 15 36, 39

iv, 3 58

vi, Iff 78, 142 f.

vii, Iff 53

ix, 25-27 37, 39 f.

xiv, Iff 57

xv, 17 54, 63

xvii, Iff 53

xvii, 3 37, 40, 41

xxii, Iff 54

xxviii, Iff 54

xxxv, 14 71

xxxviii, 13 .71

xlix, 10 37, 41, 80

Exodus

iii, 2, 55, 63

iv, 22 154

vii, 16 62

x, 25 ff 62

xi, 1-8 62

xii, Iff 53

xiv, 21 ff 53

xvi, Iff 53

xvii, Iff 53

xxv, 9 65

Leviticus

xix, 12, 302

xx, 10 373

xxiv, 18 301

xxiv, 20 301

Numbers

xxiv, 17 37, 41, 80, 88, 246

Deuteronomy

i, 31 154

viii, 5 154

xiv, 1 154

xviii, 15 37, 41

xxii, 22 ff 373

xxiii, 19, 20 305

xxxii, 6 154

xxxii, 8 143

Judges

viii, 27 .61

I Samuel

ii, 25 95

x, 2 49

x, 9 143

xiv, 10 71

xvi, 13 71

II Samuel

vii, 2ff 44, 69, 72

xiv, 17 43

xiv, 20 43

II Kings

xix, 15 71

Isaiah

i, 2 154

ii, Iff 38

vii, 14 38, 46, 249

viii, 23 38, 92

ix, Iff 243

ix, 5 ff . . .38, 43, 47, 70, 74, 80

ix, 6 144

xi, Iff 38, 70, 74

xix, 16-25 76

xxiv-xxvii 77

xxx, 1 154

xiv, 3 140

xlix-lv 74

xlix, 16 65

Iii, 13-liii, 12 .....38, 48

liii, 7 56, 92

liii, 9 398

lix, 20 38, 48

Ix, 1 ff 246

lxi, Iff 38, 48

lxiv, 8 154

Jeremiah

iii, 4 154

iii, 19 154

ix, 25 55

xxiii, 5, 6 38, 48

xxx, 8 74

xxxi, 9 154

xxxi, 15 38, 49

INDEX

415

xxxi, 22 38, 49, 38

xxxi, 31 38, 49

EZEKIEL

xi, 10 38, 49

xvii, 22 38, 74

xxi, 32 38, 49

xxxiii, 15 38, 49

xxxiv, 23, 24 38

xxxvii, 24 ff 38

xl, Iff 55, 63

HOSEA

ii, 1 154

vi, 2 38, 45, 321

xi, 1 38, 45, 247

Joel

iii, 1 38, 45 f.

Amos
ix, 11 ff 46, 74

Obadiah

vs. 18 38, 46

Jonah

i, 11 ff 38, 46

ii, 1 321

MlCAH

iv-vii 46

v, 1 246

v, 1, 2 38

v, 2 46

Haggai

ii, 7 39, 50

ii, 23 74

Zechariah

i, 6 74

iii, 7 71

iii, 8 39, 50

iv, 6 ff 74

iv, 14 71

vi, 12 39

ix, 9 39, 50, 138

xi, 12 39

xii, 10 91

xiii, 7 39, 50

Malachi

iii, 1 39, 51, 61, 63

Psalms

ii, Iff 37, 43, 44, 72

viii, Iff 37, 42

xvi, Iff 37, 42

xvi, 8-11 320

xviii, Iff 43

xx, 1 ff 43

xxi, Iff 37, 43

xxii, Iff 37, 42

xxiv, Iff 37, 42

xl, Iff 37, 42, 43

xli, 10 37, 43

xlv, Iff 37, 43, 44, 72

1, Iff 255

lvii, 2 43

lxi, Iff. 43

lxiii, Iff 43

lxv, Iff 255

lxviii, 19 37, 43

lxxii, Iff 37, 44, 45, 72

lxxiii, 15 154

lxxxii, Iff 43

lxxxiv, Iff 43

lxxxix, Iff 43, 44

ex, Iff 37,43, 44, 77, 80

cxviii, 22 37, 43

exxxii, Iff 43

Proverbs

viii, 22 ff 38, 45

Job
xix, 25, 26 37, 41, 42

Canticles

i, Iff 38, 45

Ecclesiastes

i, Iff. 81

Esther

vi, 14 155

Daniel

iii, 25 119

vii, 13. .38, 50, 85, 97, 100, 115,

118, 119, 128, 132

viii, 15 119

ix, 21 119

ix, 24-27 38, 50

x, 5 119, 138

416

INDEX

x, 16 119

xii, 6, 7 119, 138

Nehemiah

vi, 7 72

I Maccabees

xiv, 41 44

xiv, 46 77

II Maccabees

ii, 5ff 87

III Maccabees

vi, 28 155

ECCLESIASTICUS

iv, 11 154

xxiii, Iff 154

xlvii, 11 68

xlviii, 10 75

li, Iff 152

li, 12 (Hebrew addition),. ..90

Wisdom of Solomon

ii, 18 154

v, 5 147

xviii, 13 155

Judith

ix, 4 155

Enoch (Ethiopic)

i-xxxvi 78

xxxvii-lxxi..30, 84, 85, 86, 92,

125, 132, 192

xxxvii, Iff 85

xxxviii, Iff 85

xxxix, 1, 2a 85

xxxix, 3-13 85

xl, Iff 85

xli, 1, 2 85

xli, 3-8 .85

xlii, Iff 85

xliii, Iff 85

xliv, Iff 85

xiv, 3, 4 85

xlvi, Iff 85, 117

xlvi, 2, 3, 4 101

xlvi, 3 85, 119

xlvi, 2, 5, 6 85

xlvii, Iff 85

xlviii, Iff 85

xlviii, 2 101

xlviii, 8-10 85

1, Iff 85

li, Iff 85

liii, 1-5 85

liii, 6 85

liv, 1-6, 7 85

lv, 2, 3, 4 85

lvi, Iff 85

lvii, Iff 85

lviii, Iff 85

Ix, Iff 85

Ixi, 8, 9 .85

lxii, Iff 85

lxii, 7, 9, 14 101

lxiii, Iff 85

lxiii, 11 101

lxv, 1-lxix, 25 85

lxix, 26 f., 29 101

lxix, 26 ff 85

lxx, Iff 85

Ixxi, Iff 85

Ixxi, Iff 101

lxxxvii-xc 78

lxxxvii, 2 .119

lxxxix, 52 78

xc, 38 79

xci, 12-19 79

xci-civ 79

xciii, 3 ff 79

ev, 2 144

Enoch (Slavonic)

lix, 2 81

Apocalypse of Baritch

vi, Iff 87

xxix, 3 83

xxx, 1 83

xxxix, 7 83

xl, 3 83

lxxii, 2-6 83

Apocalypse of Ezba

v, 56 84

vi, 6 84

vi, 58 155

vii, 28 ff :83, 144

INDEX

417

ix, 43 ff 84

x, 44 ff 84

xii, 31 ff 84

xii, 32, 37, 52 144

xiii, Iff 84, 101, 117

xiv, 9 145

Jubilees

xxxi, 18 82

Testaments of the Twelve

Patriarchs

Dan. vi, Iff 82

Assumption of Moses

i, 6 82

ix, Iff 82

x, 27 155

Psalter of Solomon

vii, 30 155

xvii, 4 89

xvii, 5 89

xvii, 21 89

xvii, 36 68

Sibylline Oracles

III, 46-62 80

III, 47, 48 81

III, 75-92 80

III, 286 77

III, 652-660 76, 77

III, 702 155

Matthew

i, Iff 69, 89

i, 1-17 247

i, 6, 317

i, 16 248

i, 18-ii, 23 249

ii, Iff 243

ii, 6 246

ii, 247

ii, 23 243

i", 17 146

iv, Iff 148

iv, 3-6 146

iv, 1-11 262

iv, 1-17 298

v, 9 146, 155

v, 11 123

v, 27-30 372

v, 32 304

v, 45 155, 268

v, 48 313

vi, 1-4 316

vi, 5 311

vi, 5-8 314

vi, 9ff 153

vi, 14 317

vi, 16-18 314

vi, 22 ff 301

vi, 33 299

vi, 42 305

vii, 11 155, 313

vii, 17 ff 300

viii, 5ff 267

viii, 20 105, 111, 121, 124

ix, 6 95, 121, 125, 268

ix, 9-13 268

ix, 14-17 269

ix, 16 f 314

x, 23 96, 121, 122

x, 32 123

xi, Iff 270

xi, 2ff 261, 266

xi, 7ff 267

xi, 9 105

xi, 19 121, 124, 269

xi, 25 ff 151

xi, 27 146

xii, Iff 270

xii, 8 94, 121, 125

xii, 27 264

xii, 28 265

xii, 32. . .95, 105, 112, 121, 124

xii, 40 121, 124, 321

xii, 46 321

xiii, Iff 308

xiii, 31 f 308

xiii, 33 308

xiii, 37-41 121 f.

xiii, 47 ff 308

xiv, 2 266, 320

xiv, 3 258

xiv, 33 146

xvi, 13 94

xvi, 13, 14 46, 112, 113, 320

418

INDEX

xvi, 13-20 121 f.

xvi, 16 146, 148

xvi, 27 121, 125

xvi, 28 121 f.

xvii, Iff 148

xvii, 5 146

xvii, 9 121

xvii, 10-13 124

xvii, 12 121, 125

xvii, 22 121, 125

xviii, 11 123

xviii, 18 107

xix, 9 304

xix, 10-12 372

xix, 11 f 304

xix, 18 ff 317

xix, 28 f 121, 123

xx, 1-16 311

xx, 18 121, 125

xx, 28 121, 124

xxi, 12 ff 306

xxi, 33-46 152, 312

xxii, 1-14 152

xxii, 41-46 89

xxiii, 8ff. 155

xxiii, 37 ff 86

xxiv, 4-36 86, 102, 184

xxiv, 24 f 88

xxiv, 27 121, 124

xxiv, 30 121, 123, 124

xxiv, 36 146, 147

xxiv, 37 121, 124

xxiv, 39 121, 124

xxiv, 44 121, 124

xxv, 14 ff 307

xxv, 31 ff 86, 121, 123

xxvi, 2 121, 123

xxvi, 24 121, 124, 125

xxvi, 45 121, 124

xxvi, 50 123

xxvi, 52 306

xxvi, 63 146

xxvi, 64 121, 125

xxvii, 7 147

xxvii, 9 124

xxvii, 30 125

xxvii, 40 146

xxvii, 52 f 320

xxvii, 54 146

xxviii, 1 321

xxviii, 1-8 394

xxviii, 1-20 394 f.

xxviii, 4 395

xxviii, 7 393

xxviii, 16 392

xxviii, 16-20 392

xxviii, 19 146

Mark

i, 1 146 f.

i, 11 146

ii, 10 105, 107, 121, 125

ii, 13-17 268

ii, 23 ff 108, 270

ii, 26 270

ii, 28 95, 105, 121, 125

iii, 11 146, 148

iii, 13 ff 270

iv, 26-29 309

v, 7 146, 148

vi, 3ff 251

vi, 14-16 320

vi, 15 320

vi, 17 258

viii, 28 320

viii, 31 121, 124

viii, 38 121, 125, 128

ix, 1 122

ix, 7 146

ix, 8 124

ix, 9 121

ix, 11-13 118, 124

ix, 12 121

ix, 31 121, 125

x, 11, 12 304

x, 23 125

x, 29 123

x, 33 121

x, 45 121, 124

xii, Iff 312

xii, 26 f 118

xii, 35-37 89

xiii, 5-32 86, 102, 184

INDEX

419

xiii, 26 106, 121, 125

xiii, 32 147

xiv, If 123

xiv, 21 118, 121, 124, 125

xiv, 41 121, 124

xiv, 61 146

xiv, 62 121, 125

xv, 39 146, 150

xvi, 1-8 394

xvi, 9-20 392, 394

Luke

i, 5 241

i, 5-25 250

i, 32 ff 146, 148

i, 34, 35 146, 250

i, 41 250

i, 46-55 250

i, 57-80 250

ii, 2 241

ii, 8ff 247

ii, 39 247

ii, 41-51 251

iii, 1 241, 256

iii, 19 f 258

iii, 22 146, 148

iii, 23 250

iii, 23 ff 69

iii, 28-38 247

iii, 38 146, 147

iv, 1-13 262

iv, 3 146

iv, 9 146

iv, 16-30 263

iv, 25-27 312

v, 24 121, 125

v, 27-32 268

vi, 5 121, 125

vi, 22 121, 123

vi, 43 ff 300

vii, 1-10 267

vii, 13 ff 270

vii, 34 121, 124, 128

viii, 2 269

viii, 3, 271

viii, 28 146, 148 f.

ix, 2 121

ix, 7-9 320

ix, 8 320

ix, 19 320

ix, 22 124

ix, 26 121, 125, 128

ix, 27 122

ix, 35 146

ix, 44 121, 125

ix, 58 121, 124

x, 21 ff 147, 151

x, 29-37 312

xi, 2ff 153

xi, 30 121, 124

xi, 40 85

xi, 49 184

xii, 8 121, 123

xii, 10 121, 124

xii, 11 f 122

xii, 31 299

xii, 40 121

xii, 46 124

xii, 70 146

xiii, 4 268

xiii, 32 266

xiv, 15-24 152

xv, 3-7 311

xv, 8-10 311

xv, 11 ff 311

xvi, Iff .307

xvii, 10 311

xvii, 20 ff .123, 309

xvii, 22 121

xvii, 24 121, 124

xvii, 26 121, 124

xvii, 30 121, 124

xviii, 8 121, 124

xviii, 9-14 313

xviii, 16 266

xviii, 29 123

xviii, 31 121, 125

xix, 10 121, 123

xix, 11 ff 307

xx, 9ff 312

xx, 27-40 312, 372

xx, 36 145, 156

xx, 41-44 89

420

INDEX

xxi, 8-36 86, 102, 184

xxi, 27 121, 125

xxi, 34-36 121, 123

xxii, If 123

xxii, 18 298

xxii, 22 121, 125

xxii, 24 ff 303

xxii, 27-30 .124

xxii, 28 262

xxii, 36 306

xxii, 48 121, 123, 128

xxii, 69 121, 125

xxii, 70 146

xxiii, 47 150

xxiv, Iff 392

xxiv, 6 393

xxiv, 7 121

xxiv, 16 320

xxvii, 7 123

John

i, 1 159

i, 14 159

i, 18 13, 14, 157

i, 34 157

i, 50 157

i, 51 121

ii, 1 321

ii, 20 242

iii, 13 121

iii, 14 121

iii, 16, 17, 18 157

iii, 35, 36 157

iv, 5ff 87

iv, 23 379

v, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 157

v, 27 .121

vi, 40 157

vi, 53 53, 56, 121

vi, 62 121

vi, 63 56

vi, 69 157

vii, 52-viii, 11 206

viii, 28 121

viii, 35 f 157

viii, 57 157

ix, 35 121

x, 33 ff 158

x, 36 157

xi, 4, 37 157

xii, 23, 34 121

xiii, 31 121, 128

xiv, 13 157

xvi, 1 157

xvii, 11 157

xix, 7 320

xx, Iff. 392

xx, 9 320

xx, 29 158

xx, 31 157

xxi, Iff 392, 393, 395

Acts

ii, 25 ff 320

v, 36 87

vii, 56 113

xiii, 34 ff 320

xvii, 1 196

xviii, If 178

EOMANS

i, Iff 196-204

ix, 11 53, 54

I Corinthians

i, Iff. 196-204

x, 1-4 53, 56

xv, 3-8 395, 397

xv, 4 320, 321

xv, 5-11 200

xv, 20 320

xv, 45-49 53

xv, 49 65

II Corinthians

i, iff 196 ff.

i, 8 380

Galatians

i, Iff 196 ff.

iii, 19 54

iv, 26 ff 62

I Thessalonians

i, Iff 196

II Thessalonians

i, Iff 196

i, 8 380

INDEX

421

Ephesians

i, Iff 193 f., 200 f.

i, 15-17 194

COLOSSIANS

i, 1 ff 194

i, 4 194

Philemon

vs. Iff 194

vss. 4-6 194

Philippians

i, 1 195

iv, 3 195

Titus
i, Iff 193

I Timothy

i, Iff 193

II Timothy

i, Iff 193

Hebrews

i, Iff 193

viii, Iff 53

ix, 13, 14 54

ix, 23, 24 65

ix, 24 54

xi, 10 53

xii, 24 54

I Peter

i, Iff 192

iii, 17 53

II Peter

i, Iff 193

ii, 11 11

I John

i, Iff 192

II John

i, Iff 192

III John

i, Iff 192

James

i, Iff 192

JtTDE

i, Iff 191

Eevelation

i, Iff 184

h 13 113, 119

xi, 1, 2 82

xi-xiii 184

xii, Iff 82, 84

xiv, 14 113, 119

xvii-xviii 184

xviii, 16 258

xix, 13 169

xxi, 10 65

Gospel of Peter

Iff 206, 207

58 ff 392, 394, 395

Gospel op Hebrews

Iff 205, 206, 259, 261

Gospel of Ebionites

Iff 206, 260

Gospel of Egyptians

Iff 206

Gospel of Nicodemus

Iff 207

Protevangelium Jacobi
Iff 207

Logia Jesu

Iff 170, 206

Predicatio Patjli

Iff 259, 260

DlDACHE

Iff. 183, 194, 397

Barnabas

Iff 187

Hermas

Iff 183, 184

Clement

I Epistle 187, 188

II Epistle 188

Homilies 187

Eecognitions 187

Ignatius

Komans, etc 188-191

Polycarp

Philippians 191

Targums

To Exodus xl, 11 91

I Samuel xxiv, 7 149

II Samuel vii, 14 145

Zech. iv, 7 92

422

INDEX

Psalm ii, 7 145

Psalm xviii, 7 149

Canticles iv, 5 91

MlSHNA

Jadiam iv, 6 182

Shabbath i, 3 252

Shemoneh Esreh

14, 15, 17 90

Bereshith Eabba

100 321

Koheleth Eabba

To i, 8 .182

TOSEPHTA

Chullin ii, 24 182

Palestinian Talmud

Shabbath 14 247

Babylonian Talmud

Aboda Zara 16 b 182, 252

Aboda Zara 17 a. .182, 243, 252

Bekoroth 8 a 182

Chullin 27 b 182

Megilla 70 a 246

Menachoth 65 b 182

Sanhedrin 98 b 83

Sanhedrin 107 b 247

Shabbath 104 b 247

Shabbath 116 a 182

Sota 47 a 247

Sukka 52 a 91

Taanith 68 d 88

THE GOSPEL FOR AN AGE OF DOUBT

By HENRY VAN DYKE, D.D., LL.D.

Cloth, 12mo„ $1.25

" Dr. van Dyke's ' Gospel for an Age of Doubt,' which is often called the
finest apologetic of modern times, is constantly coming out in new editions.
It is a book that ought to be in the hands — and heart — of every thoughtful
Christian of the day."— The Interior, Chicago.

" Dr. van Dyke's lectures form one of the most eloquent defences of Chris-
tianity that we have yet met with."— The Academy, London.

" The most vital, suggestive, helpful book we know in the whole range of
theological writing at this period."— The New York Times.

THE GOSPEL FOR A WORLD OF SIN

By HENRY VAN DYKE, D.D., LL.D.

Cloth, 12mo„ $1.25

" His former volume, ' The Gospel for an Age of Doubt,' was but a prepa-
ration for the discussion of this larger and more profoundly interesting sub-
ject. . . . Just the book we need."— Dr. S. B. Rossiter, iV. Y. Observer.

"A book for the times."— Christian Intelligencer.

"Sure to prove of immense value in leading the thought of the day."— Con-
gregationalism

" The work is one to charm and satisfy."— Plain Dealer, Cleveland.

" One of the basic books of true Christian thought of to-day and of all
times." — Boston Courier.

THE QUEST OF HAPPINESS

A Study of Victory Over Life's Troubles

By NEWELL DWIGHT HILLIS

Pastor of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn; Author of " The Influence
of Christ in Modern Life," etc.

Cloth, with colored page borders, $1.50 net

"'The Quest of Happiness' is Dr. Hillis's very best book. It is stroug,
vivid, clear, and has a certain indefinable human quality which will be sure to
give it a large circulation and make it a source of great helpfulness. I especi-
ally enjoyed the ' Forewords.' They would make an attractive volume in
themselves."— Amory H. Bradford, Pastor First Congregational Church,
Montclair, N. J.

" Like everything from Dr. Hillis, ' The Quest of Happiness ' is original
in conception and eloquent in expression. It is a book sure of a wide and
helpful influence. I can scarcely think of any better service that could be
rendered the crowds out in search of happiness than to acquaint them with
this guide-book to the Land they are looking for."— Charles Wood, Second
Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York

FROM EPICURUS TO CHRIST

A Study in the Principles of Personality

By WILLIAM DE WITT HYDE

Cloth, 12mo., $1.50 net
" Pour schools of thought in classic Greece emphasized each a feature of
personality. Christianity takes up into itself all that was sound in each, and
incorporates it, cleared of excess or perversion, into the complete conception.
This in brief is what Dr. Hyde tells us. But let no one imagine that a book
thus concisely described is for students of grizzled antiquity. On the con-
trary, it is intensely, incisely modern. It is the modern representatives of
Epicurus, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, with whom it is concerned, and their mis-
sing of the ideal of personality that it describes and satirizes ; the modern
evils resulting in individual, domestic, social, political life that it exposes and
condemns. Consequently it is alive with present-day interests. In its exposi-
tion of the Christian conception of personality, it holds that the omission of
any truth for which the ancient systems stood mutilates and impoverishes the
Christian view of life."— The Outlook.

PERSONAL AND IDEAL ELEMENTS
IN EDUCATION

By HENRY CHURCHILL KING

President of Oberlin College; Author of " Theology and the Social
Consciousness " and " Reconstruction in Theology "
Cloth, $1.50 net; postage, 11 cents
Dr. King's addresses and papers for various occasions deal with the prob-
lem of the College in distinction from the University ; with the relation of
Religion to Education, Ethics, and Life; with the conditions imposed on Reli-
gious Education by Psychology and Pedagogy; with the Educational and
Evangelistic methods of Christian training as compared, and with the ethical,
psychological, and physical conditions of character building. The central
idea running through the whole is the superiority of personality to mechan-
ism, the sacredness of personality, and the means of its best development.

THEOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL
CONSCIOUSNESS

A Study of the Relations of the Social Consciousness to Theology

By HENRY CHURCHILL KING

President of Oberlin College; Author of " Reconstruction in Theology," etc.

Cloth, l2mo„ $1.25 net
" The strength of Professor King's eminently sane and helpful book is not
in brilliant and suggestive sentences, but in its clear unfolding of an elemen-
tal truth, and fearless and vigorous application of that truth to religious
thinking. One cannot read it carefully without realizing that his thinking
has been cleared of much mistiness, and that he has a deepened conception of
a truth of superlative importance, to which he has but to be steadily loyal to
find a rational interpretation of his spiritual experience, and a safe guide
amid the mazes of theological speculation."— The Congregationalist.

RECONSTRUCTION IN THEOLOGY

By HENRY CHURCHILL KING

President of Oberlin College
Cloth, nmo., $1.50

FROM THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE :

"A new constructive period in theology, it may well be believed, is at
hand. This book has been written with the earnest desire and hope that it
may contribute something toward the forwarding of a movement already go-
ing on — a really spiritual reconstruction of theology in terms that should
bring it home to our own day. The book aims, first, to show that such a re-
construction is needed and demanded, because of the changed intellectual,
moral, and spiritual world in which we live; and then, to characterize briefly,
but sufficiently, this new world of our day; and finally, to indicate the influ-
ence which these convictions of our time ought to have upon theological con-
ception and statement, especially in bringing us to a restatement of theology
in terms of personal relation. It has been a constant desire of the writer to
help intelligent laymen, as well as theological students and ministers, to a
more thorough and sympathetic understanding of the great convictions and
scholarly movements of the day."

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York

THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST
IN MODERN LIFE

Being a Study of the New Problems of the Church in American Society

By NEWELL DWIGHT HILLIS, D. D.

Author of " The Quest of Happiness,"
etc., etc.

Cloth, 12mo., $1.50

"The book as a whole is not only interesting, but makes a strong appeal
for Christian living . . . expressed in a language that makes it timely and
infused with a spirit that gives it power." — New York Commercial Adver-
tiser.

" The influence of his pages can only be to nerve the reader, while facing
frankly all which hinders the progress of the gospel, to believe in and labor
for it . . . These chapters touch one by their manly sympathy, and candor,
while they also delight by their genuine eloquence."— The Congregationalist.

JESUS CHRIST AND THE
SOCIAL QUESTION

An Examination of the Teaching of Jesus in its Relation to
Some Problems of Modern Social Life

By FRANCIS GREENWOOD PEABODY

Author of " The Religion of an Educated Man," etc.

Cloth, 12mo., $1.50

" In this ' Examination of the Teaching of Jesus in its Relation to Some
of the Problems of Modern Social Life.' Professor Peabody begins with a
careful discussion of the comprehensiveness of this teaching as at once per-
fectly apt and adequate to every possible condition and need. He then con-
siders the social principles of this teaching; its relation to the family, to the
rich, to the care of the poor, to the industrial order. The concluding chapter
is especially good, setting forth 'the Correlation of the Social Questions.'
It is shown how this fact should affect those who are actually interested in
particular reforms."— Times-Herald, Chicago.

THE RELIGION OF AN
EDUCATED MAN

Three Lectures

By FRANCIS GREENWOOD PEABODY

Dean of the Divinity School,
Harvard University

Cloth, l2mo., $1.00 net

" They are pregnant with suggestion and reveal a depth of broad Christian
scholarship together with a keen insight into the demands of the modern
world upon tne scholar." — New York Commercial Advertiser.

" His logic is sound, and the sane, temperate tone of his essays invites
conviction."— Milwaukee Sentinel.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York

I

»T

O