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

Dtatessarica

PART X, SECTION II

THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL

THE BEGINNING

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

?i01ltlon: FETTER LANE, E.G.

C. F. CLAY, MANAGER

too, PRINCES STREET
Berlin: A. ASHER AND CO.
ILdp.ng: F. A. BROCKH.AUS
fleto lork: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
anfc Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., LTD.
Toronto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, LTD.

THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA

. /// rig/its / .

.-V

*tf.

THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL

SECTION II

THE BEGINNING

EDWIN A. ABBOTT

Honorary Fellow of St John's College, Cambridge
Fellow of the British Academy

" The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ"

St Mark i. i

" In the beginning was the Word"

St John i. i

Cambridge :

at the University Press
1914

Camfartogc :

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

PREFACE

THIS first volume of comment on the Fourfold
Gospel must necessarily seem disproportionately large
compared with the small number of the Synoptic
verses covered by it. The reason is, that Mark's first
chapter introduces a number of terms that must be
discussed, each as it presents itself for the first time,
and then not again. Should the work reach its pro-
posed conclusion it would include about four Parts,
as follows :

Part I. The Beginning, that is to say, the ante-
cedents, acts, and words, of John the Baptist, and the
relations between John and Jesus up to the time when
Jesus, as Mark says, came into Galilee " after John
had been delivered up."

Part II. The Proclamation of the New Kingdom
the Kingdom of the Son and the conflict between
the Old and the New.

Part III. The Law of the New Kingdom-
Victory through Defeat.

Part IV. The Defeat and the Victory.

The work is based on three convictions, strength-
ened by each additional year of study :

(i) Each Gospel should be considered as a col-
lection of traditions varying in date, source, authority,

PREFACi;

historical accuracy, and spiritual insight. (2) All the
Evangelists had great difficulties to contend with in
ascertaining facts, and Mark, though the earliest, was
the least capable of contending with these difficulties,
owing to his ignorance of almost all the acts of the
Lord except those in Galilee, and (probably) owing to
circumstances that prevented him from completing or
revising his Gospel. (3) The Fourth Evangelist,
though a poet, is never consciously a writer of fiction.
He sometimes records what is not true, but never
what he knows to be untrue. He is a seer of the
things in heaven, but one who begins by seeing the
things on earth. We learn from his Gospel that angels
must ascend before they descend, and that we cannot
worship Jesus as Son of God until we have loved Him
as Son of Man.

To the friends mentioned in the Prefaces of
previous volumes of Diatessarica, Mr W. S. Aldis,
Mr II. Candler, and the Rev. J. Hunter Smith, my
thanks arc a^ain due for help in revising my proofs.

KDWIN A. ABBOTT.

//v//w,', //>// i \\iik

V.IV.

I /<///.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

PAGE

CHAPTER I
THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

1 The subject for discussion I

2 " The beginning," in Mark 4

3 Later aspects of " the beginning " 6

4 What preceded " the beginning "? ..... 8

5 "Gospel" not mentioned by Luke and John ... 9

6 Why does John prefer "word" and "life" to "gospel"

in speaking of "the beginning "? . . . . . 11

7 The connection between "life" and "light" . . . 15

8 The Baptist is not " the light " but a witness to it . . 16

9 The "light" is a Person, to be "received" by "believing" 18

10 "Grace" through "Jesus Christ" 22

1 1 " Declaring God " as distinct from " preaching the gospel " 25

CHAPTER II

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

VA VA -jr. -jr. 'Jr. vr. -js.

i John the Baptist, (i) "preaching," (2) "
2 "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet"
3 " This was he that they said " .
4 " My messenger " ....
5 " Are we to expect another ? " .
6 " The voice of one crying "
7 Is " in the wilderness " to be taken with
" prepare ye " ?

bearing witness "
" crying ''' or with

32
33
35
36
37
40

1 For References and Abbreviations, see Introductory Volume,
p. xiii. foil.

vii

CONTENTS

PAGE

8 " Preaching " or " making proclamation " . 45

9 Baptism 46

10 In the Fourth Gospel, " baptizing " is subordinated to

" bearing-witness "........ 50

ii The baptism of John, continued by the disciples of Jesus 53

12 Repentance 56

13 " [With a view] to remission of sins '' .... 59

14 " Remission " and " washing " 62

15 John's conditions for baptism 64

1 6 Where did John baptize the people ? .... 67
17 John's clothing and food, passed over in the Third and

the Fourth Gospel 68

CHAPTER III
JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

i John's first utterance ........ 72

2 " There cometh " and " behind me ; ' 74

3 " He that is mightier than I" 77

4 " The latchet of whose shoes I am not sufficient to stoop-
down and loose " 79

5 " I [for my part] have baptized you with water, but he will

baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire " . . 81

6 Baptism with blood 83

8 7 " The Lamb of God " 85

8 In what sense might the Baptist speak of Jesus as "the

Lamb of God"? 88

CHAPTER IV
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

i The " coming " of Jesus, when was it ? .... 93

2 The " coming" of Jesus, whither was it? . . . . 100
3 "From Nazareth," "of Nazareth," " Nazarene,"

"Nazoraean" 102

4 The place where Jesus was baptized 107

5 " Ascending from the water," and " praying " . . . 110

6 The opening of the heavens . . . . . . 112

7 "And straightway... he saw" 114

8 The descent of the Spirit . . . . . . . 117

9 The Dove 120

10 The voice from heaven 123

1 1 The Baptist's interpretation of the voice ... 1 29

12 The Johannine interpretation of the voice and the vision 131

13 "The Son of Man" 133

viii

CONTENTS

CHAPTER V
THE TEMPTATION

PAGE

$ I "Tempting" in the Four Gospels 144

$ 2 Jesus, " driven forth" or "led up" or " led" . . . 148

3 "Into," or "in," "the wilderness" 154

$ 4 What happened during the " forty days " ? . . . 156

5 " He was with the wild-beasts," in Mark .... 158

6 The Johannine equivalent of Mark . . . . . 164
7 " And the angels began-to-minister (or, were-minister

unto him" 173

8 Matthew's version, and Luke's omission, of the

"ministering" of the "angels" . . . . . 176

9 John, on this "ministering" of the "angels" . . . 178

10 " An angel hath spoken to him," in John .... 180

$ ii "Angels," at the tomb of Jesus, in John .... 190

12 "Temptation," implied in John ...... 194

CHAPTER VI
JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

i Mark's account 204

2 Matthew's account 206

3 Luke's account ......... 207

4 John's account of a first visit to Galilee . . . . 211

5 John's account of a second visit to Galilee . . . 215

6 What happened in the Synoptic visit to Galilee? . . 216

7 What happened in the first Johannine visit to Galilee ? . 219

8 What happened in the second Johannine visit to Galilee? 227

CHAPTER VII
JESUS BEGINNING TO "PREACH"

i Christ's first words in Mark and Matthew . . . 234

2 Christ's first words in Luke 238

3 Objections to the Lucan account of Christ's first words . 241

4 John on " appointed-time" ...... 243

5 John on "kingdom," "repentance," and "gospel" . . 245

6 Christ's first words in John ...... 247

7 The Dialogue with Nathanael 251

A. B. ix b

CONTENTS

PAGE

Which of these accounts is the closest to history ? . . 253
9 Why is not the gospel, or "good-tidings," called "the

good-tidings of peace-" by Mark, as by Isaiah ? . . 259

10 "I came not to send peace but a sword" . 264

" Peace," in Mark and Matthew ... 267

12 " Peace," at the beginning of Luke but not at the end . 273

13 "Peace," at the end of John, promised .... 280

55 14 " Peace" and "the Paraclete" 283

$15 " Peace," in John, how imparted 289

g 1 6 The Johannine "peace " and the Epictetian " peace :; 293

17 The last Johannine mention of "peace" .... 297

$ 1 8 Conclusion 34

APPENDIX I
Nazarene and Nazoraean 309

APPENDIX II

The Disciple that was " known unto the high priest ;; . . 351

APPENDIX III

The Interpretation of Early Christian Poetry 1 . . . 372

1 This Appendix aims at illustrating from the Odes of Solomon the
transition of Jewish poetic thought as it passed from Judaism into
Christianity, and it is incorporated in this volume because many of the
illustrations in it appeared to have an important bearing on the study of
the Four Gospels both singly and conjointly. For a detailed Table of its
Contents, see p. 308.

INTRODUCTION

THOSE who have read the Introductory Volume that
forms the first section of The Fourfold Gospel will be prepared
to find in the following pages, on the one hand much less than
a commentary on the Four Gospels, but on the other hand
somewhat more than detached comments on those small
portions of the narrative of the life of Christ which all the
Four Gospels have in common.

The reasons for entitling it The Fourfold Gospel, having
been stated in the Introductory Volume, will not be repeated
here. Another title of the book might have been and indeed
was for many years in my manuscript Johannine Interventions.
Ultimately, this was rejected as being too technical, and also
as suggesting that the Evangelist did not write a continuous
gospel of his own, but merely wrote as an intervener, supple-
menting, rearranging, correcting, and patching, the writings of
others. John did much more than intervene. He composed
a work that from first to last breathes artistic as well as
spiritual unity. Yet the mention of the discarded title may
usefully emphasize the fact that among the aspects in which
the author of the Fourth Gospel will be regarded in the
following pages, one will be that of an Intervener.

To the question "In behalf of what or whom does John
intervene?" the Introductory Volume has given prima facie
grounds for replying "In behalf of Mark, in order to explain
harsh or obscure Marcan expressions altered or omitted by
Luke (and sometimes by Matthew also)."

This work will deal with such expressions. Taking them
in their Marcan order, we shall append to each, and explain,
its corresponding Johannine intervention, if there is one. If
there is not, we shall note our failure to find it.

xi b 2

INTRODUCTION

.inplc, when we come to the saying of the Baptist

"There cometh after (or, behind) me" and find

Luke omits "after (or, behind) me" we shall look for a

.innine intervention. Finding that John does intervene

ating "after me" more than once we shall try to under-

1, in the first place, what John says, and in the second

hy John says it in other words, 1st, the Johannine

meaning, 2nd, the Johannine motive.

In this particular case both the meaning and the motive
are fairly clear. As regards the meaning, John repeats "after
me" along with "before me" in such a way as to call the
reader's attention to the double meaning of the prepositions,
namely, order of time and order of dignity.

As regards the motive, we shall probably approximate to a
ect sense of it if we imagine John as thinking aloud while
the rolls of the Three Gospels lie open before him, and as
ng "Luke omits 'behind me' because he thinks it implies
that the Lord was the Baptist's inferior; but if the Lord from
heaven followed 'behind' the Baptist for a time on earth, that
i^ not a thing for His disciples to be ashamed of as though it
denied that the Lord was 'before' the Baptist in nature and
in eternal pre-existence. Mark's phrase, therefore, ought not to
be passed over but rather to be set forth more fully so as to
explain its meaning."

In this attempt to enter into the mind and purpose of the

Fourth Evangelist we shall have to take into account other

circumstances besides the rapidly growing authority of the

e Synoptic Gospels circumstances of time and circum-

>f place. Time, for the Christian Church, moved (so

;><-;ik) at a quickened pace toward the end of the first

I)urin- the generation that followed the fall of

i, when the nations of the Empire began to flow into,

1 1 most to overflow, the Churches founded by

,'< <kvad might bring about for

'.' parts of the Empire such changes of thought

xii

INTRODUCTION

as a whole century could not have produced a little later on
new thoughts about the Coming of the Lord, and about His
Person, and about the Kingdom of which He was to be the
Ruler.

In different cities, as well as in different decads, different
and varying influences would be at work. An Evangelist's
course would have been comparatively simple if the Church
had been battling with nothing more than Jewish conservatism,
imperial suspicion, and philosophic contempt. These were
persistent and calculable forces. So, too, was the opposition
of ordinary paganism, or orthodox idolatry, the established
worship of the gods of the several nations of the Empire.
But, besides these, there was superstition in widely varying
forms, sometimes satisfying itself with heathen mysteries,
but occasionally deserting the camp of heathendom and
creeping into the Church of Christ as supplying new kinds of
secret rites, new methods of initiation, and perhaps more
potent charms and incantations. Writing near Ephesus, a
home of magic, midway between East and West, the author
of the Fourth Gospel must be supposed to have taken cog-
nisance of all these influences, and they may well make it
difficult for us to follow all the ramifications of his allusive
thought.

In our method of procedure there will also be this difficulty,
that in passing consecutively from Marcan phrase to Marcan
phrase, and comparing each with its Johannine equivalent, we
may find it hard to retain consecutiveness of thought, or, at all
events, of Johannine thought. The first words in Mark are " The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ." The first words in
John are " In the beginning'' But what follows "the beginning"
in John is very different from what follows "the beginning"
in Mark. There is a consequent danger that our comment
may occasionally break itself up into small fragments dealing
with isolated verbalisms and not clearly bringing out a con-
tinuous line of thought.

xiii

INTRODUCTION

This danger we shall endeavour to avoid, partly by prefix-
ing to each group of phrases a summary of the contextual
thought, and partly by allowing ourselves great latitude in the
Johannine comment. True, we shall regard the Evangelist as
having the Three Synoptic Gospels open before him. But we
also think of him as contemplating the changed and changing
condition of the Churches of Christ, keeping his eyes open to
th< >se "other circumstances" above mentioned which demanded
from him a Gospel that should be, not a mere patching, or
enlarging, of Mark, but a new and spiritual exposition of
Christ's Gospel, so new as almost to amount to a new mani-
festation of His Spirit. He will be regarded as looking forward
in his Gospel rather than backward forward to the needs of
Christ's Church rather than backward to the exact record of

icts and words in Galilee and Judaea.

These Johannine comments will be given as far as possible

without footnotes or disquisitions on special points interesting

in themselves but liable to call off attention from the subject

in hand. Yet now and then there may occur an instance of

Mark-John parallelism which absolutely requires discussion

re we can proceed, and for the discussion of which we

r to any previous Part of Diatessarica. Take, for

:npl<:. the first Marcan mention of Nazareth, "there came

rom (<>\\ of) Nazareth^ The parallel Matthew and

Luke omit the word. John, therefore, according to our

rule. is hound to intervene, and we have to note the inter-

ion.

In this case one of special importance because the terms

raean, and Nazareth, are curiously varied by

Synopiists. and rminrnt modern students are doubtful as

to ' <;u i not possibly pass over the fact that

John, alone of tin- Evangelists, connects his first mention of

:h" with an objcrtimi to it raised by Nathanael. Also
J"hn. alone of the Evangelists, iiu-liides "the Nazoraean" in

the title \\ritteii by Pilate on the Cross. That is especially

XIV

INTRODUCTION

noteworthy because John tells us that the chief priests wished
to have a part of the title modified, and that Pilate refused'
saying "What I have written, I have written."

This raises a number of questions : " Did John regard
Pilate as the mere instrument of Providence in writing the
whole of this title ? Did he believe that there was some
mystical meaning in " Nazoraean " as well as in " King of the
Jews 1 "? Did he share Matthew's belief that Christ's residence
in Nazareth was ordained as a fulfilment of the prophecy
" He shall be called a Nazoraean"t If so, what "prophecy 1 '
did he suppose to have contained these words? And what
was the meaning of "Nazoraean" in the "prophecy"? To
give some brief answer to these questions at once when
Nazareth first came before us seemed necessary. Yet to give
it briefly without an Appendix to support it was impossible 2 .

The reader will notice that, in the brief outline of the four
proposed parts of The Fourfold Gospel given in the Preface,
the New Kingdom is mentioned twice. That accords with
the prominence given to " the Kingdom of God " by the
Synoptists. But it does not accord with the nomenclature of
the Fourth Gospel, which nowhere mentions " the Kingdom
of God " or Christ's " Kingdom," except in two brief passages,
where Jesus tells Nicodemus and Pilate, severally, that, in
effect, they do not understand what " the Kingdom " means''.
The Fourth Gospel presents God to us not as King but as

1 The Synoptists all have here "The King of the Jews," but not
"the Nazoraean."

2 Appendix I deals with Nazareth. Appendix II, on " the disciple"
that was (R.V.) "known unto the high priest," bears on the antecedents
of the reputed author of the Fourth Gospel.

Appendix III, on the interpretation of early Christian poetry,
following the line of investigation indicated in Light on the Gospel
from an Ancient Poet, attempts to shew the importance of keeping
in view Hebrew and Jewish (as distinct from Greek) thought and
language, in the interpretation of Christian poetry that may be of a very
early date.

3 Jn iii. 3 5, xviii. 36.

INTRODUCTION

Father. Nor does it define the Father as being "in heaven."

be with the Father is to be in heaven. "Heaven" is

\ mentioned in the Fourth Gospel except in connection

" the bread from heaven " or " the Son from heaven " ;

and after the conclusion of the doctrine of "the bread from

en" Jesus does not mention "heaven" any more 1 . We

are to be one with the Father ; or in the Father through the

Son ; or we are to live through the Son as the Son lives

through the Father. Place is nowhere mentioned by Jesus in

this Gospel except as being " prepared " by Himself 2 . Place

is nothing, personality is everything.

And is there not a great deal to be said historically for
this view as correctly representing Christ's teaching, not indeed
in its words but in its thought ? Did not Jesus always mean
though He may have seldom said so in express words
that the pure in heart see God ; that heaven is the regenerate
conscience ; that the way to receive the Father is to receive
the Son ; and that the way to receive the Son is to receive
those whom the Son loves as His brethren and whom He
bids us love with the love with which He loved us ? This will
appear to be the case (I think) as we proceed with our
comparison of the Three Gospels with the Fourth ; and the
Synoptic doctrine of receiving little children and becoming as
little children will appear to be radically the same as the
johannine doctrine of being begotten from above by receiving
the Son.

At the same time it cannot be denied that the local as
well as the temporal environment of the Evangelist probably
modified the form of the Johannine Gospel. Tradition says
that the Gospel originated from Ephesus, the first of the

1 " Heaven" is mentioned by Jesus in vi. 32 58, about eight times,
.mtl not afterwards. In Jn iii. 13 the words " who is in heaven" (Jo/i. (/>.
2275; arc rejected by W. H.

is nowhere mentioned by Jesus exc. Jn xiv. 2 3 (twice)

,o to prepare a place for you.*'

xvi

INTRODUCTION

Seven Churches addressed in Revelation. Ephesus (according
to the Acts) was the place where many people "practised
magical arts," and where certain Jews attempted to cast out
evil spirits with the words " I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul
preacheth 1 ." Plutarch says that "magicians" recommended,
to " those possessed by demons," the use of " Ephesian writings
(or, letters) 2 ." They were to be repeated by the sufferers,
word for word, and name for name, when the paroxysm
attacked them. These two lines of independent evidence
point to the conclusion that in the Church of Ephesus, more
than in others, there would be a tendency to turn the moral
and spiritual doctrines of Jesus into magical prescriptions or
charm-doctrines that would deliver those who used them, not
from sin but from bodily pains and superstitious fears.

In such a city, more than in any other, it might be
thought expedient to publish a Gospel of Jesus Christ that
might omit every one of His acts of exorcism and also every
reference to such acts proceeding either from friends or from
enemies or from the neutral and undecided multitude.

In such a city also, it might be deemed more than usually
necessary to anticipate, and if possible to check, a tendency
to convert God's attributes, or characters, or gifts, into angels,
principalities, or powers, intervening between God and men.
This tendency would be natural for polytheists, who had but
yesterday regarded God as " the Father of gods and men,"
and who came to-day into a Church where the old "gods"
disappeared. Giving up their old "gods" they might crave
some substitutes to bridge the gulf of which they were
conscious between them and the One solitary God of the
Hebrews, whom they were now expected to worship, but
whom they could not worship rightly as God the Father
because they failed to love Him as their real Father, not first

1 Acts xix. 13 19.

2 See Enc. Bib/, col. 1304, quoting Plutarch Symp. vii. 5. 4.

xvii

INTRODUCTION

Hi> real Son. Not realising the divinity of
.caled in Christ, and the divine nature of the
:iity between Father and Son and between God and
Ian, they substituted for this one real and spiritual
link a number of unreal quasi-spiritual or quasi-intellectual
links that put God far off from them instead of drawing them
to Him. It is against such a tendency nominally a
bridging over, but really a rending asunder that Paul records
his protest in behalf of " love " as the only true union : " I am
persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor princi-
palities, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be
able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ
Jesus our Lord 1 ."

Bearing the probability of this tendency in mind we can
hardly fail to learn something from a comparison of the
Prologue of the Fourth Gospel with the first chapter of
Irenaeus' Treatise against Heresies. Both of them mention
Beginning (Arche), and Word (Logos), and Life (Zoe), and
Man (Anthropos), and Only begotten (Monogenes), and Grace
(Charis), and Truth (Aletheia), and Fulness (Pleroma). But
the Gospel concentrates all these thoughts on the revelation
of God, who is mentioned almost at once : " In the beginning
was the Word, and the Word was with God" Also, without
at first mentioning the word " Father," the Prologue leads us
to the thought of the divine Fatherhood by describing men as
receiving authority to become God's " children," and as being
44 begotten from God."

The heretics on the other hand (according to Irenaeus)
did not mention God at first, but began by maintaining that

1 Rom. viii. 389. Comp. Eph. iii. 17 19 "that ye, being rooted
and grounded /'// love, may be strong to apprehend, with all the saints,
what is the breadth and k-n-th and height and depth, and to know the
/,>;'< of Christ which passrlh knowlrdgc, that ye may be filled unto all the
fulne.s of Cod."

\\iii

INTRODUCTION

" there is in the invisible and ineffable heights above a perfect
aeon, being-before [all]." This (he says) " they call Proarche
(Fore-beginning) and Propator (Fore-father) and Bythos
(Depth)." Thence they deduced a group of aeons or emana-
tions, making some thirty in all.

It will be observed that the term "Father" which is
absent from the first section of the Johannine Prologue
occurs here in the term " Fore-father." Later on, it occurs as
" Father " simply. But much of the beauty of the thought of
fatherhood disappears when we are given to understand ap-
parently that " Fore-father" is the higher appellation ; and it
almost entirely evaporates when we learn that the highest
appellation is Depth.

Obviously the Gnostic heretics borrowed much from the
Fourth Gospel. But they did not borrow from it the first of
their aeons, that is, Bythos, or Depth, for the Fourth Gospel
does not mention this. Did they derive this from the language
in the Epistle to the Romans about " angels and principalities "
and "powers" and "height and depth"? Hardly, for in the
first place the Pauline Bathos is not quite the same as the
Gnostic Bythos 1 , and in the next place the Pauline language
is against the Gnostic erection of such an abstraction as the
Depth into the position of the First of divine Beings. It
seems reasonable, however, to say that the similarity is not
accidental, and that Gnostic talk about a divine unfathomable
Depth even before Gnosticism had taken definite shape
was already in the air when Paul wrote to the Romans from
Ephesus, and still more afterwards when the Ephesian Epistle
connected " the breadth and length and height and depth "
with "the love of Christ which passeth knowledge."

1 The Gnostic word is ftvdos, the Pauline is ftABos. Elsewhere pddos
is used in a good sense being connected expressly or by implication with
God (Rom. xi. 33, i Cor. ii. 10, Eph. iii. 18). Rev. ii. 24 mentions "the
deep-things (/3a0e'a) [not of God but] of Satan."

xix

INTRODUCTION

If this was the case, and if even such early documents as

tics to the Romans and to the Ephesians contain

hints that "height and depth," even though divine, must not

be made into divine beings or regarded as objects of intellectual

ision, much more easily may we suppose hints or

warnings of this kind to underlie the Fourth Gospel. Perhaps,

by contrast, they may help to explain what has been called

by some the egotism attributed to Jesus in it. This, it has

been said, is not historical. And indeed it is true that nothing

can be found in the Synoptic Gospels resembling such ex-

rfons as " I am the true bread," " I am the good shepherd,"

" I am the light of the world," " I am the way, the truth, and

the life."

But the Fourth Evangelist knew that the concentration

implied by him in this repeated " I," was implied by the

Synoptists in the claims put forward for " the Son of Man."

Only " the Son of Man " was not a title that brought home

to Greek readers all that Jesus meant by it. Even for Jews

it had complex associations. But it was still more obscure

for Gentiles, especially when they began to connect the term

with one aspect of it, and that a narrow one the thought of

the Son as the Judge seated on the clouds of heaven. Thus

narrowed, the term did not express the claims of the personality

of Jesus, the One Lord, upon the loyalty and love of His

followers on earth. Gnostics, or those who were preparing

tin- way for Gnosticism, were dissipating that personality, and

'it ut in- for it a multitude of aeons, principalities, or

Kbionites, or those who were preparing the way for

Kbionitism, were narrowing down the personality to that of a

Son of David, a king or prophet-king of Israel, superior to all

of Israel and Judah, and indeed to all the

the arth but still, of the earth.

instructing or warning both these classes, whether

rudimentary Gnostics or rudimentary Ebionites, it might

seem to tin- 1 i expedient that Jesus should be

INTRODUCTION

presented as a Person who continually said " /" and " me 1 " ; as
one whose first precept to His disciples was " Come" meaning
" Come and see where I abide " ; and whose last prayer for
them to the Father was that the love wherewith the Father
loved Him should be in them, " and I in them " a Son indeed,
but a Son who could say " He that hath seen me hath seen
the Father 2 ."

This doctrine, this combination of authority with obedience,
of lordship with sonship, of outward littleness with inward
greatness, and of the perfectly human with the perfectly
divine, was implied in the Marcan doctrine identifying the
reception of the ''little child" with the reception of Jesus,
and the reception of Jesus with the reception of God " Who-
soever receiveth me receiveth not me but him that sent me."
But it needed to be illustrated and inculcated, so as to shew
that "receiving" did not mean receiving as a mere guest, or
as a mere temporary tenant, but as a part of one's own self,
and yet as an indwelling Spirit that controlled one's own self.
To explain this, or rather to insinuate the feeling of it into us,
the Evangelist accumulates metaphor on metaphor some-
times in his own person, sometimes through the language
of Jesus, whether in dialogue or in prolonged discourse
metaphors of purifying, of feeding, of enlightening, of healing,
generating, and life-giving.

All these point to one truth that God cannot be rightly
worshipped by legal or prescribed rule, or by visible and
material guidance, but only in the Spirit of His Son, who
lived and died visibly for mankind once that He might live
invisibly in mankind for ever. That Jesus did not actually
use all these metaphors is probable, if not certain. But that
is quite consistent with the belief that He meant all that they

1 See Joh. Voc. 1713 shewing that " I " (nom.) occurs in Jn nearly
twice as often as in the three Synoptists taken all together.
- Jn i. 39, xvii. 26, xiv. 9.

xxi

INTRODUCTION

md a L, r reat deal more that neither they nor any
metaphor can express.

This lengthy Introduction would have been needless if
the author could have felt sure that his readers were familiar
with the Jewish canon " Whosoever translates a verse of
scripture according to its outward form is a liar." Let us try
alise how much this canon may explain in an Evangelist
striving to express the thoughts of Jesus in a form adapted for
Greeks, at a time when the words of Jesus had begun to
assume, for Christians, the authority of Oracles (Logia) or
Scripture.

The instance given in the canon is from Exodus "they saw
the God of Israel." Whoever translates that literally is said
to be " a liar," for " they could not possibly see God 1 ." Now
the New Scripture, according to Matthew, says that "the
clean in heart" shall "see God!' Luke omits this. John
begins his Gospel with the admission that " no man hath seen
God*." But the same sentence adds that Christ has " declared "
Him. And John proceeds to shew how Christ not only de-
clared Him in doctrine but also made His disciples "clean*"
so that they might "see God"; and, later on, how He said to
Philip " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father <4 ." Thus
we are taught, first, negatively, that a materialistic theophany
is impossible ; and then, positively, that an " interpretation "
or "declaration" is possible, but not one that comes through
the understanding, or from a priest. It must be through the

i and from the Son. Philip, without knowing it, has
already "seen the Father" because he has "seen the Son"
has made him "clean in heart."

who feel unable to believe that Jesus uttered
to Philip may be able to believe that Jesus,

of M<ifi 3374 A (6) quoting Exod. xxiv. 10.
- Jn i. 1 8.
In \iii. 10, xv. 3. On "declaring" see p. 25, n. 3.

1 Jn xiv. <>

\\n

INTRODUCTION

though expressing the deed in different words, did the deed
implied by the words. That is to say, He cleansed the hearts
of the disciples so that they saw in Him, and loved in Him,
the fulness of the grace and truth of God, thus being led to
the love of the Father in heaven through the love of the Son
on earth. It is this characteristic this dealing with spiritual
fact that often gives the Fourth Gospel a peculiar value. It
often intervenes where the Three Gospels differ in words, as
though it said, " I cannot tell you the words of Christ, but
I can tell you His mind, as it was revealed to the Disciple
whom He loved."

But perhaps " I can tell you the miud of Christ " is not the
right expression. It is too weak. For "mind" is weaker
than "love." And it is too strong. For did the Evangelist
really think that he was able to " tell " so deep a mystery or
even to "tell" it in the form in which it was "revealed" to
the beloved Disciple? Perhaps it would be better to regard
him as conscious that he could not tell it, but that he could
prepare his readers to receive it "the mystery of God,
namely, Christ 1 ." If his readers had asked him for a definite
answer to the question " Who is your Lord ? " he would
perhaps have replied to them although the Lord was all the
while enthroned in his heart " Indeed, I cannot tell-."

1 Coloss. ii. 2.

2 Comp. Gitanjali 102 "I boasted among men that I had known
you. They see your pictures in all works of mine. They come and ask
me, 'Who is he?' I know not how to answer them. I say, ' Indeed,
I cannot teW They blame me and they go away in scorn. And you sit
there smiling."

xxin

CHAPTER I

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

I . The subject for discussion

IN the following discussion of Mark's opening words the
first difficulty is to perceive that there is anything to discuss.
The phrase is Pauline, "f/i tJie beginning of the gospel" says
Paul to the Philippians, "when I departed from Macedonia, no
church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and
receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once
and again unto my need 1 ." Here "the gospel" means "the
preaching of the gospel in Europe? and "tJie beginning of the
gospel" means the time when Paul was beginning to preach it
in Europe first in Philippi, then in Thessalonica, and then,
when he "departed from Macedonia," in Athens and Corinth.
The Apostle of the West speaks of the beginning of the gospel
in the West as a general might say to officers who had
recently fought under his command against a special enemy
"in the beginning of the campaign!' It does not mean "when
I began to preach the gospel, that is, in Damascus," and still
less "when the Apostles began to preach."

The meaning is not quite so obvious in Clement's Epistle
to the Corinthians: "Take up again the Epistle of the blessed
Apostle Paul. What was the first thing he wrote to you in the
beginning of the gospelt He...gave-you-charge-in-the-epistle
. . .about himself and Cephas and Apollos 2 ." This " Epistle," the

1 Philipp. iv. 15, comp. i. 5.

2 Clem. Rom. 47 (on which see Lightfoot) referring to I Cor. i. 10.
" Gave-you-charge-in-the-epistle " is intended to express eWo-rftAei/ vp.lv
so as to retain its similarity to eVtorroX^.

A. B. I I

THE r.KCINNING OF THE GOSPEL

Kpistle t<> the Corinthians, was not sent till several months
had elapsed after "the beginning of the gospel" in Corinth.
Nevertheless Clement almost certainly speaks of it as belonging
he period of "the beginning of the gospel in Corinth,"
or, perhaps, "in the West." Some modern commentators
however take it as meaning "in the beginning of the evan-
il teaching contained in the Epistle" \ and this at all events
indicates possibilities of various interpretations of "the be-
ginning of the gospel" in early times 1 .

The extract from Clement may be illustrated by two earlier

acts: (i) "Let us hasten back to the goal of peace which
has been handed down from the beginning 'to us, and let us look
stedfastly unto the Father and Maker of the whole world,"
(2) " Let us unfold the records of things from the beginning.
Why was our father, Abraham, blessed 2 ?" In the first of these
extracts it seems at first as though the meaning is "from the
beginning, \the pure fountain head of the gospel} " as it existed
before it was falsified by heretics, just as Polycarp says to the
Philippians "Therefore abandoning... false doctrines let us
return to the word that was delivered to us from the beginning*"

But comparing Clement's reference in the first extract to
"the Father and Maker of the whole world" with the reference
in the second extract to "Abraham," we perceive that Clement
may not be speaking, in either, of the "beginning" of the New

Minent gospel, but of the beginning of God's revelation to
mankind, first, through the Creation, as "Father and Maker of
the whole world," and then as the God through whom "our
fat IK i Abraham was blessed."

If that is the meaning, Clement was cautioning the Corin-
thi.n a tendency, manifested clearly in the second

.p. I'olyc. I'lnlipf). $ n "qui estis in principio epistulae eius,"
Dg tl>'- I'liilippi.m Chun-h Paul's "Epistle [of commendation] in the
that U, "/'// thf hc^innin^ of the gospel of the West."

,3L

' i'oly. . /'/////)>/;. $ 7. Comp. Jude 3 "the faith that was once for
lelivered t< the

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

century, to divide the New Testament from the Old and to
represent the Creation as the work of an inferior God. In
such a view the Old Testament and the Law would be regarded
as a blank or failure. The real Creation, the real Beginning,
would be looked for in the Gospel. The Pauline Epistles
hardly ever use the word "beginning," but when they do, they
use language orthodox in itself, but capable of being perverted
(with very slight changes) to heterodox ends. Christ is called
''''the beginning"', the Thessalonians are "chosen from the be-
ginning"', and "if any man is in Christ he is a new creation,
the old things are passed away, behold, they are become new 1 ."
In the Acts, "the beginning" is the name given by Peter to
the first Christian Pentecost when as he reminds his fellow
Apostles the Holy Spirit fell on them "in tJie beginning"
Here he uses the same phrase as that with which John begins his
Gospel: "In the beginning was the Word 2 ." Barnabas also,
quoting Isaiah's reprobation of "the sabbaths" of Judah, reprer
sents God as saying "Having caused all [the ancient] things to
cease, I will make the beginning of an eighth day, the beginning
of another world*"

Other passages might be quoted, from Justin Martyr and
Tertullian, to shew that it had become necessary in many
Churches 4 during the second century, for Christians, believing
in an eternal Father revealed through an eternal Son in an
eternal Spirit, to strengthen themselves and others against the
notion that there was a discontinuity, or return to chaos,
instead of a continuous preparation and progress, from the
beginning of the Creation. The sense of this necessity is

1 Col. i. 1 8, 2 Thess. ii. 13, 2 Cor. v. 17. "Beginning" does not occur
elsewhere in the Pauline Epistles except in the above-quoted Philipp. iv. 15.

2 Acts xi. 15 fv dpxti-

3 Barn. xv. 8 aXXou K 007x01; dp^rjv.

4 "In many Churches." Not perhaps in all. It is remarkable that
Hermas uses the word " beginning " but once Sim. ix. n. 9; and that
without doctrinal significance, whereas Clement, Barnabas, and Ignatius,
in comparatively small space, use it frequently.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

indicated in the use of the phrase "from the beginning" no less
than ten times in the Johannine Epistles. Doubtless, Mark
was quite innocent of any intention to raise discussions of this
kind, but his words could hardly fail to raise them. And the
object of the following discussion is to shew that the thought of
"the beginning," thus raised by Mark, explains some things in
Matthew, and more in Luke, but most of all in John, whose
Prologue appears to include in its objects that of helping the
faithful to stand fast in the creed of a divine continuity: "As
it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be."

2. " The beginning'' in Mark

Mark's opening words are "The beginning of the gospel of
Jesus Christ 1 , God's Son 2 ." This is printed in our Revised
Version as a separate sentence. If that interpretation were
correct the words would be a title. In that case they would
resemble the LXX version of what are almost the opening
words of the Books of the Prophets, Hosea being placed first
by the LXX, "The beginning of the word of the Lord in
Hosea 3 ." But Irenaeus and Origen run Mark's sentence on,
"The beginning... even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet "
Thus punctuated, the words might mean that the beginning
was in accordance with prophecy, or with the prophetic spirit,
of which John was the last representative. Or the sentence
might be continued still further, thus: "The beginning of the
gospel... was (or, came-to-pass) John, he that was baptizing...,"
or possibly "[As] the beginning of the gospel... there came-
John...*."

1 e App. I 4.

s Son" is omitted by some authorities.

8 Hos. i. i2 (LXX) "The word of the Lord that came-to-pass unto
I'he be^i nnin^ of the word of the Lord in Hosea (Heb. When
the Lord spake at the first in Jfoseii)?

1 Mk i. 4 fytvfTo 'lomi/qy 6 fiairTifav eV TTJ pr)p.a> KJj/nWwv is parall. to
Mt. iii. I TTfi/jtiytWat '1. panTKTTTjs Kr)pv(T(r>v tv TTJ 6p^/ia>. Luke has

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

Origen against Celsus quotes Mark as "shewing that 'the
beginning of the gospel' depends on Jewish Scriptures 1 " But
elsewhere he implies that as "Moses" might personify "the
law," so John the Baptist might personify "the beginning of
the gospel," either as being "the whole of the Old Testament
of which John is the type," or else as being "the conclusions of
the Old represented by John for the sake of the connection of
the Old with the New 2 ." This is somewhat subtle. And
Origen's context shews that plain people took Mark as meaning
substantially that "the beginning of the gospel" was "John."
For Origen goes on to ask certain heretics, "How can/0//# be
the beginning of the gospel if they suppose that he belongs to a
different God?" Cramer also prints an ancient scholium (on
the first verse in Mark) which, besides quoting Origen by name
as to the error in "Isaiah," begins thus, "John, therefore, the
last of the prophets, Mark declares to be the beginning of the
gospel"

Early patristic interpretation, if it were undoubting and
unanimous on a point of this kind, ought to carry great weight,
and none the less because it may seem abrupt and harsh to
us in modern times. But Origen's language indicates the
existence of doubt. And there is cause for it. Perhaps
Mark merely meant " The book I am now writing is
entitled The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and this is the beginning
of it." Perhaps his intention was to describe, first, the
prophecies about John, and then John himself as baptizing
and "preaching" repentance, but not a "gospel" only the
preparation for a gospel. The "gospel," perhaps, seemed to
Mark to be reserved for Jesus, and not to be mentioned till He
mentions it later on, "Repent ye and believe in the gospel 3 ."

(iii. 2) tyevfTo pfjfia deov eVi 'la>dvr)v...ev TTJ epq/zo). John has (i. 6) eyevfro
ai>0pto7ros...ovop.a aura) 'icodi/r/y. L Origen Cels. ii. 4.

2 Comm. Joann. i. 14 fjrot Travd eo-Tiv TJ TraXata Siatf^K?;, rvrrov avTrjs

OVTOS 'ladl/I/OU, T) 8ia TTjV (TVVCKprjV T7JS KOlvf/S TTpOS TT)V TToXdiaV TO. Tf\TJ TTJS

TraXaia? Sia 'Icoai/i/ou irapiarrdfjifva. 3 Mk i. 15-

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

3. Later aspects of "the beginning"

In view of the obscurity of Mark's u beginning" we may
reasonably suppose that later evangelists would take up the
thought, if not the word. Apart from Mark, " the beginning"
would have an interest for Christians in many ways. They
would think with reverence of it when they thought of the birth
of their religion. But they would also very soon be forced to
think of it apologetically or controversially, when they had to
answer antagonists, who scoffingly asked them, "What was
your God doing for mankind before your religion 'began,'
before ' the beginning ' of your ' gospel ' ? "

If "gospel" means the good tidings uttered by Jesus with
His own lips, then according to Matthew it did not "begin"
till after the Baptist was delivered over to Herod; for Matthew
says "from that time began Jesus to preach*-" But the parallel
Mark and Luke do not use the word "began''

Luke elsewhere says that Jesus "was, when-beginning,
about thirty years old," but mentions no definite "beginning"
of preaching at that time 2 . Later on, when Jesus came to
Nazareth, and entered the synagogue and read there, from
Isaiah, the words "the Spirit of the Lord is upon me because
he hath anointed me to preach-t he-gospel to the poor...," Luke
adds that when He had closed the book, He "began to say
unto them, This day hath this scripture been fulfilled in your
." But Luke has previously said that Jesus had "taught
in their synagogues being glorified by all 4 ." Unless, therefore,
we suppose that the previous "teaching" did not expressly
claim to fulfil Isaiah's "preach-the-gospel," we cannot con-
clude that Luke meant the "gospel "to have "begun" from that

1 Mt. iv. 17. The parall. Mk i. 14 15 mentions a "coming" into
( ialilce and l> preaching," but not a beginning. The parall. Lk. iv. 141 5
(lifli-rs altogether. a Lk. iii. 23.

i. On fywiuu (Mk (26), Mt. (13), Lk. (31), Jn (i)) see
Joh. Voc. 1674 ti . 4 Lk iv ,

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

utterance in the synagogue of Nazareth. " Began," in "began
to say," seems (as often) to mean " entered on a discourse of
some little duration."

Other passages in Luke and the Acts reflect various views
of "the beginning." If the gospel was supposed to date from
the time of the fulfilment of the promise of the Holy Spirit,
and from the consequent apostolic preaching of the gospel,
then it might be said to "begin from Jerusalem 1 ." But if it was
supposed to date from the time of the descent of the Holy
Spirit on Jesus, then we are taken back to what might be called
"the baptism of John" as in the Petrine description of the "going
in and going out of the Lord Jesus among us, beginning from
the baptism of John*" The latter view is taken again by Peter
in the words "beginning from Galilee, after the baptism which
John preached*" but the former again by Peter when he says
"the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning*"
But neither "beginning from Jerusalem" nor "beginning from
Galilee" meets the question that might be put to Christians,
"What was your God doing for men before 'the beginning of
the gospel'?" It is expressed by Celsus thus, "After so vast
a space of time, then, did God bethink Himself of making
men's life righteous, while neglecting it before 5 ?" To this
Origen replies that there never was a time when God did not
desire to do this, and that He always made this His care; and
he implies that this was God's object in "setting the bounds of
the nations," and in making Israel His chosen people 6 . This
is a kind of answer. It is a doctrine of divine development.
It does not indeed pretend to answer the unanswerable
question, "Why did not God make man unassailably perfect

1 Lk. xxiv. 47. 2 Acts i. 212. 3 Acts x. 37.

4 Acts xi. 15. 6 Origen Cels. iv. 7.

6 Origen Cels. iv. 8, quoting Deut. xxxii. 8 9 (LXX), but not Acts
xvii. 26 (which R.V. places in margin of Deut.). If Origen had quoted
Acts xvii. 26 foil., some critics might have replied criticizing Acts xvii. 30
" God, overlooking the times of ignorance."

THE r.KdlNNING OF THE GOSPEL

from the beginning?" but it is a reasonable answer for those
who can believe that there are spheres of thought, where
knowledge of the ordinary kind being impossible, and action
being necessary it is reasonable, as well as expedient and
honest, to act in accordance with faith.

4. What preceded "the beginning" 1

Do the Synoptists contain any suggestion of such an
" answer " as the one quoted above, given by Origen to
Celsus ? Mark can hardly be said to do so except so far as
he implies it in the words "Isaiah the prophet," which indicate
that the coming of John ("the beginning") was "prophesied,"
and therefore expressly foreordained. Matthew goes further.
For he begins his Gospel with the mention of two great
names of Christ's ancestors "the book of the generation of
Jesus Christ, the son of David^ the son of Abraham" both of
which, but especially that of Abraham, imply what may be
called, in Origen's words, God's "desire" and "care" to "make
men righteous." "The son of Abraham" or "the seed of
Abraham" is specially connected with God's "promise," i.e.
good-tidings or gospel 1 , and Matthew proceeds consistently
to trace the genealogy of Jesus from Abraham. Luke chooses
another way of indicating God's "desire" or "care" above men-
tioned. He connects it with the sending of John the Baptist.
The Baptist's birth, he says, was the subject of God's special
promise, made through the angel Gabriel, that he should "go
re his face in the spirit and power of Elijah. ..to make

iy for the Lord a people prepared 2 ."

I Ix-rr is nothing in Luke's Gospel that indicates any definite

.lion to cany the "beginning" further back. But in his

genealo ::y ,,f Jesus there appears an indefinite suggestion of

Clem. Kom. ^ 19, 31 (quoted above, p. 2} on the
Creation, and on Abraham in connection with the "beginning."
Lk, i. 17.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

something of the kind. For whereas Matthew carried it back
to Abraham, Luke gives, as its close, " the son of Enos, the
son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God 1 ." As every
human being can claim a genealogy with the same termination,
this is meaningless on the surface. But it may convey a
latent reminder of some truth liable to be obscured by the
doctrine of the supernatural birth. The author of this
genealogy may have meant " Although Jesus was not the son
of Joseph yet He was the Son of Mary after the flesh, and
therefore ultimately Son of Adam after the flesh, not a mere
phantom as some heretics say, but literally Son of the fallen
Adam, or Man, whom He was destined to redeem in His own
person."

Regarded in this way, " son of Adam " might be intended
by the genealogist to illustrate Christ's self-appellation " Son
of Man." But what are we to say in defence of the last words
of all " son of God " ? If " son of God " is to be interpreted
in the same way as " son of Adam " or " son of Seth," we
should be driven to say that "son of" means "begotten by"
and that Adam was "begotten by God"' Was that Luke's
intention, or, at all events, the intention of the genealogist ?
If it was, then " the beginning of the gospel," so far as Luke's
genealogy went, would take us back to the creation of man
and to a tradition in which the "creating" was regarded as
a " begetting."

5. "Gospel" not mentioned by Luke and Jo Jin

From the foregoing quotations it appears that " the
beginning of the gospel" was a phrase capable of several
interpretations, and liable to one serious objection on the part
of those who confused "gospel" with "salvation" and who
protested against what they supposed to be the Christian

1 Lk. iii. 38.
9

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

doctrine that God did not begin to "save" men till the

Jesus.

One way of avoiding this confusion was to avoid the word
,j)el" altogether. Luke and John do avoid it. They
may have been influenced, in part, by the fact that the Greek
.;-< //<>;/, or " good-message," sometimes meant the reward
.wed on a messenger bringing tidings of unexpected
good-luck. But there was also before them this consideration,
that "the gospel," having come to be used in contrast with
" the law," might be regarded externally and materially, as a
book, or collection of doctrines. Taken thus, no "gospel" could
be called, in itself, a blessing or thing of goodness. It would
not be a blessing except so far as it proceeded from spirit
to spirit, influencing the recipient for good. This latter
consideration may explain why Luke allows himself freely to
use the verb " evangelize'' or " bring-a-good-message," though
he never uses the noun "evangel'' John abstains from the
verb as well as from the noun.

In this abstinence, John may have been (and probably

was) influenced by an additional motive that would not have

influenced Luke. The word ev-angel implies an angel, or

" messenger," of good news. Luke's Gospel deals largely with

" nngi'ls" John's Gospel does not. Like the Epistle to the

I 1 brews, which begins by exalting the Son above angels, so

the Fourth Gospel represents one of the earliest utterances of

JCMIS as declaring that "angels" are dependent on the Son of

Man : " Ye shall see the heaven opened and the angels of God

:id descending on the Son of Man 1 ." And else-

Hispel subordinates them 2 . How could it be right,

then, that He who was the Way, the Truth, and the Life,

M sp<-ak in the character of a "messenger," or "angel,"

fa .. 51.

.W/ 3135^ "Angels in this gospel are thrown quite into the

b.i< I.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

" evangelizing' '? Surely it was better that He should speak
as the Son, having, and imparting, "words of eternal life 1 ."

Yet of course John was alive to the prevalence and
convenience of such phrases as that attributed by Mark to
Jesus, " Believe in the gospel*" Nor could he be so ignorant of
human nature as to suppose that he could have exterminated
the compendious expression, even if he had desired to do so.
Such extermination was not in his line. He seldom or never
contradicts Synoptic expressions. But he paraphrases them.
Or rather he goes to the root of what they mean (or ought to
mean) and sets that before his readers in such a form that
they may accept it at once for its own sake as true, and may
subsequently find that it illustrates some truth that had
escaped them in the earlier Gospels.

6. Why does John prefer "word" and "life" to "gospel"
in speaking of " the beginning"?

What John says about "the beginning" at the outset of
his Gospel may profitably be regarded in a twofold aspect as,
on the one hand, answering minor questions arising out of
Mark, but, on the other, teaching a doctrine important for its
own sake, that of divine development.

To John regarding " gospel " as a popular but somewhat
coarse and inadequate word to express the revelation of the
grace and truth of God it could not but seem that Christians
were derogating from the divine nature when they spoke of
the dawn or rising of the Son of Righteousness on men as
though it came on them altogether unexpectedly and (so to
speak) as a detached, causeless, and arbitrary thing. We may

1 Jn vi. 68. In John, " words," jSqpara, are described as (xv. 7, xvii. 8)
" abiding in," and " given to," the disciples.

2 I am indebted to a friend for an interesting instance of (vayye\iov
used in a good sense, taken from Deissmann's Light from the Ancient
East, p. 370, quoting a calendar inscription of Priene about 9 B.C.,
referring to the birthday of the Emperor Augustus : ^p^ev de TG>V (?)

) (?ro> KOCT/^O)) TU>V Si' avrov tvayyt\iv T\ yeve'd\ios roO 6eov.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

illustrate the Evangelist's feeling perhaps by reference to a
h tradition which describes new-created Man as in
iir when he saw the -sun go down for the first time, and
thought himself abandoned to darkness for ever. If at that
moment Gabriel had appeared to Adam saying " Fear not, the
sun will rise tomorrow," that would have been a "gospel."
hut it would have been a poor "gospel" compared with the
imparting of the knowledge that the regular rising of the sun
a part of the will and the word of the Lord in the
beginning. Some thought of this kind, some latent sense of
contrast between "gospel," which he does not mention, and
which he substitutes for it, may help us to a better
understanding of the whole of John's Prologue. Every word
in it is simple and intelligible ; every clause is brief and direct ;
and the connection between clause and clause, corresponding
to the connection between stage and stage of divine develop-
ment, is so arranged that language, style, and thought, all
combine to make the reader feel, even when he is on the point
of reading of the incarnation of the Logos, " There is nothing
sudden here. There is no thought of 'good luck' or un-
expected 'good news.' All is prepared for. All is in accor-
dance with the nature of the Logos, that is to say, with the
continuous Harmony, and eternal Pre-ordinance of God."

Greek thought is combined with Hebrew and Jewish

poi.-try in this Prologue. The Greek word logos is felt as a

controlling influence in almost every sentence. But we can

the poetic spirit that made Peter write to the Gentile

( hunhcs about "the lamb foreknown before the foundation of

th<- world," which is described in Revelation as "the lamb that

hath Ix-cii slain from the foundation of the world," and which

ids to the language of the Jewish Targumist who says

" And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw, and behold, a

in ram. which had been created between the evenings of

'inulation of the; world 1 ."

1 i ivt. i. 10, Rev. xiii. 8, Jer. Targ. on Gen. xxii. 13.
12

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

From Jewish influence also proceeds that combination of
the negative with the positive, so prominent in the Prologue
as to force itself on our notice even in the Fourth Gospel
where such a combination is much more common than in the
Three 1 . Negatively, the Evangelist declines to speak of
evangel '; positively, he prefers to speak of logos and to follow
out the path of orderly sequence suggested by the word.
From the negative aspect arise negations and limitations that
seem at first uncalled for. Nothing was made apart from the
Logos. The darkness did not overcome the light. John the
Baptist was not " the light," but only a witness to the light.
The Logos was " God," John was a " man." The Logos " was
[absolutely]," John " came-into-being." The Logos (it is
assumed) was Word in the Greek sense that is, either word,
or reason, or thought, or discourse, or other things implying
manifestation of thought in orderly and harmonious arrange-
ment ; John (so it is implied in the Prologue and expressed
by his own confession afterwards) in comparison with this
" Word," was a mere " voice " or " sound."

Doubtless, the Prologue also contains allusions to Philonian
doctrine and to Philonian negations of Incarnation. According
to Philo, there are three kinds of life, 1st, the life that has to
do with God, 2nd, that which has to do with " becoming" (that
is to say, genesis, as distinct from God, who IS, and who may
be called THE BEING), 3rd, the life that lies between these two,
a blend of both. Roughly, the three may be called, the
spiritual, the animal, and the human. As to the first, Philo
says " // did not [ever] come down to us or enter into the prison
of a

1 Concerning negation as a Johannine characteristic seey^. Gr. Index.
In the first 25 verses of the several Gospels, if we omit Mt.'s genealogy,
ou occurs roughly as follows : Mk (2), Mt. (i. 17 ii. 17) (i), Lk. (4), Jn (9).
It also occurs in Jn i. 26, 27, 31, 33, 47.

2 Philo i. 479 lit. " Now as for the life that has to do with God (TO /xei/
ovv Trpos 6fov} it descended not to us nor came into the necessities of
a body (ov KarefBr] npus ijpas, ovde tf\6ev ds ray trcopzroy

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

tradicting this assertion about the highest "life," the
Johannine Prologue leads us through rapidly successive stages
to the conclusion that the Logos itself, the Sphere of Life,
"became flesh "a very strong way of affirming that the
highest "life" lias "come down to us and entered into the
prison of a body" or, at all events, into the limitations or

training necessities that a body implies. It also declares
that this first " life," the life that IS, has influenced the third
life, which is in the debateable region between BEING and
becoming.

This highest kind of " life " the Prologue describes as " that
which has come into being in the Logos, or Word," apparently
meaning, by " Word," the creative Order or Harmony of the
Universe, acting in the divine Concord, and in the Spirit of
God. To call this a "gospel," or "good-tidings," might (as
we have seen) imply unexpectedness. To call it a " promise "
would be to limit its action to the future. But this concordant
Word was never unexpected and never limited in time or
space. It was always present as well as always infinite, being
itself God: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos
was with (lit. toward) God, and the Logos was God... All
things came-into-being through him (or, it), and apart from
him (or, it) there came-into-being not one single thing. That
which hath-come-into-being in him (or, it) was life 1 ." That is

iy, everything, inanimate as well as animate, so far as it
obeys the Law or Logos of its being praising the Lord, as
the Psalmist says, by "fulfilling His word 2 " was, in some
, "life."

1 his conception of life as a present spiritual possession is
not inconsistent, as will be seen later on, with the doctrine of

lisiiitf up at the last day." For the Messiah Himself will

Jn i. 14. For the reasons for the rendering given above, see

ft] Index.
iii. 8.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

be expressly declared to be "the raising up" or "resurrection 1 ."
And it is also assumed that He is the Omega, or End, as well
as the Alpha, or Beginning, of spiritual Creation 2 .

7. The connection between " life " and " light "

From " life " we are to pass to " light," or rather to " the
light of men." What is the link between the two ? In order
to answer this question, looking for some analogy in the
opening words of Genesis about "the beginning," we shall
find that there is no mention of " life " there, before the fiat,
" Let there be light." But there is a mention of the Spirit of
God that "moved (or, brooded) upon the face of the waters";
and this " moving " or " brooding " of " the Spirit of God "
implies the motion of a life-giving Being which the Jerusalem
Targum calls " the Spirit of mercies (or, of love )." What the
Evangelist says is, that for " men " that is, for creatures
endowed with logos, and akin to the Word the " life " is
" light." For " dragons," and " deeps," and " stormy wind "
fulfilling God's "word 3 ," life, such as it is, is not light. But,
for men, "life," in the sense of true life, opens their eyes to
the goodness and beauty and truth of the Logos, who is in them,
and in whom they are, so that the Logos is their " light*"

1 This is stated very significantly (Jn xi. 24 5) in reply to Martha
when she utters the phrase "in the last day" in a popular, temporal,
and unspiritual sense.

2 This will appear later on, when we discuss the Synoptic views of
"the end," or its Lucan equivalent (see Son 3349 foil.), and also Matthew's
(xix. 28) resort to the Greek notion of iraXtyyfveo-ia, against which, in
a Stoical sense, when connected with eWvpoxm, Philo (ii. 497, 508)
protests. John also protests tacitly against it by recurring to "in the
last day" not used by the Synoptists a form of the old Hebrew hopeful
phrase (Gesen. 31 a) "in the sequel of the days [of trial]."

3 Ps. cxlviii. 7 8.

4 Comp. Gitanjali 3 4 "The light of thy music illumines the
world. The life breath of thy music runs from sky to sky.... My heart
longs to join in thy song, but vainly struggles for a voice.... Life of my
life, I shall ever try to keep my body pure, knowing that thy living touch

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

In the first Genesis, there is no mention of human beings
i with the first mention of "light"; and, as for
" life," it is mentioned for the first time in connection with
-the moving creature that hath-life," which "the waters" are
rth abundantly 1 ." But in this second Genesis a
higher conception is introduced, both of life and of light.
Along with it, however, comes a conception of a consequent
complication, antithesis, or even conflict, in which there looms
a suggestion suggested but at once contradicted that the
light might possibly be "overcome" by some hostile element:
"And the light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness
overcame it not 2 ." Perhaps there is also a suggestion of the
victory of light, or the subordination of darkness, the latter
being made a foil to the former, as though the meaning were :
" The light shines all the more in the darkness ; and the
darkness never succeeded in overcoming it."

8. The Baptist is not " the light " but a witness to it

Then comes a brief and parenthetical negation, adapted
for those who were disposed to misunderstand the Marcan
tradition about "John" as "the beginning of the gospel."
"John" was neither the Word, nor the Life, nor the Light.
John was a mere "man," one of those about whom it has
been said above " The life was the light of men." He was

it from God," it is true but not as "the light," only to
" bear witness concerning the light." The Logos " was'' John
" came-into-bcing? If therefore John is to be thought of as a
beginning, it must be only as a witness, not preceding the Light
but pn.vcding other "men" in the recognition of it: "There
-info-being a man, sent from God ; his name [was] John ;

""' -ill my limbs. I shall ever try to keep all untruths out from my
thoughts, knotting that thou art that truth which has kindled the light of
"ii in my mind...."
1 (.en. i. 20. * Jn i. 5.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

this [man] came for witness, that he might bear-witness con-
cerning the light, that all might believe through that [light] 1 .
He (emp/i.) was not the light, but [only came] that he might
bear-witness concerning the light 2 ."

It is not said that John "preached" (or "proclaimed," or
" heralded ") concerning the Light. The Synoptists alone use
the Greek word thus rendered. And it is appropriate for the
announcement of the approach of a mortal king, newly
crowned, or newly coming into any region of his kingdom.
But if the "king" is God, who has always been King and has
always been visiting every region of His Kingdom, though
most men have not known it, then it is better to speak of His
prophets and seers as "testifying," or "bearing witness," to
that which they have known of Him, that others may believe.

This "bearing witness" did not begin from John, or from
the most ancient of the prophets, but from the coming of the
light into the conscience. It came to Adam, Abel, Enoch,
Noah and Abraham. But it came also to Cain, to the evil as
well as to the good, to those who received it not, as well as
to those who received it. After saying, therefore, that " John
came to bear witness to the light," it is added, " There was
[from the beginning] the true light, which, coming [continually]
into the [whole] world, enlightens every human being. In the
world it was (or, he was) [from the beginning], and the world
came-into-being through it (or, through him) and the world
recognised him not. He came unto his own, and they that
were his own received him not 3 ."

The writer keeps us in doubt about the gender of the
pronoun referring to the Light till the last clause, which
describes men's failure to recognise the Light as a failure to
recognise " him." This may mean, either that the great non-
recognition came to pass at the Incarnation, or else that, from
the beginning, men failed to recognise the humanity of the
Word and Light which was continuously appealing to them.

1 Joh. Gr. 23034. 2 Jn i. 68. 3 Jn i. 911.

A. B. 17 2

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

9. The " light" is a Person, to be " received" by " believing"

Thus the Word, being also the Life and the Light, is
found to be, not a mere promise or gospel, but a person.
And this person is to be "recognised" and "received." But
with what kind of " recognition " and "reception"? Clearly
there is to be something of loyalty in it, something of passion,
something of that enthusiasm with which Amasai devoted
himself to David when "the spirit fell upon him," and he
exclaimed " Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of
Jesse. Peace, peace, be unto thee, and peace be to thine
helpers, for thy God helpeth thee 1 ."

For such a passionate loyalty in his subjects or followers
every great king or leader of men makes some kind of return
by binding himself to them, as well as them to himself and to
one another, in a spirit of unity and self-sacrifice, which gives
"life" to the whole community, whatever it may be to a
country and to each citizen in it, to an army and every soldier
in it. The return of "life" thus made by Jehovah, the
King of Israel, to those who " received " Him into their
hearts by "cleaving" to Him, even when rather literalised
in expression, suggested a spiritual meaning to spiritual
Israelites, as in the words, " Love the Lord thy God, obey his
voice, and cleave unto him, for he is thy life" and also in the
Psalms, " The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of
my cup" and in the Lord's saying to Abraham, "/ am... thy
exceeding great reward*" The development of this Hebrew
thought, the thought of the regeneration of Man by taking
th life of God into himself, so as to be born into God's
familyis expressed in many different metaphors throughout

1 i Chr. xii. 18.

It xxx. 20, 1's. xvi. 5, Gen. xv. i. The meaning is obscured by
i in I). -utrronomy, and hence not fully brought out by Philo
) tin- Talmudists. But no spiritual Jew would take "life"
to Ix- identic. il with Ucut. il>. "length of days."

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

this Gospel, and it comes before us for the first time here :
" He came to his own [kingdom] and his own [people] took
him not into [their hearts]. But as many as did [thus] take
him [into their hearts], unto them he gave authority to become
children of God 1 ."

It is natural to ask why the Evangelist says "children,"
and not " sons," of God ; for the phrase is not found in the
Bible and perhaps not in Jewish tradition 2 . Origen quotes
the Johannine passage, together with two from Paul, after
others that mention " sons " in Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and
Malachi, to prove that "the stability and unrnovableness of
the [true] sonship was not to be seen of old 3 ." But he does
not point out that the Johannine word for " children " implies
(in certain contexts and possibly here) a participation in the
parental nature, and a dependence on the parental love, that
are not implied by the word " sons 4 ." A " son " may be of
alien blood, made legally a son by what Paul frequently calls
"son-adoption"; but the word "child-adoption" does not
appear to exist in Greek 5 .

Another reason for preferring the phrase "children of

1 Jn i. ii 12.

2 Hor. Hebr. and Wetstein (and Schottgen, except Sohar) allege
no Jewish parallel.

3 De Orat. 22, quoting Deut. xxxii. 20, Is. i. 2, Mai. i. 6, Gal. iv. I 2,
Rom. viii. 15, Jn i. 12.

4 Comp. Jn viii. 39 " If ye are [real] children (TCKVO) of Abraham, then
ye are [in virtue of your child-nature] doing the deeds of Abraham" (see
Joh. Gr. 20789) ; Eph. v. i 2 " Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved
children, and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you" \ i Jn iii. 2
(R.V.) " Beloved, now are we children of God, and it is not yet made
manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he \marg. it] shall be
manifested, we shall be like him" that is to say, the likeness of the
"children" to the parental nature, though it may be changed and
developed by growth, will still remain.

5 Yto&o-t'a (Rom. viii. 15, 23 &c.), though non-existent in the Indices of
the Berlin Urkunde (vols. i iv), seems to have been common in ancient
Rhodian and yEgean inscriptions (Boeckh, 2513, 2524, 2539). Steph.
Thes. gives no instance of Tvo0f(ria.

19 2 2

HIE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

God " to " sons of God " may perhaps be reasonably inferred
from the comment of Ammonius on the Johannine context:
niiitn 1 (is received him' that is to say, slaves or free,
>r barbarians, unlearned or learned, women or men^!'
Though everyone would of course admit that the expression
" sons of God " includes women, there is a manifestly greater
fitness in the phrase "children of God" to express this
inclusion. But the principal reason for this preference, from
the Johannine point of view, is probably this, that " children,"
better than "sons," expresses, or attempts to express, what
the Fourth Evangelist felt to be Christ's own inexpressible
conception of the passionate love and longing of the Father
in heaven for His "little-ones" on earth, helpless without His
help, and yet, too often, refusing to be helped 2 .

To this we must return hereafter when we discuss the
Marcan doctrine of Christ and His little ones whom He receives
in 1 1 is arms and blesses 3 . For the present, confining ourselves
to the illustration of the Johannine Prologue, we may say
that, in the view of the Fourth Evangelist, the term " sons
of God " might seem to be an Old Testament expression,

1 See Cramer on Jn i. 9 foil.

2 This may be illustrated by Paul's language to the wilful Corinthians
(i Cor. iv. 14) and Galatians (iv. 19), the "children" whom he has
u begotten," or with whom he is " in travail " once again. The latter he
calls (W.H.) TfKi/ta, a word that occurs nowhere else in N.T. except i Jn
about seven times, and Jn xiii. 33, where Jesus says to His disciples
" Little-children, yet a short [time] am I with you," meaning that they
are helpless babes unless He is with them, and that He can be with them
now on earth only a few minutes longer.

'' Mk x. 13, Mt. xix. 13, Lk. xviii. 15 <al ra /Spe'^T/, where the Lucan

"babes ' has given Origen much to say. Bpe'^os- occurs in only one

I the Apostolic Fathers (Hermas, Sim. ix. 29) and one passage

of the curly Apologists (Tatian 30), and the two passages use the word

in opposite aspects. On the connection between "babe" or "little one"

and "lamb" see S l>n 3440 b, 3443 ab. See also below (p. 88 foil). Clem.

(><j, in a discourse on regeneration and "the nurselings (rpo^i/xot)

..I Cod," introduces <;.,d as crying to them "Come hither, come hither,

in\ own I'foAmV that is, the young of both sexes.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

hardened by use, so to speak, into various meanings, suitable
for the Law and the Prophets, but not for the new and higher
revelation not at least here, where the doctrine of a new
birth, or bringing forth, is being introduced. The writer is
preparing the way for the Marcan title "Jesus Christ," in
connection with " Son of God," by leading us to reflect on the
spiritual meaning of divine sonship. What does it mean
when we say that this or that man is " a son of God " ? It
means that he has become a " child," or " one brought forth,"
in a new way. The new way is connected with " belief,"
thus : " Unto them he gave authority to become children of
God, unto them [I say] that believe in\to\ his name, who, not
from the blood [of the Passover or of Circumcision] nor from
desire of flesh or desire of husband, but from God were
begotten 1 ."

"Believe" has been used absolutely in this Gospel above,
where it was said that John the Baptist came " that he might
bear witness about the light that all might believe through
that [light]." What is meant now by the fuller expression
"believe in\to\ his name" following that previous statement?
Origen suggests that it is the first and rudimentary stage of
that new "belief" for which the Baptist was to prepare the
way. If that is so, it would seem to be a kind of half-official
half-personal " belief," to be merged ultimately in a belief that
is wholly personal 2 . But in any case this mention of believing
in " the name " of the Logos, as the condition for receiving
" authority " to become one of " the children of God" who are
"begotten from God" appears to be the conclusion of the
process of bridging over the interval of thought between
(i) the "beginning" and (2) "Jesus Christ the Son of God,"
so that "the Word" and "the Son "the latter, under the
name of the Only-begotten or Monogenes will now appear
in the same sentence : " And the Word became flesh, and

1 Jn i. 1213. On "not from blood? lit. bloods, s. Joh. Gr. 22689.

2 See/0A. Voc. 14837.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

tabernacled among (lit. in) us and we beheld his glory, glory
as of Monogenes, [coming] from the Father full of grace and
truth 1 ."

The "glory" here is not that of the Transfiguration,
literally interpreted, nor is it that kind of "glory" which we
can behold by the conventional "looking up." Rather we
may say, with a modern poet, that we must look down and
" cannot reach down " deep enough to the depth of His glory
which consists in His suffering with those whom He loves 2 .

10. "Grace" through "Jesus Christ"

We have seen that, after the mention of the " glory as of
the Only-begotten," there came the first mention of "grace."
"The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" is a beautiful expression,
of which the beauty grows upon us the more we think about
it. In the Prologue, "Grace" seems to supplement the colder
word " Logos " or " Word," without introducing that thought
of unexpectedness which we found in " Gospel." The con-
nection seems to be this : "When the Word became flesh,
then, being from the first full of grace, He became incarnate
graciousness or kindness." "Grace" seems most appropriately
introduced a little before the first mention of " Jesus Christ."

It is difficult to define "grace" a word frequently men-
tioned in Philo and still more frequently (in proportion to
space) in the Odes of Solomon 3 . It may be described
though roughly and inadequately as free and self-originated
kindn< - Ix -stowed without thought of payment or hire or

1 Jn .. 14.

* Compare Gitanjali ^ 10 11 " Here is thy footstool and there rest
thy feet where live the poorest, and lowliest, and lost. When I try to
bow to thce, my obeisance cannot reach down to the depth where thy
feet rest among the poorest, and lowliest, and lost. Pride can never
appi..i. h to where thou walkest in the clothes of the humble among the
M'l lowliest, and lost.... Our master himself has joyfully taken
upon him the bonds of creation; he is bound with us all for ever."
:/// 3724.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

return of any kind. It implies naturalness as well as goodness,
and, in that aspect, it is the antithesis of " hypocrisy." Mark
and Matthew nowhere use the word. Luke (except in the
phrase " have thank(s) ") uses it only once concerning the public
life of Jesus : "they wondered at the words of grace which
proceeded out of his mouth 1 ." It is not clear whether, by
"the words of grace," Luke means the prophecy of Isaiah as
read by Jesus, or the words of Jesus applying the prophecy to
Himself, or a confused mixture of the two. Grace, or gracious-
ness, attracts all that recognise it. But at Nazareth, the
hearers, instead of being attracted, are repelled. In such a
context, the Lucan phrase seems to tell us nothing and to
lead to nothing.

In John, "grace" is mentioned for the first time along
with " truth." " Grace and truth " may correspond to " kind-
ness (R.V. mercy] and trutJi" in Genesis 2 . If so, John substi-
tutes charts "grace," for what is usually and inadequately
rendered " mercy." Though John does not here mention
Abraham, he almost certainly has Abraham in his mind, as
being the Patriarch whom Philo regards as " the inheritor of
divine things 3 ," and whom Paul regards as the archetype of
those who are saved by "grace," and by faith in the Promise.

At this point in the Prologue the Baptist is introduced
again parenthetically to bear witness, not now to the Light as

1 In the Lucan Introduction, it occurs about Jesus in Lk. ii. 40 "and
the child grew... and the grace of God was upon him," and Lk. ii. 52
"And Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature and favour (or, grace) with
God and men." The " words of grace" (Lk. iv. 22) refer to (iv. 21) " He
began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture" Is. Ixi. i 2 which
Jesus has just read in the synagogue "been fulfilled in your ears." For
"grace" meaning " thank(s) " see Lk. vi. 32 4, xvii. 9.

2 Gen. xxiv. 27, which contains (Son 3553 c) the first Biblical mention of
" truth." But there may be a primary reference to the Psalm of the Bride-
groom (Ps. xlv. 24) " ^TVZ^... ride on. ..because of truth." See p. 25, n. 2.

3 Comp. Philo i. 473 " Now it is my purpose to inquire who is the heir
of divine things (6 TG>V Gciw Trpa-y/idreoi/ K\Tjpov6fj.os)," just before quoting
Gen. xv. i.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

being Light, but to the priority of the incarnate Word or

t as o .mpared with himself (" he was before me 1 "). Then,

after the parenthesis, the Evangelist returns to the subject of

ice," preparing us to perceive its exact meaning, not by
defining it, but by placing it in antithesis with Law.

Not that grace is against all law. For " grace " goes with
"truth"; and the highest truth implies correspondence to a
harmonious system which we call Law. But the Evangelist
has in view the imperfect Law of Moses, following the Promise
of grace and truth to Abraham- and following, not as
fulfilling that Promise, but only as preparing the way for that
fulfilment. To make this clear, he introduces the name of
Moses as the representative of the imperfect law, and thus, at
last, he brings us, by antithesis, to the name Jesus, and the
title Christ, as belonging to the representative of grace :
"Because from his fulness we all received, and grace succeeding
grace 2 ; because [though] the law [of God from Sinai] was
given through Moses, the grace [of God] and the truth [of
God] came-into-being through Jesus Christ 3 ."

Does this imply that no " grace " and no " truth " for men
"came-into-being" till u the word of God came unto John in
the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar 4 " ? Assuredly not.
They came into being for Abraham. But according to our
Kvangelist they came into being for Abraham through Christ,
who says concerning him, "Abraham rejoiced that he might
see my day, and he saw it and was glad 5 ." The author of the
Fourth Gospel doubtless shared Paul's belief that "Christ"

1 Jn i. 15- 2 See /<?>&. Gr. 22847.

3 Jn i. 1617. The antithesis between Law and Grace, and the
attitude of the world, "waiting" to "give itself up" to gracious love, may
be illustrated from Gitanjali^ 17 "They come with their laws and their
codes to bind me fast ; but I evade them ever, for I am only waiting for
love to give myself up at last into his hands."

1 I.k. iii. 1-2.

6 Jn viii. 56.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

was with Israel in the wilderness 1 , and, if so, surely with
Abraham their progenitor. We must therefore regard the
Johannine expression as condensed : " The Law of God was
given through Moses, but the grace of God and the truth of
God, before the Law, and under the Law, and apart from the
Law, and also after the Law had been fulfilled, came into being
through the eternal Word or Son who, in due course, became
flesh as Jesus Christ 2 ."

n. "Declaring God" as distinct from
"preaching the gospel"

The Prologue ends with a negation limiting our expecta-
tions of the truth about God to be expected from the senses,
and with an affirmation enlarging our expectations of the
truth about God to be expected from the Only-begotten :
" No man hath seen God at any time. Monogenes, God, he
that is in (lit. into) the bosom of the Father he declared
[him] 3 ." The negation sets itself not only against vulgar

1 i Cor. x. 4 " They drank of a spiritual rock that followed them, and
the rock was Christ."

2 It is possible that in this threefold mention of "grace" (Jn i. 14, 16,
17) (which John never mentions again) as an introduction to the name
" Christ" or " Anointed" John may have in view the Psalm of the Royal
Bridegroom, Ps. xlv. 2, 7 "Thou art fairer than the sons of man, grace
is poured out in thy lips," " God hath anointed thee with the oil of glad-
ness above thy fellows " a passage quoted in Heb. i. 9 as predicting the
bringing of the Son into the world. But an adequate motive may be
found in the feeling that "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" ought
to receive a prominent position in any document that professed to give
the essence of Christ's teaching. The undoubted allusions to the Bride-
groom in the early part of the Fourth Gospel will come before us later on
when we consider the Synoptic doctrine of the Children of the Bride-
chamber. These, and the Jewish traditions about (Son of Man, Index)
"the Bridegroom of the Beginning" and "the Bridegroom of the Law,"
favour the view that Jn i. 1417 does allude to the Psalm of the
Bridegroom.

3 Jn i. 1 8 p.ovoyfvr)S 0ebs 6 &>v (Is TOV KO\TTOV TOV TTdTpbs fKelvos e^rjyTjcraro.

///. "take the lead," means, among other things, "dictate"

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

Pagan notions of mysteries, and magic incantations professing
to make God visible, but also against materialistic Jewish
conceptions of the glory of God based on literal acceptations
of Old Testament lightnings and thunders and pillars of
cloud and fire. This negation needs little comment.

Not so the affirmation. For this suggests the answer to
a question that would probably occur to every thoughtful
student of religious writings, if he approached the Prologue
for the first time and read it through attentively, having also
some notion of the contents of the whole of the Gospel to
which it is prefixed, and of the Epistle that expresses the
Gospel's results. Would he not say " ' Life/ ' light,' ' glory,'
' grace,' ' truth ' so far, so good ; but where is ' love ' ? "

The Prologue gives, in effect, this answer : " Love is every-
where in this book ; not mentioned till toward the end, but
embodied in the incarnate Word and declared or interpreted
to the sons of man by the Only-begotten Son of God. I said
at first that ' the Word was toward God,' meaning ' in converse
with God ' converse not of face with face but of spirit with
spirit. Now I express another aspect of the same truth by
' Only-begotten ' (meaning the Son in unique unity of will with
tlu: Father) and 'God' (meaning that 'the Only-begotten' is
one with God in nature as well as in will) and 'into the
bosom of the Father' (meaning not only that He is Himself
eternally in the bosom of the Feather, but also that He, as

a charm, or incantation, or the names of gods, as when ^Egeus says to

745) "dictate the gods [by whom I shall swear]." Hence it

illicit be used about priests, diviners, magicians, or seers, who "teach

authoritatively" what is clean or unclean, or "declare" the meaning of a

11 or vision. *E W rfo thrice found in LXX, means "diviner" twice.

Join, probably uses "declare" or "interpret" in a kind of under-

" m. Later on, he will represent Jesus as saying to Philip, "He

that hath seen me hath seen the Father." But here writing for those

I 'lone to mysteries, incantations, and initiations, seeking

i'le gods with strange names, with the aid of "diviners" or

in effect, "You cannot see God in that way.

Thc t! lll(1 lather, and 'the Only-begotten' is His 'interpreter'."

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

being incarnate on earth for us, is perpetually ascending from
earth to heaven, up to, and into, the bosom of the Father, and
taking us thither with Himself).

" ' Love ' is not, and must not be, mentioned here. For, if
mentioned, it would be misunderstood, being taken for some-
thing less than it is for ordinary love. The love brought
into the world by Christ was love of a new kind, not to be
known except by knowing Him. And none could know Him
except by loving Him, and by being ' in His bosom ' as He
was * in the bosom of the Father.'

" It is for this reason that the author of this Gospel will
not be called 'John the son of Zebedee.' True, the son of
Zebedee was in some sense the begetter of it. But he himself
would not have wished that it should be called by his name,
or indeed by any 'proper name] that is, * name of one's own 1 .'

"To have 'John ' for 'a proper name,' shall be reserved for
the ' man sent from God, whose name was John,' and who,
though he prepared the way for the baptism from above, was
himself ' from the earth ' and ' spake from the earth 2 .' But the
author of this Gospel shall have no 'name.' It is enough for
him, and more than enough, to be called ' the disciple whom
Jesus loved,' and, in that unnamed character, to attempt to
shew, through the story of His life, how God's ' Only-begotten'
became also [God's] Declarer, so that His disciples, seeing
Him, saw the Father."

1 The thought of one's "proper name," as being a defining or
"enclosing" thing, may be illustrated from Gitanjali 29 "He whom
I enclose with my name is weeping in this dungeon. I am ever busy
building this wall all around ; and as this wall goes up into the sky day
by day I lose sight of my true being in its dark shadow. I take pride in
this great wall, and I plaster it with dust and sand lest a least hole should
be left in this name ; and for all the care I take I lose sight of my true
being."

2 Jn iii. 31, comp. iii. 11 12, on which see Son 3387. John the
Baptist "spake from the earth" when he sent the message recorded
in Mt. xi. 3, Lk. vii. 19.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

Sonic may feel that the introduction of "Only-begotten,"
Monogenes almost in the character of a new god does not
help, but rather hinders, their appreciation of the simple state-
ment that " the Word became flesh." But we have to remember
that the Evangelist was writing, in great measure, for educated

!>le. And, to educated people at the end of the first
century, the term Monogenes would convey a very distinct
meaning, connected with the preceding context, and spiritually
valuable as a protest against error in high places of philo-
sophy.

" Do you not know " we might be asked by some
intelligent reader of the Fourth Gospel in the second century
" that Plato in his Timaeus had long ago introduced Mono-
genes to the Greeks, and that Cicero, in his translation of the
Timaeus, had passed on the term to the Romans? Cicero
says ' In order that this world (mundus) might be as like as
possible to a living-creature complete in itself (animanti absolute)
in this respect, [namely] that it was alone and one therefore
God procreated this world singular and only-begotten (singu-
larem Deus hunc mundum atque unigenam procreavit) 1 .'
Plato's Timaeus, besides calling the Cosmos ' a living creature,'
says that ' the Maker would not make worlds (cosmoi) two or
infinite in number ; but on the contrary this only-begotten
heaven, having-come-into-being, both exists and will exist*?
You see that Plato takes 'cosmos' and 'heaven' to mean
much the same thing, and to be a ' living-creature' Later on,

iiggests that our 'kinship with heaven' lies in the top of
our body, the head, as being nearest to the heaven 3 . And he
concludes the Timaeus thus : ' Having received mortal and
immortal living-beings, and having been therewith fully -filled,
this cosmos, (hits {equipped'} a visible living-creature, including

1 Cicero, Timnnix DC Universo 4.

- Plato, Thnni-us $ 6 (p. 31 B) AX' els- oSe povoyevrjs ovpavos yeyovus
fort rt K(i\ T' eWm.

"' "//. 8 43 (p. 90 A).

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

[a//] the [things that are} visible hath become \tJie\ linage of
the Maker, God perceptible, Greatest, and Best, both Most
Beautiful and Most Perfect, One [only] Heaven, this Only-
begotten, [always] BEING 1 .'

" Now all this or at all events, this, as it was interpreted
by many later writers was entirely contrary to the belief of
the Evangelist. He rejected the notions of some, that the
Cosmos was a living-creature ; and that the heavenly bodies
had a divine nature superior to that of Man ; and that ascen-
sion to the Father meant ascending to any perceptible upper
sphere. For the beloved Disciple held fast to the Divinity of
Love and Goodness ; and, in comparison with a good man,
the stars seemed to him as naught. Yet many in his days,
Jews as well as Gentiles and some even of the Christians
were carried away by various versions, or perversions, or
fragments, of Plato's doctrine. Among these was Philo 2 , who
describes God as * begetting [the things that make up] the
Whole,' and as making the Logos a Mediator, 'standing
midway ' between the Maker and the made, so that the Logos
says to men * / stood between the Lord and you*, being neither
unbegotten (as God) nor begotten (as you are) 4 .'

1 Timaeus 44 (p. 92 C) BVTJTII yap *cni Mfoara wa Aa/3cbi> *ai
p<od(\f o5f 6 m)(rp.os oirra>, a>oz/ oparbv ra opara 7rpie%ov, flicaiv TOV TTOITJTOV,
debs aladrjToS) fj-cyicrros KOI apiaTos KaXXio-roy T( KO\ reXfooraroy yeyovfv, fis
ovpavbs o8f povoyevrjs a>f. The bald translation given above, and the
capital letters of BEING, are intended to shew (i) the identification of
" heaven " and " cosmos," (2) the emphasis on a>v, the final word in the
treatise.

2 Philo i. 501 2 TOJ 6e apxayy\(f KCU Trpfer/SuTarco Aoya> Scopeav eai'perot>
ed(t)K(v 6 TCI oXa yfvvrjaras Trarrjp, iva ptdopios orar ro yevofjifvov dtaKpivrj TOV
7rf7roirj<6ros...ovTf dyfvvrjTos &)$ 6 0fbs u>v, OVTC yevvrjTos a>s v/uety.

3 These are the words of Moses in Deut. v. 5.

4 This is compatible with the assertion " I was uniquely begotten,"
but "unigena" (or "unigenitus") does not occur in Mangey's Index to
Philo, nor does Drummond give p.ovoy(vr)s among the many titles of the
Logos. In i. 501, Philo seems to use yewrja-as as meaning, or including,

and it is in this point that he differs from the Fourth Gospel.

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

" Ik-re Philo seems to confuse 'create' with 'beget' And
many others, among those for whose sake largely the Evange-
ist wrote, were led astray by their interpretations of Plato,
and, in particular, of the Timaeus 1 . And therefore to Plato,
and to his Timaeus, the Evangelist here makes allusion,
repeating Plato's title of Monogenes but applying it to the
spiritually and eternally begotten Son, who offers to the sons
of men the power of being spiritually begotten again, so as to
be like Himself a thing quite different from physical begetting,
or physical creation. Moreover the Evangelist refers yet once
again to the Timaeus at the conclusion of his prologue where
he says that 'no man hath seen God at any time' but that
'Monogenes hath declared Him.' For the Timaeus says 'It is
a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of this All-
t hat-is* [around us]; and after having found Him out, it is
impossible to tell Him forth into the [ears and hearts of] all*!

1 Plutarch (De Defect. Orac. 23, ii. 4223) in a dialogue on the
passage in the Timaeus, has ev ols ye /xa^erai [nXarcoi/J rots aireipovs
KO(rp.ovs VTTOTidf/jifvoiS) aura) 8rj (forjcri doKflv eva TOVTOV etVai povoyevij TOO

#ea> KGU dyanrjTov.... This adds "beloved by God" to "only-begotten" as
an epithet of the cosmos. The context censures Plato for giving cause
for misinterpretations of this doctrine of a single cosmos. Another
Dialogue of Plutarch gives povoyfvtjs as an epithet to Persephone (De
Facie in Orbe Lunae 28, ii. 943) 17 Se Qepo-ecpovr) Trpaws KOI XP V <?
TroXXo) [\vd] rov vovv OTTO T^S ^i^qs, KOL 8ia TOVTO fjiovoyfvrjs KK\rjrai'
P<>vv y"i> yiixrai TO j3f\Tio-Tov rov avBptoTTOv diaKpiv6p.fvov [v?r'] avrfjS.
There is manifestly some play on "only," but its exact nature is not clear
to me. The passage is of some importance as an indication of the
frequency of discussions about novoyev^s in, and before, Plutarch's time.

" Of this All-that-is," rovSe rov TTOVTOS.

Tins is quoted by Celsus (from Timaeus p. 28 c). Origen (Cels.

vii. 42) accepts the words as "noble and admirable," but adds that,

because of this very difficulty and impossibility, "the Word was made

in order that "the Word might be able to make its way into all

6*f OUIMITOS * <j>duvciv o A(jyos) [that very Word] which Plato says

, even for him who has found it, to convey-by-speech into

l lllr '" '"'^ "t | all '(Is -rruvTas (idvvaTov Xe'-yeii/)."

Origen points out that /co^or has two meanings, (i) the
'"iiii.ii) beings. In the former sense he seems ready to go

THE BEGINNING OF THE GOSPEL

" To this our Evangelist replies, in effect, that although it
is impossible to 'declare' Him, or 'tell Him forth', to all, or
indeed to any human being, by the force of mere words, yet the
incarnate Son, ' full of grace and truth,' being that Monogenes
or Only-begotten after whom Plato was groping and feeling
his way was assuredly able to * declare ' God, the Father, to
those who received the Spirit of the Son into their hearts 1 ."

a long way with Plato in the exaltation of the Koo-pos. See Origen on
Gen. i. 16 18 (Lomm. viii. 45 7), on Mt. xviii. 7 {Comm. Matth. xiii. 20),
and Comm. Joann. i. 24, vi. 38. Also Clement of Alexandria, quoting the
Timaeus about the difficulty of finding " the Maker and Father of this
All-that-is," says (701) that Plato, by calling God "Father" of it, "not
only shewed that the Cosmos came-into-being (ou povov yevrjTov T* e8ei|e
ruv KOO-/AOV) but also signifies that it has come-into-being from Him as
a son (e'| avrov yeyovevai o^/zntVet, nadd-rrfp vibv) and that He is called the
Father of it (avroC) inasmuch as it came-into-being from [Him] alone (&>$
av K novov yfvofjLvov) and became substance from [a state of] not-being
(e< /ii7 ovros vTroo-rai/ros)." Is this an attempt to explain Plato's povuycvr)s t
applied to noo-pos, as though it meant " coming-into-being from the Alone,
or, from God alone""? See above, p. 30, n. I, on the reason for calling
Persephone p-ovoyev^s.

1 Movoyfvrjs (Heb. THS Gesen. 402 ) occurs in Midrash (Levy iii. 51 b]
as a Hebraized noun (but not in Aram, or Syr.) meaning "only (son)."
In this sense TITS but LXX dyan^Tos, is thrice applied to Isaac (Gen.
xxii. 2, 12 (comp. Heb. xi. 17 TOV povoyev^\ 16) as being the " unique", son
of the Promise. " My only one" in Ps. xxii. 20, xxxv. 17, LXX /zoi/oyei/qs,
means "my [very] life," as being a unique irreplaceable possession. In
Jer. Targ. I and II (on Gen. xxii. 10) the angels call Abraham and Isaac
"these unique [ones]." In Pesachim \ i8a, God says " I am unique in my
world, and Abraham unique in his," and in Ps. Sol. xviii. 4 the seed of
Abraham says " Thy chastening is upon us as [upon] a son, firstborn,
only-begotten (^ovoyfvrf).^ A contrast is drawn between God's "only-
begotten" and "the world" in Ezr. Apoc. vi. 589 (ed. Box) "But we,
thy people, whom thou hast called thy firstborn, thy only-begotten
(unigenitum)...if the world has indeed been created for our sakes, why
do we not enter into possession of our world! "

The Johannine Gospel answers this question as to the relation
between the " only-begotten " and " the world " by referring the reader to
the Incarnation. It denies both the Greek view, that the "only-
begotten" is identical with the world, and also the Jewish view, that
the "only-begotten" is Israel after the flesh.

CHAPTER II

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

i. John the Baptist, (i) "preaching?
(2) "bearing witness"

THE Synoptists describe the Baptist as " preaching," John
describes him as " bearing witness." This difference pervades
the two streams of narrative. The Synoptists take an interest,
so to speak, in the Prophet for his own sake. John does not.

For example, Mark (followed by Matthew) describes the
Baptist's ascetic diet and clothing ; Luke, too, though omitting
this description, records the rules of conduct laid down by the
Baptist for what may be called the inferior laity the publicans,
soldiers, and common people generally who said to the
Prophet " What shall we do ? " John omits both the Marcan
and the Lucan details, but dwells on the mission of the Baptist
to " bear-witness," and on the " witness " when borne 1 .

The reader will infer from these facts that in this chapter,
as in others that deal with details about John the Baptist we
must not expect the rule of Johannine Intervention to be
observed. The Marcan mention of the Baptist's "leathern
;;ir<llc" and "locusts and wild honey," omitted by Luke, must
not be expected to be restored, or to have an equivalent in its
in tin: Fourth Gospel.

1 John uses fjuipTvptot five times, and /laprvpm twice, about the Baptist

i 1' ipter, besides many instances in other contexts. Mark

i.iTVfiiut at all, Matthew and Luke use it each only once.

Maprv t ,i<i is used by Synoptists only as to false witness against Jesus

on His trial.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

2. " As it is written in Isaiah the prophet"

Mark says " The beginning of the gospel (lit. good-
message)... even as it is written (lit. it has been written] in
Isaiah the prophet, Behold I send my messenger.... The voice
of one crying aloud in the wilderness,... there- was (or, came)
John who was baptizing in the wilderness... 1 ."

On this we may imagine a Christian writer, perhaps a
disciple of John, at the end of the first century, making the
following comment :

"'Behold I send...' is not in Isaiah but in Malachi.
Moreover, ' good-message', closely followed by 4 my messenger ;'
would lead some to suppose that the ' good-message', or
'gospel,' was wholly delivered by the 'messenger,' i.e. by John
the Baptist. Also the phrase ' as it is written,' though fit for
quoting scripture that applies to all time (as when the Lord
Jesus says ' // is written, thou shalt not live by bread alone ')
would not be so fit concerning the mere sending of a messenger
on a certain occasion, even though it were a great occasion.

" Isaiah spoke first of ' the voice ' and afterwards of ' the
word of our God.' The Baptist did not compare himself with
'the word of our God' which 'shall stand for ever 2 .' What he
meant was that he himself was only a voice : ' I am the voice
of one crying... make straight the way of the Lord,' as said
Isaiah the prophet 3 .

" Luke retains ' as it is written,' and writes out three or
four verses of the prophecy, ' As it is written in the book of the
words of Isaiah the prophet .. .and all flesh shall see the salvation
of God*'. Matthew does not do this. He inserts ' saying ' in

1 Mk i. i 4, quoting Mai. iii. I and Is. xl. 3.

2 Is. xl. 3 8 " The voice of one cry ing... M word of our God shall
stand for ever." 3 Jn i. 23.

4 Lk. iii. 4 6. Jn uses the Synoptic " has been written" twice (viii. 17,
xx. 31), but mostly he uses the participle, "that which has been written,"
or the noun "writing" (i.e. "scripture "), probably to denote permanence
(as in x. 35 "the scripture cannot be broken").

A - B - 33 3

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

a doubtful connection, and in such a way that we are perhaps
to infer that the Baptist said the whole of what follows:
1 Repent ye, for the kingdom of the heavens hath drawn near.
For this is he (or, He) that was said, through Isaiah the
prophet, saying, The voice of one crying... 1 .'

" Now the point of importance for us is, not that ' Isaiah '
said this, or ' Malachi ' that ; but that the Spirit of prophecy
prophesied about the Messiah in all the prophets from the
first to the last, so that the last of them, namely the Baptist,
was able to say concerning the Lord Jesus ' This was He that
I, the Lord's prophet, said', or, * This was He that they, the
Lord's prophets, said', meaning, * This was He concerning whom
we all prophesied' "

Such a meaning might be extracted from the tradition in
the Fourth Gospel without altering a letter of it : " This was
he that they [i.e. the prophets] said' 2 '' Somewhat similarly the
Gospel of the Hebrews represents the Holy Spirit as saying
to Jesus at His baptism, " My son, in all the prophets \ was
expecting thee 3 ."

1 Mt. iii. 3 OVTOS yap camv 6 prjffels Sta 'Hcraiov... \eyovros... i have
found no instance of 6 prjQds applied to persons in the Greek Bible. In
Gk, the genitive \eyovros makes it clear that Isaiah is the person
"saying." But in Heb. and Syr., "saying," or "who said," may refer to
"he," i.e. the Baptist, or to " Isaiah." Palest, has "This is he that said,
in Isaiah the prophet" (with v.r. " was said"). "Saying" is omitted by
Syr. (Walton) and b.

The obscurity of Matthew is increased by other considerations, e.g.
the fact that "this is he" may mean " I am he," for which see p. 41.
* Jn i. 15.

foh. Gr. 1927 c quoting from The Gospel of the Hebrews (as
quoted by Jerome on Is. xi. 2) " Fili mi, in omnibus Prophetis expecta-
b;tni t<-. Also, on Is. liii. i "Who hath believed our report? and to
whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?" Jerome says, "After
th<- words nf the Father announcing to the world the future coming of
.the chorus of the Prophets answered that they had done their
tlut > > -^ "' t IK-MI lay) had announced His arm and power to all."

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

3. " This was he that they said"

If the unique expression in Matthew is thus connected
with the obscure and uncouth and almost unique expression
in John, it becomes lawful to infer that neither Evangelist
resorts to such strange language out of mere eccentricity.
Both perhaps are endeavouring to interpret some ambiguous
Greek tradition capable of meaning (i) "This was he that
they said," (2) "This was he that I said," and with a very
slight change indeed (3) " This was he that said."

Of these three interpretations, Mark and Matthew adopt
the first, identifying " they " with " the prophets," represented
by " Isaiah." But the Fourth Evangelist appears to adopt
the second. The scene that he sees before Christ's baptism
differs from that presented by any of the Synoptists. Not
one of the Three, not even Luke, tells us that God had said
to the Baptist, in effect, " Not only is the Messiah at hand,
but I appoint unto thee a sign by which thou shalt know
Him." But the Fourth Evangelist does this. The expectant
position of the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel is somewhat like
the expectant position of Samuel after the Lord had said to
him " I have provided me a king 1 ." When David passes
before him, the prophet hears a voice saying " Arise, anoint
him, for this is he." Instead of "This is he," the Evangelist
puts into the mouth of the Baptist " This was he." By this
is meant, first, " This was from the beginning the foreordained
Messiah," and secondly, " This was the Messiah, even during
the time when He was close to me, as my disciple, and I knew
Him not, because the Spirit had not yet descended upon Him."

Thus the last and greatest of the prophets, to whom
it was given to be the first to see and to proclaim to the
world the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit, simultaneously
magnifies the greatness of this Bringer of the Spirit and

1 i S. xvi. i.

35 32

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

confesses his own comparative littleness, by avowing that he
did not recognise Him at first even when present, though he
had proclaimed His future coming. This confession is ex-
ed in language that is ampler as is often the case with
an inspired prophet than the conception of the prophet
himself. The Baptist, in his own understanding, may have
meant no more than this, " Even while He was following
behind me as a disciple, He was all the time essentially before
me, being my Chief, though I knew Him not." But the words
are capable of meaning " He was, even from the beginning of
things, my Chief and my Lord 1 ."

4. " My messenger "

Mark has "Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare
thy way. The voice of one crying... 2 ." Matthew and Luke
omit, here, the italicised words ; but, later on, they represent
Jesus as saying to the multitudes, concerning the Baptist, that
he is " a prophet," and " more than a prophet," for " this is he
of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy
face, who shall prepare thy way before thee*T

These words are from Malachi, where they are connected
with the Purification of the Temple, thus : " Behold, I send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before my face, and
the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple,
and the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, behold,
he cometh, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the
day of his coming ?... For he is like a refiner's fire. ..and he
shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver... 4 ." The persons
indicated by the twice repeated " messenger" (or " angel ") are
not clear. Still less clear are they in the text as quoted by

1 On " before me," see Joh. Gr. ad loc.

Mk i. 2.

3 Mt. xi. 9 10, Lk. vii. 26 7. 4 Mai. iii. I 3.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

Clement of Rome, " The Lord shall suddenly come to His
Temple, and the Holy One whom ye expect," where the
Greek "and" is rendered "even" in Lightfoot's translation 1 .
Avoiding the Marcan quotation of Malachi, the Johannine
writer appears to have described, in his record of an early
purification of the Temple, what he regards as its fulfilment :
the Lord "suddenly coming" to the Temple, and "purifying"
it, at least for the time. Also, if any early difficulties arose in
connection with Mark's reference to John the Baptist as a
" messenger " or " angel," the writer avoids these by avoiding
the term in connection with the Baptist, whom he prefers to
describe as " a man sent from God" and afterwards as saying
" Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I (emph.} am not
the Christ, but that I am [one] sent before him 2 ." When did
the Baptist say this ? Nowhere in these exact words, but in
similar words, thus, " He tliat suit me [on a mission] to baptize
in water he said unto me, ' On whomsoever thou shalt see...'
and I have borne witness that this [same] is the Son of
God 3 ."

5. "Are we to expect another?"

But there are other difficulties in Matthew and Luke not
so easily met, arising out of the quotation from Malachi. For

1 Clem. Rom. 23. See Light 3731 /, 3763 c &c. Rashi takes "the
Lord" (in Malachi iii. i) as "the God of judgment " (comp. Mai. ii. 17
"where is the God of judgment?") and "the messenger," first-mentioned,
as being apparently the same as that mentioned second, namely, the
Messenger of the Covenant. Origen (Comm. Joann. ii. 24 5) maintained
that the Baptist was an "angel." Pseudo-Jerome on Mk says " The voice
of the Holy Spirit through Malachi sounds forth to the Father concerning
the Son who is His Face," i.e., apparently, " I, the Spirit, send my mes-
senger, John, before thy Son, O Father, to prepare thy way." These facts
indicate the difficulties that would arise out of Mark's text for Christians
in the first century.

2 Jn i. 6, iii. 28.

3 J n i- 33 4- On the difference between "send" and "send on a
mission," see/0/z. Voc. 1723 .

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

they, later on, represent the messenger-prophet as saying to
Him whose way he came to prepare, "Art thou he that is to
come? Or are we to expect another 1 ?" And, in reply to the
two disciples of the Baptist who bring this message, Jesus
says, in effect, that although the Baptist is not inferior to any
"among those born of women," yet the little one "in the
kingdom of God is greater than he 2 ." The Baptist's faith at
that time would seem to have been shaken. Matthew and
Luke say that Jesus dismissed the two messengers with
the words "Go, tell John the things ye hear and see... and
blessed is he whosoever shall not stumble in me." Are these
words intended to suggest a rebuke for stumbling or a help
against stumbling? Are we to infer that this "blessing"
finally rested on the Baptist, who was confirmed in faith
by the Lord's warning, so that in the end he did not finally
" stumble " ?

The Fourth Gospel seems to point to this inference,
though only indirectly. It shews that from first to last the
Prophet was always devoted to the Bridegroom. But he is
the " friend," not one of the Family of the Bridegroom.
Perhaps therefore we are intended to regard the Prophet as
among the class of those " born of women," as Matthew and
Luke say. This class is described in the Fourth Gospel as
those begotten "from blood, or from the desire of the flesh, or
from the will of the husband," and is contrasted with those
who "were begotten from God 3 ." These last are born of the
Spirit, ;md the Evangelist says that the Spirit was not given
till Jesus was glorified. Although therefore John saw the
Spirit descending on Jesus, he did not himself receive it.
Yet he rejoiced in it, and in the Messiah who received it.

xpect," comp. Clem. Rom. 23 (above quoted) "the Holy One
whom ye expect."

xi. ii, Lk. vii. 28; on "the little one" (///. "more little") see
.W 3523 a foil.

,. 13.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

Matthew and Luke mention disciples of the Baptist (Luke
says " two ") coming from him to Jesus with the message,
"Art thou he that is to come?" The Fourth Gospel says
that in quite different circumstances two disciples of the
Baptist were, in effect, sent by him to Jesus as being "the
Lamb of God 1 ." This, like the miraculous Draught of Fishes,
is one of several instances where the Fourth Gospel sup-
plements Luke, without contradicting him. The two disciples,
in Luke, were to report what things " they heard and saw."
The two disciples, in the Fourth Gospel also, were invited to
" come " that they might " see," and they " came " and " saw."
The former saw miracles of healing. The latter saw Jesus
Himself and where He " abode." That is, they received
a partial revelation of the Father 2 ; and thus these two
disciples became the beginnings of the Church of Christ.

This does not imply a denial that, later on, "two" disciples of
the Baptist came as Luke relates. But it places before us another
and earlier aspect of the Baptist and "two" of his disciples
which Luke has not related. Afterwards, indeed, the Fourth
Gospel admits that some of the disciples of the Baptist were
jealous of the Lord Jesus. But the prophet himself says to
them " He that hath the Bride is the Bridegroom," and declares
that he, as being the Bridegroom's friend, " rejoiceth with
[great] joy by reason of the Bridegroom's voice." Then he
adds and these are the Prophet's last words "This my joy
therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease 3 ."

Such is the description in the Fourth Gospel of the prophet
whom the Three call " messenger." That he did deliver a
message, and was a " messenger," is clearly stated, but in
such a way as to avoid difficulties arising out of the word

1 Jn i. 35 foil.

2 Comp. Clem. Alex. 956 " Behold (0eS>) the mysteries of love, and
then shalt thou receive-the-sacred-sight (eVoTTTeuo-et?) of the bosom of the
Father, whom the Only-begotten Son, God, alone declared."

3 Jn iii. 2530 (see/^. Gr. pref. p. viii).

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

"im " as used by Malachi. And that the messenger

was merely for the season and not for all time is implied in
the words uttered later on by Jesus concerning him, " He was
the torch that burns away and shines," that is to say, shines
by burning away, and not like the sun, the light of the world
which is a constant source of light 1 .

6. " The voice of one crying "

In Mark, this quotation from Isaiah is introduced without
any clear connection. The reader might take the words in
this among other ways : " The beginning of the gospel... [was]
the voice of one crying." Matthew has " For this is he that
was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying, The voice of
one crying... 2 ." Luke says that "the word (or, utterance) of
God came-to-pass on John. ..and he came... proclaiming... as it
is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, The
voice of one... 3 ."

Isaiah tells us how the "crying" comes to pass. Israel
was returning from captivity in Babylon and journeying
through the wilderness to Jerusalem ; and God commanded
the prophets and rulers of Israel to comfort His people and
prepare the way of the Lord in that wilderness : " Comfort
ye, comfort ye my people... and cry ye unto her that her
warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned, [and]
that she hath received of the Lord's hand double for all
her sins: The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the
wilderness the way of the Lord...*" Whose is "the voice

Hie that crieth"? It does not appear to be the voice of
any one prophet. For Isaiah continues thus, "The voice of
one saying Cry. And one said, What shall I cry?" That is

1 Jn v. 35. See>//. Gr. 2275 />.

' Mt. iii. 3. See above, p. 34, n. i.

:1 Lk. iii. 2 -4, " word (or, utterance) " = ^/xa, " words " = Xdyoi.

' Is. xl. ,-3.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

to say, the prophet answers the appeal, and asks what he is to
prophesy. This seems to shew that (as Rashi says) " the
voice of one that crieth " is the Voice of the Holy Spirit of
Prophecy calling on the prophets to "cry." Hence if the
prophecy were strictly applied in the Gospels, " the voice "
would not be exactly that of the Baptist, but rather that of
the Holy Spirit possessing the Baptist, and, through him,
bidding the teachers and rulers of Israel to comfort Israel and
prepare the way of the Lord 1 .

There is a recognised distinction in Hebrew (resembling
the distinction in Greek) between " word " and " voice." The
" voice of the Lord God " may come through thunder, or
through angels, or through the leaves of the trees in Paradise 2 .
When Moses heard "the word" from Sinai, it is said that
Israel heard it not, " but belike they heard tke voice*" Philo
makes the same distinction. Ignatius says that if his friends
permit him to be a martyr, he is "a word of God" but if they
will not, " I shall be a [mere] voice again V The Fourth Gospel
represents the Baptist as saying " / am a voice" somewhat in
the sense in which Ignatius said it. And Matthew himself
shews us how some such tradition may have arisen. For in
Hebrew, as well as in Greek, a man sometimes speaks of
himself as " this man" meaning " I, even this man who stands
before you " ; and the words last quoted from Matthew might
be rendered thus : " Repent ye, for the kingdom of the heavens
hath drawn near, For this man \who stands before you, i.e. /]

1 Rashi says that in Is. xl. 3 6 the Voice is the Holy Spirit, or the
Voice from the Holy and Blessed, and he paraphrases "one said" as " My
spirit said to Him." Comp. Is. vi. 8 where God says "Whom shall I
send, and who will go for us ? " and the prophet replies " Here am I,
send me."

2 Gen. iii. 8 " they heard the voice of the Lord God walking."

3 See Numb. r. (on Numb. vii. 89, Wii. p. 392) referring to Exod. xxix.
42 " you...thee."

4 Ign. Rom. 2. On Philo i. 6245 s. Son 3628^.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

is he that was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet, saying, The
Voice., .^r

Also Luke represents "the people" as expecting, and
reasoning in their hearts "whether perchance he {i.e. the
Baptist] were the Christ." The Fourth Gospel goes further
and says that the Baptist was asked " Who art thou ? " and
he knowing that they meant, though they did not say, " Art
thou the Christ ? " confessed, and denied not, and confessed,
" I am not the Christ." Then, in answer to further questioning,
he said "I am the voice of one crying...." Thus the Fourth
Gospel appears to carry on the traditions of the Three, ex-
plaining what was obscure in Mark and Matthew, but
explaining it somewhat differently from Luke, and in such a
way as to lead the reader while he is being taught about the
Baptist and the Voice to think about these as severally
inferior to Jesus and to the Word.

7. Is " in the wilderness " to be taken with " crying "
or with "prepare ye " ?

All the Synoptists agree in quoting, after a mention of
" Isaiah the prophet," the words "The voice of one crying in
the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his
paths straight 2 ." This agrees almost exactly with the LXX
except that they substitute " his paths " for LXX " the paths
of our God." In the Hebrew, which differs, there is a
parallelism between "in the wilderness" and "in the desert" \
and this suggests that both phrases should be connected with
imperatives ("prepare ye in the wilderness .. .make straight in the
desert ") 3 . The Revised Version (text) adopts this connection

1 Mt. iii. 23. On "this man " meaning " 7," s. Son 3068 (i).
* Mk i. 3, Mt. iii. 3, Lk. iii. 4. Jn i. 23 has " the voice of one crying
in tll( - wfldi lake ye straight the way of the Lord as said Isaiah

UK- prophrt. In (.rcck as in English we might punctuate after crying
In the wilderness make ye..."). But it would be harsh.
I. 3 (K.V. txf) "that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness (marg.
that < iit-th in tin- wilderness, Prepare ye) the way of the Lord, make

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

in Isaiah, but does not even suggest it as an alternative in the
Gospels. Why is this ?

Probably it is, in part, because Mark and Matthew in their
several contexts describe the Baptist as "baptizing in the
wilderness " and " preaching in the wilderness'' evidently taking
this to be a fulfilment of the prophecy about " one crying
in the wilderness^-" Luke on the other hand, instead of saying
that the Baptist " preached in the wilderness," implies that
he did not preach till he came out of if 2 . It is therefore quite
possible (though not probable) that Luke took " in the
wilderness " with " prepare ye."

The truth is that no parallel can be drawn between any
literal " wilderness " in which the Baptist can have preached
(whether it was "the wilderness" of Judaea or any other) and
that pathless "wilderness" in Isaiah through which Jehovah
bade the rulers of Israel prepare a path for the Lord, which
should also be a path for His people. But " wilderness "
might be regarded metaphorically. The Fourth Gospel, while
retaining the ambiguous form of the unpunctuated Quotation
(" crying in the wilderness prepare ye ") does not follow any
of the Synoptists in making any independent mention of a
literal " wilderness." Also it condenses the Hebrew parallels
" prepare ye " (or " make ye ready "), " make ye straight," into
a form of the latter, used by Joshua when saying to Israel

straight in the desert a high way for our God." The LXX drops the
parallel " in the desert," and does not express literally " high way for our
God."

1 Mk i. 4, Mt. iii. i. But Matthew adds "of Judaea," on which see
Hor. Heb. ad loc. contrasting the metrical standards of " Jerusalem " with
those of " the wilderness."

2 Lk. i. 80 "was in the desert places (rats cpfaois) till...," iii. i 3 "The
word of God came on John...z>? the wilderness, and he came into all [the]
circle of the Jordan." On the other hand, Mt. iii. 5 says that "all the circle
of the Jordan" came out to the Baptist. Early confusion appears to
have existed as to the meaning of " wilderness," " circle " &c. Luke himself
(vii. 24) agrees with Mt. xi. 7, that Jesus said, about the Baptist, to the
multitudes, " What went ye out into the wilderness to behold ? "

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

nghtcn ye your heart unto the Lord," and by Philo
describing Abraham as among those who "straighten (or, keep
straight) the safe way to God," namely, through faith 1 .

As to the scene of the Baptist's preaching and baptizing,
it will be seen, later on, that the Fourth Gospel says it was
" Bethany, beyond Jordan." " Beyond Jordan" might express
a spiritual aspect of " the wilderness" as being a place where
Israel is away from its home, journeying from captivity in
Egypt, or from captivity in Babylon, toward the Promised
Land or toward the New Jerusalem 2 . The phrase also
suggests the coming victory of Jesus. For whereas Moses
merely looked across the Jordan, the first Jesus passed through
it and led Israel through it into the Promised Land ; and that
is what the second Jesus, in His baptism, is regarded as now
beginning to do.

In this aspect, as announcing the revelation of a glorious
conqueror, we may note the contrast between Luke and John
in dealing with the Isaiah quotation. Luke gives much space
to it, as describing the long line of the redeemed of Israel,
whose return from captivity across the desert is smoothed by
the removal of "valley" and "mountain," "crooked" and
"rough" places. But he omits "and the glory of the Lord
shall be revealed 3 ." The Fourth Gospel has previously
emphasized the "glory, as of the Only begotten"; and it now
utilises the quotation from Isaiah mainly for the purpose of
representing the Baptist as contrasting himself, the mere
"voice" calling on Israel to "make straight the way of the

'I'm-*. See Josh. xxiv. 23, Philo ii. 39, and Sir. ii. 2, 6 " straighten
thv heart... thy ways." It is implied that " straightening the way in one's
. tuning the way of the Lord in one's heart." Comp.
i. 3 " Return unto me.. .and I will return unto you."
u \\ iMrrnrss" means the wilderness of Sinai in Jn iii. 14, vi. 31, 49.
I* 5 n n Jn xi. 54 "near the wilderness," and the reason for the

"ti <>1 tin- phrase, are matters for discussion.
Lk. iii. 3 6, quoting from Is. xl. 3 5.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

Lord" with "the mightier one," about whom the Baptist goes
on to say "But that he should be made manifest to Israel, for
this cause came I baptizing with water 1 ."

8. "Preaching' or " making proclamation "

The Synoptists all use here and all for the first time
the verb "proclaim-as-a-herald," commonly rendered "preach"
in the Gospels; Matthew, perhaps regarding the Baptist as a
herald announcing the approach of a king, thus, "proclaiming. . .
repent, for the kingdom of the /teavens hatJi drawn near" ; but
Mark and Luke say "proclaiming a baptism of repentance unto
remission of sins," without any mention of "kingdom 2 ."

The Fourth Gospel neither here nor elsewhere ever makes
mention of "heralding" or "preaching," either about the
Baptist or about Jesus. Relatively to Jesus, the Baptist is
not a herald; he is the Voice compared with the Word,
or the Bridegroom's friend compared with the Bridegroom.
And, relatively to God, Jesus is not a herald; He is the
Son compared with the Father. Not that the Fourth Gospel
denies that there is a divine Kingdom with edicts to be
heralded or proclaimed; but it insists that the King cannot be
"seen," and it implies that His edicts cannot be heard so as to
be understood except through the "declaration" of the Son:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son
(or, God only begotten) that is in the bosom of the Father, he
hath declared him."

This affords an adequate reason for the Johannine avoid-
ance of the word "proclaim-as-a-herald" all through the Gospel,
and particularly here in connection with the testimony of the
Baptist. It is rather as "a crier," and as "crying aloud" than

1 Jn i. 14, 23, 31.

2 Mt. iii. i, Mk i. 4, Lk. iii. 3. Comp. Justin Martyr Tryph, 49 "The
spirit of God that had been in Elijah came-before Christ's first mani-
festation, as a herald, in John,... who, on the river Jordan, tarrying (//'/.
sitting, a Hebraism) cried (e/3oa) I indeed baptize you...."

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

as a "herald "that the Baptist is brought before us in the
Fourth Gospel. "John beareth witness concerning him, and
crieth-aloud" it says, using the word employed by Theodotion
concerning the appeal of Wisdom in Proverbs, "Doth not
Wisdom cry (Theod. cry aloud), and understanding put forth
her voice?... Unto you, O men, do I call, and my voice is to
the sons of man 1 ." Both in Proverbs and here there is a
suggestion that those who are addressed are hard of hearing.
"To cry-aloud" is not so inconsistent as "to herald" would
have been with the Baptist's subsequent protest that he is no
person, but, as it were, a mere utterance, " I [am a mere] voice."

9. Baptism

We now approach one of the most obscure of all the
obscure subjects in the New Testament, the nature of the
baptism introduced by John the Baptist. It will be found that
Mark has two brief phrases one about "baptizing? the other
about "baptism" Of these, Matthew selects a version of the
former; Luke selects the latter:

Mki. 4

There-came 2 John
the baptizer (or, he
that was baptizing)
in the wilderness,
proclaiming a bap-
tism of repe-ntance
[with a view] to re-
mission of sins.

Mt. iii. 1-2
There-cometh-for-
ward 3 John the Bap-
tist > proclaiming in the
wilderness of Judaea,
saying, Repent ye, for
the Kingdom of the
heavens hath drawn
near.

Lk. iii. 2-3
There-came 2 the
word of God on John
the son of Zacharias
in the wilderness ;
and he went 4 ... pro-
claiming a baptism
of repentance [with
a view] to remission
of sins.

1 Jn i. 15 "crieth-aloud (KfKpaytv')" Prov. viii. i (Heb.) " crieth,"

nl. K(Kf)('l(TUl.

- "There-came," in Mk i. 4, Lk. iii. 2, eye'i/tro.

" Tin ro-cometh-forward," in Mt. iii. I, Trapayiverai.
4 M \\Cnt," r)\Btv. The word is translated thus so as to be distinguished
ro, *' came," which is applied by Luke to "the word of God" on
John, Inn by M;irk to "John." Luke says "went into all the surrounding-
Jordan."

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

Here we must carefully note that Matthew, when he says
that "John the Baptist" began to preach, may not mean that
John began to baptize at the same time. Mark ("the baptizer,"
or "he that was baptizing") may mean this. And Luke
apparently means this. But Matthew may be using "John
the Baptist" simply as the Prophet's name, known to everyone,
derived from his subsequent practice.

The Baptist's teaching may well have passed through
various phases. He was at first (so the Fourth Gospel says,
and Matthew confirms it) regarded favourably by some of
the Pharisees, who were "willing for a season to rejoice in
his light V At that time he may not have inculcated baptism.
For was it likely that Pharisees would favour a prophet incul-
cating such an innovation? Some interval is required to
explain the alienation of the Pharisees, and also the awakening
o the suspicions and fears of Herod Antipas. For Josephus
tells us that the Tetrarch put John to death, not because of
any women's plottings (of which the historian makes no
mention) but because John gathered round him such multi-
tudes of restless and excited people as to give grounds for
apprehending a revolution 2 . Even after his death, the prophet
had such a hold on the people that the Pharisees themselves
dared not publicly deny when Jesus challenged them publicly
that John's baptism was from heaven. So say the Synoptic
Gospels. Josephus adds that the common people deemed the
defeat of Herod Antipas by the Arabians to be a divine
judgment on him for murdering the Prophet 3 . Outside
Palestine, Apollos the Alexandrian and certain Christians in
Ephesus are found to be Christians indeed, but "knowing only
the baptism of John*" From all this it seems probable that

1 J n v - 35- This is confirmed by Mt. iii. 7.

2 On the possibility of a connection between John's teaching and the
" remission " of debts, see Joh. Voc. 1690 b (i) (vii) quoted below (p. 59,
n. 2).

3 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5. 2. 4 Acts xviii. 25.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

John's public life lasted for a period to be measured by years
rather than by months. During those years he may have
received a series of revelations resulting in corresponding
prophecies or doctrines, very few of which have come down to
us because they have been merged in, or superseded by, the
doctrine of Christ.

Matthew may have believed that the Prophet did not begin
to baptize till after he had for some time preached "repentance."
At all events he makes no mention of "baptizing" till he says
(as does Mark also) that people came to John and "began to
be (or, were being) baptized by him in the river Jordan con-
fessing their sins 1 ." There is reason, however, for thinking
that Matthew, at this point and especially in omitting the
words "[with a view} to remission of sins" may have been
influenced by doctrinal inferences and interpretations. For
near the end of his Gospel, he, and he alone, inserts the phrase
thus, " This is my blood... which is being shed for many
[with a view'] to remission of sins' 2 -" Perhaps, therefore, he
considered that the clause about remission, being in its place
there, must be out of place here, arguing thus : "'Repentance'
cannot bring 'remission of sins.' 'Repentance' could only
prepare the heart to believe in Jesus and to receive 'remission
of sins' later on from His blood. The Marcan tradition,
'baptism of repentance with a view to remission of sins/ might
lead people to suppose that John the Baptist taught his
disciples to hope that, when they emerged from the water after
confession of sins, their sins would have been then and there
remitted, and that they were saved. That was not true. It
will be better to make it clear that the Baptist was, in effect, a
herald saying 'Repent ye, for the King of Israel is at hand
reads- to bring salvation,' or, in other words, 'Repent ye, for
the kingdom of the heavens hath drawn near.'"

1 Mt. iii. 6, Mk i. 5.

2 Mt. xxvi. 28. The parall. Mk xiv. 24 omits the italicised words.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

But there is this defect in Matthew, that, having thus
departed from Mark by omitting "baptism," he proceeds just
as though he had inserted it to say, with Mark, that the
people "began-to-be baptized 1 ." Yet Matthew has not told us
either that the Baptist enjoined baptism, or that he taught
anything about its nature. Mark and Luke also, though
to a less extent, are obscurely reticent. No one would guess
from the Synoptists at least, no Gentile that, although
"baptisms" for purification 2 were habitual among the Jews,
a "baptism of repentance" a baptism for Jews, to be per-
formed once for all was an entirely new thing among them.
For proselytes, indeed, baptism appears to have been at an
early date 3 regularly used after circumcision, as part of their
introduction into the Covenant; but for Jews it was unheard
of in any such sense.

Perhaps Mark and Matthew relied on the name and the
title, "John the Baptizer, or the Baptist," which they had
previously mentioned when introducing the prophet: "In those
days there cometh-forth John the Baptist 4 ." They may have
assumed that the last of the prophets would not have been
called by this title unless his baptism had been of a special
nature. With still more reason would Luke, after giving us
his account of the miraculous birth of John for a divine
purpose, assume that we knew his ''baptism" to be of a special
and divine nature. But he nowhere says so.

As for Matthew, he does not even say distinctly whether
the Baptist insisted on baptism or merely recommended it, nor
whether he enjoined it on all, or only on those whom the Jews

1 Mt. iii. 6, Mk i. 5.

2 Comp. Mk vii. 4 on " baptizing (v.r. sprinkling) " of men, and " im-
mersions (/3a7TTirr/zouy) of cups," and Heb. vi. 2 "teaching of baptisms
(/3a7rrto-/zco^) " (comp. ib. ix. 10).

3 See Schiirer II. ii. 319 foil. On Exod. xii. 44 "when thou hast
circumcised him," Jer. Targ. I has (Walton) "circumcides eum et lavabis
eum?

4 Mt. iii. i, comp. Mk i. 4.

A. B. 49 4

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

nor what the baptized were to gain by
baptism. Later on, where the Three agree in representing the
Baptist as saying that his baptism was merely with "water,"
Matthew alone adds "to repentance 1 '' apparently meaning that
"repentance" is to be the result or concomitant of the baptism,
not the condition for being baptized. Thus he again differs
from Mark and Luke.

10. /;/ the Fourth Gospel, "baptizing" is subordinated to
" bearing-witness "

The Fourth Gospel neither introduces John as "the Baptist,"
nor ever calls him by that title. Nor is John's baptizing
brought before us formally and directly in any statement of
the Evangelist's. It comes only, as it were, incidentally and
dramatically in a question put by the Pharisees to John,
" Why baptizest thou, then, if thou art not the Christ, nor yet
Elijah, nor yet the Prophet 2 ?" This opens our eyes at once
to the enormous importance attached by the Pharisees to this
prophetically introduced rite of baptism. Only one of these
three great we may almost say supernatural Persons would
(in their opinion) have the right to introduce it. It is clearly
seen to be (in their eyes) something entirely different from the
immersions and sprinklings enjoined by the Law for the removal
of Levitical " uncleanness."

But the reply of the Baptist also opens our eyes to the
extraordinarily little importance that he himself attached to
it, in itself and for its own sake : " I baptize with water; in the
midst of you there standeth...." We expect the sentence to
be completed with an antithetical mention of some one greater
than himself who will introduce some higher kind of baptism.
Hut it stops short of this. It mentions the nearness of the

1 Mk i. 8, Mt. iii. n, Lk. iii. 16.

2 Jn i. 25. On "the prophet," see From Letter 829, Joh. Gr. 1940,
1965.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

great unrecognised Person, but no higher baptism at present 1 .
" On the morrow " (but why is it delayed till " the morrow " ?)
the Baptist adds that his own baptizing was simply for the
sake of this Person, " that he should be made manifest to
Israel, for this cause came I baptizing with water." But still
he mentions no higher baptism. The next sentence, however,
" bears witness " to a vision : " And John bare witness saying,
I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove...," in connection
with which it is said " He that sent me to baptize with water,
he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the Spirit
descending and abiding upon him, the same is he that
baptizeth with the Holy Spirit."

The impression produced by all these Johannine statements
or dramatic questions and suggestions is that the Baptist's
rite, though a stupendous innovation in the eyes of the
Pharisees, was a very small and rudimentary thing as com-
pared with that for which it prepared the way the descent of
the Spirit and baptism with the Spirit. The baptism of John
was nothing more than a witness to the need of a baptism by
One greater than John ; and the right name for John, spiritually
regarded, was not the Baptist, but the Witness. Accordingly
it is in this character that he is introduced immediately after
the mention of the light as not being overcome by the dark-
ness " There came a man, sent from God, whose name was
John. The same came for witness, that he might bear witness
of the light"; and this is the character that he sustains
throughout the Fourth Gospel.

We shall have to return hereafter to the Baptist's preaching
about baptism when we compare the Synoptic with the
Johannine version of it. For the present, we are simply
comparing the Synoptic introduction of John as "the Baptist,"
or as " preaching a baptism of repentance," with the Johannine

1 Jn i. 26 7 "in the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not,
one coming behind (or, after) me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not
worthy to unloose."

5 1 42

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

introduction of John as the Witness in the first place, and as
the Baptizer in the second. Those who look at the matter
historically may say, " If- John preached and baptized for a
period to be measured by years, it would seem probable that
he preached repentance and baptism a baptism, perhaps,
like that mentioned in Ezekiel 1 for some time before he
proclaimed the advent of the Baptizer with the Holy Spirit.
As it turned out in the end, no doubt, the more important part
played by John was that of a Witness to Christ ; but his con-
temporaries were right in calling him ' the Baptist' For it
was as the Baptizer that he took hold of the hearts of his
countrymen. Moreover it was his baptism, and no other,
that passed into the use of the disciples of Christ themselves,
as long as 'the Spirit was not yet [given] because Jesus was
not yet glorified 2 .' Even in these days, perhaps, multitudes of
Christians owe many of their thoughts, both right and wrong,
about Christian baptism, to the practice and the doctrine
originated by John the Baptist."

There is much that deserves consideration in these remarks.
The Johannine Gospel may have deviated from history in sub-
ordinating too much the early sanguine Prophet, the national
Reformer and would-be Regenerator, to the later disillusioned
Prophet, who felt that it was not given to him by any
immersions in water, even when accompanied by confessions
of sins, to clear Israel from their defilements and to cause
them to return to the Lord. In his later days the Baptist
may have been taught to look to a disciple and may at last
have looked face to face on a disciple who could do what he
himself could not do, by calling down the Spirit of the clean
heart and the new life. This disciple indeed would be a
writable Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world.

The two disciples of the Baptist who are said in the
I "int h Gospel to have actually heard him say of Jesus

1 Ezck. xxxvi. 25 foil. 2 j n v jj ^

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

"Behold, the Lamb of God!" might be excused if this final
utterance of their Master, speaking as a Witness, swallowed
up much of their Master's previous doctrine in which he spoke
as the Baptizer. The Fourth Gospel is written in the name
of one of those two disciples 1 , and we must allow for consequent
bias, or, let us rather say, preference of aspect.

Nevertheless, taken as a whole, the Fourth Gospel seems
a most valuable supplement to the Three in setting before us
the probabilities of different phases of the Baptist's doctrine
about baptism, and of the effect it would be likely to produce,
both upon the multitudes who accepted it and on the Pharisees
by whom it was rejected. And even as regards the Johannine
view of the predominant and absorbing part played by Jesus
in the Baptist's teaching there is this to be said, that it has a
kind of precedent in the Old Testament account of Elijah,
anointing Elisha as his successor, and promising him "a
double portion " of his own " spirit " if he could behold his
ascension to heaven. Although the Fourth Gospel makes
John say '' I am not Elijah," it also asserts that he was asked
whether he was Elijah. And thus the Fourth agrees with the
Three in indicating that John would be almost forced, by what
others thought, to think of himself in connection with Elijah,
and consequently in connection with Elijah's successor, and
with the " Spirit " poured out on the two prophets. This
thought might justify, as historical, the Johannine emphasis
laid on the personal relations between John and Jesus, and
the readiness of John to accept in Jesus a successor more
powerful than himself.

11. The baptism of John, continued by the disciples of Jesus

Something ought to be added, though the subject can be
only touched on here, on what the Fourth Gospel suggests
but the Three do not suggest the transition of baptism from

1 For the proof of this, see Son 3460 a g.
53

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

John to the disciples of Jesus. The Fourth Evangelist says that
Jesus " was tarrying with his disciples and was baptizing" at a
time when John also was baptizing not far off. He adds that a
question arose on the part of John's disciples with a Jew about
purifying. Yet after saying "Jesus... was baptizing," he sub-
sequently says "yet Jesus himself baptized not 1 " Why not have
said, from the first : " Jesus was tarrying with his disciples
and they were baptizing"? Apparently because the Evangelist
wished to exhibit in a striking manner the origin, as well as
the fallacy, of the notion that Jesus ever baptized with water ;
for, before making this correction, he represents some jealous
Jews as coming to the Baptist and saying, " Rabbi, he that
was with thee beyond Jordan and to whom thou hast borne
witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come unto
him." Thus, as it were, the Evangelist takes us into his
confidence, and says, "You see how natural this way of
speaking was, yes, and still is. I used it myself, a few sentences
back, and shewed how the Jews took it to be literally true.
But the exact truth is, as I am now explaining to you, that
Jesus never baptized with water"

Perhaps He did not. And indeed, if He did at first, and
then left off, it would be difficult to explain when and why
He left off. On the other hand, if He never baptized, what
are we to say about Nathanael and Philip and the rest of the
Twelve (excluding Andrew and Peter and the two sons of
Xrbedee who were presumably baptized by John)? Were
Philip and Nathanael never baptized with water? Or were
they exceptionally baptized by Jesus before He gave up the
practice? Or were they baptized, at the command of Jesus,
by some disciple previously baptized by John the Baptist,
Mid) as Andrew? These questions we cannot answer. But
we can say, "They are brought before us by the Fourth
i-dist and left by him unanswered in such a way as to

1 Jn iii. 22 foil., iv. 2.
54

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

suggest that the answer does not greatly matter. All de-
ficiencies would be supplied when Jesus ascended to the
Father, and the Spirit or Paraclete came down."

The same suggestion applies to other questions about the
forms of baptism practised by John and by the disciples of
Jesus, at the time when both kinds of baptism were going on
simultaneously. Were they identical or different? If they
were identical at that time, as they probably were at first,
perhaps we may find evidence to shew by what steps one
form might pass into the other. Supposing, for example, that
the original form was " I baptize thee into repentance " or
" into the name of repentance," or " I baptize thee into the
NAME," we might shew how this might pass into the shorter
Christian formula as we find it in the Acts, and into the longer
formula which we find near the end of Matthew's Gospel 1 .

A word may be added in answer to the question "If the
Fourth Evangelist has accurately described the attitude of
John the Baptist to Jesus, ought he not consistently to tell us
that John became a disciple of Jesus, instead of continuing to
baptize and to labour as though the Messiah had not really
appeared ? Surely the Baptist would not have continued to
make disciples of his own ? "

The Fourth Gospel seems to reply that the Baptist did
not " make disciples of his own " not at least in the narrow
sense implied in the question asked above after he had
recognised Jesus as the Messiah. No doubt he continued to
" baptize." But that did not constitute a claim of superiority.
For the disciples of Jesus themselves " baptized." Rather we
may say that non-baptizing pointed to such a superiority ; for

1 See Son 3534 d on Mk ix. 41 "in the name* as perhaps pointing
to an original " in the NAME," i.e. " in God's Name," and comp.
3218 a. In baptism, " in the name " was sometimes used of the character
in which a person was baptized, e.g. (Hor. Heb. ii. 57) " If an Israelite...
find a Gentile infant, and baptizeth him in the name of a proselyte,
behold, he is a proselyte." The different uses of the phrase might cause
confusion.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

it is expressly said that Jesus Himself as though above the
level of the baptizers " did not baptize." When therefore we
read that "John's disciples" complained to John about the
popularity of Jesus, and that Jesus was " making more dis-
ciples and baptizing [more] than John" as though John
were continuing to "make disciples" we must read this in
the light of the context, which expressly declares that Jesus
did not " baptize," and implies that John no longer regarded
himself as independent of Jesus. To those who still called
themselves John's "disciples" the Prophet protested that Jesus
was the Bridegroom, while he was only the Bridegroom's
friend. Why should not the Bridegroom's "friend," as well
as the Bridegroom's "disciples," baptize into the NAME
those souls in Israel that were moved to turn toward the
Lord and to enter into His Kingdom ?

All these questions come before us indirectly now in
the short and (in appearance) casual expressions quoted
above from the Fourth Gospel. But the whole subject will
be brought before us directly in the Dialogue between Jesus
and Nicodemus, where Jesus develops the doctrine of the
New Birth, to which we shall have to refer when we discuss
the Synoptic doctrines of becoming a little one, and taking
up the cross. For the present we may repeat our conclusion
that the Fourth Evangelist desires to subordinate all questions
about outward forms of baptism to the doctrine of the inward
and spiritual regeneration.

12. Repentance

Matthew, by writing, " Repent ye" instead of "baptism of

ntance," has put into the mouth of the Baptist the same

exhortation as the prophets of old addressed to Israel 1 . But

1 It occurs repeatedly (Mandelk. p. 1152) in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Joel, Zechanih, ;md Malachi, and is rendered by R.V. "return" (or
" turn "). Hut A.V. has " repent" in Ezek. xiv. 6, xviii. 30 (as also in i K.
viii. 47 where R.V. has "turn again").

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

it meant " return ye" not " be ye sorry " or " change your
minds." "Return ye " is the Syriac rendering (as also Delitzsch's
Hebrew rendering) of the Greek here ; and the same Hebrew
occurs in the words " Return ye unto me and / will return
unto you, saith the Lord of hosts 1 /' and " Return, ye sons
that turn-away 2 ." This "returning" may be expressed in
various ways. For example, the Targum has " Return ye to
my law" where Isaiah has " Wash you" and Rashi says, on
that passage, that the prophet's ten admonitions signifying
" returning (or penitence] " correspond to the reading of ten
passages of scripture on the Day of Atonement, the beginning
of the New Year, when God, as King, judges the whole
world 3 .

" Return ye," in Zechariah, is addressed to those that
have "turned away." "Wash you," in Isaiah, is addressed to
those that are defiled. In the same passage Isaiah says "thy
silver is become dross " and " thy wine is mixed with water."
How the dross is to be removed from the silver the prophet
proceeds to shew, saying, " I will purge away thy dross "-

1 Zech. i. 3, Mai. iii. 7.

2 Jerem. iii. 14, 22, comp. Ezek. xiv. 6, xviii. 30.

3 Is. i. 16 18. Also see Ezek. xxxvi. 25 6 " I will sprinkle clean
water (comp. Heb. x. 22) upon you and ye shall be clean... a new heart
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." These words
were connected by the Jews with the water of purification sprinkled on
Israel at the beginning of the New Year. It was said that whereas the
priests do it in this world, the Lord Himself will do it in the next ; and a
commentary on the Song of Songs (i. 2) quotes Ezekiel to illustrate the
different aspects of the Law, which both cleanses and nourishes man,
being likened in Scripture to milk, honey, and wine, as well as to water
(Pesikt. Wii. p. 49, Cant. Wii. p. 19, and see Rashi, and Megill. 30 a, and
Joma 85 b which contains Akiba's comment on the words of Ezekiel).
Jerome regards Ezekiel as referring to Christian baptism. Akiba and
others take the " clean water" in Ezekiel as referring to the water that con-
tained " the ashes of the heifer," about which the Epistle to the Hebrews
says (ix. 13 14) "If.. .the ashes of a heifer... sanctify unto the cleanness
of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the
Eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your
conscience from dead works to serve the living God ! "

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

that is, by fire 1 . But he does not shew how the "wine
mixed with water" is to become pure wine again. The
Fourth Gospel seems to suggest some kind of separation or
rather of keeping separate by which the water of the Law
"given through Moses" is to be kept by itself, placed in
separate vessels " after the Jews' manner of purifying," while
the water of " grace and truth," which " came through Jesus
Christ," is to be " drawn," fresh from the Fountain, and to be
brought to the Bridegroom of the Feast, who will pronounce
it " the good wine 2 ."

Whether this be the case or not with respect to the sign
at Cana, it is certainly true of many other parts of the Fourth
Gospel, and must be constantly borne in mind, that the
Evangelist, while consistently avoiding the Greek words
" repent " and " repentance 3 /' nevertheless leads us to the
Hebrew conception in its purest form by a kind of dramatic
representation. For, by itself, the mere Hebrew word "return"
is not enough to express the return to Light and Life.
Malachi himself shews the possibility of a very narrow view
of this "returning" by putting into God's mouth these words:
"But ye say, 'Wherein shall we return? Will a man rob
God ? Yet ye rob me. But ye say, ' Wherein have we robbed
thee ? ' In tithes and offerings 4 ." This reminds us indeed of
the doctrine of Jesus, but only by contrast. The Pharisees
laid stress on tithe-paying, but they did not " return " in the
true and spiritual sense. In the Fourth Gospel, the converting
or turning of the first two converts is described as an act of
literal departure, in which they leave their former Master and
"followed Jesus/'and Jesus turned*n& beheld them "following.
In answer to their question " Rabbi, where abidest thou ? " He

. " Come, and ye shall see." They came and abode with

1 Is. i. 225. 2 j n ij 6foll ? j I? 3 see Son 3564^.

Ma I. iii. 7 8. The preceding context however lays stress on the
duty of kindness toward the widow, the fatherless, and others.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

Him. It is not added that they " were turned," in response
to the "turning" of Jesus. But it is implied in that they
turned others to Jesus, each bringing to Him a brother as
disciple 1 .

The picture seems to correspond to the twofold turning in
Zechariah and Malachi. For when the two brethren " follow "
the Lord, the Lord "turns" to them, and takes them to
Himself. There may be nothing deliberately scenical or
typical in this picture of the first conversion, or " turning to
the Lord," that resulted from the testimony of John the
Baptist. But at all events it illustrates the way in which
the Fourth Gospel sets itself against the notion that the
process of "repentance" through which man's soul is to
pass into unity with the Father in heaven is an unmixed
sorrow. And it is instructive to note how there goes hand in
hand, along with this turning of the soul to Jesus, a thought,
in each of the two converts, for the soul of his brother.

13. "[With a view] to remission of sins"

Matthew, as has been said above, omits these words here,
but inserts them in his account of the Lord's Supper. Mark
(who is followed by Luke) does not definitely say that the
Baptist uses these words, but merely that this was the object
of his baptism, and he never mentions the full phrase " re-
mission of sins " again. Luke mentions it five times in the
Acts, and thrice in his Gospel 2 . He also represents Jesus as
reading from Isaiah but according to a confused version of
the LXX "...He hath sent me to proclaim remission to
captives,... to send away [free] them that are oppressed, in
remission (i.e. in freedom) 3 " ; and Jesus says " To-day hath

1 See Son 3374 c, 3626 a.

2 On aphesis, " remission," see/0^. Voc. 1690 a foil, (where, however, in
quoting Joseph. Ant. iii. 12. 3 "the name [of Jubilee] denotes Aphesis?
there is an error. It should have been "freedom" e'Xfutfepi'a).

3 Lk. iv. 18 (on which see Son, Index) quoting Is. Ixi. I.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

this scripture been fulfilled in your ears." The Fourth Gospel
nowhere mentions " remission'' Nor does it mention " re-
mitting " sins, till after the Resurrection 1 . Nor does it represent
Jesus as publicly mentioning "sin" till the words, "I go away,
and ye shall seek me and shall die in your sin 2 ."

Thus the first public mention of "sin" in the Fourth
Gospel is connected with failing to " follow " the Light. For
Jesus has just said " I am the light of the world. He that
followeth me shall not walk in the darkness but shall have the
light of life." This prepares the way for the doctrine that
bondage and " sin " and " death " assail every soul that will
not obey the voice of the Light when it calls to the soul and
says " Be free." Jesus says, in the same passage, " the truth
shall make you free 3 ."

This aspect of sin as a failure, a more or less obstinate
and self-willed failure, to "follow" the Light illustrates the
difficult Johannine doctrine, " whosesoever sins ye retain they
are retained." The Pharisees were sinful. They shut their
eyes to the light and said they saw. Jesus warned them,
saying, " For judgment have I come into this world, that they
that see not may see; and that they that see may become
blind." Then, when they mockingly asked Him whether
they, too, were " blind," He said, " If ye were blind, ye would
have no sin ; but now ye say, We see : your sin remaineth"
In those last words He "retained" their sin 4 .

Just before this, the man born blind having been cast out
from the synagogue by Christ's enemies for protesting against
those who said about Him "We know that this man is
a sinner" had received from Jesus Himself the revelation
that He was the lawful centre of belief ; and " he said, Lord,
I believe, and he worshipped him." " He worshipped " means

1 Jn xx. 23.

2 Jn viii. 21. Jesus has however previously and privately mentioned
the verb " sin" in v. 14 " No longer sin."

3 Jn viii. 12, 32. * j n ix. 3941.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

that the eyes of the man's soul were opened. It means that
he saw the Father through the Son, that he was henceforth
" free," in a state of " grace " in other words, to speak
Synoptically, that "his sins were forgiven." Jesus does not
say to him in express words " thy sins are forgiven thee " ;
but he virtually says the same thing about him, when he in-
cludes him among those about whom he says, " For judgment
have I come into this world, that they that see not may see."

There is a contrast. The sins of the blind man are forgiven
because he longs for the light. The sins of the Pharisees are
retained because they closed their eyes against the light, or
rather, perhaps, because they persisted in shutting it out,
preferring a light of their own. The light and the glory of
God, when they dawn upon us, ought to make pale and
ineffectual the light and the glory of men. But the Pharisees
preferred the latter : " They loved the glory of men more than
the glory of God 1 ." And for this cause "judgment" fell upon
them.

It is the fact fundamentally recognised, I believe, in the
Fourth Gospel, but in any case the fact that every man, so
far as he breathes the Spirit of Christ, goes about the world
"judging" in this Johannine way. That is to say, in a greater
or less degree, and by no means always consciously, he makes
some feel that their sins are " remitted " and others that their
sins are " retained " processes by no means the less real
because they are not accompanied with a definite " absolve "
or " damno."

1 Jn xii. 39 43 " For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah
said again, He hath blinded their eyes... more than the glory of God."
The passage suggests, without defining, the indefinable borderland
between the condition in which we will not " believe " and that in
which we can not "believe."

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

14. "Remission" and "was/

Josephus in words that are perhaps best explained as not
being his own but supplied to him by one or more persons
whose traditions he gives in a confused form writing about
the " immersion " or " immersing " inculcated by the Baptist,
says, " He commanded the Jews, while exercising virtue, both
in righteousness toward one another and in piety toward God,
to assemble together, practising (lit. using) immersion ; for
subject to these conditions [he said], even the [act of] im-
mersing [oneself] would appear acceptable to Him, that is to
say, if they practised it not with a view to begging off [the
punishment of] certain [slight] errors, but with a view to purity
of the body on the understanding that the soul had been
previously purified 1 ."

In the Fourth Gospel, the doctrine of "remitting," though
not mentioned, is, by implication, connected with " washing "
by the following links. The Lord's Prayer says " Remit to us
our debts as also we have remitted to our debtors? What are
the debts ? Paul replies " Owe no man anything save to love
one another ; for he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the

1 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 5. 2. The Latin version and Whiston's take
l^nrTKTfjLut avvicvai together, as meaning " come to baptism." But Steph.
Thes. gives no instance of o-wievai thus used with dative. If the text is
correct, xpo>/W<Mr here as certainly in the next sentence appears to
mean "practising" and to be connected with "immersion." Ban-no-tr
hardly exists (Steph. Thes.} except here. Josephus seems to mean
" There was no superstition in this, for John thought that even what one
might ridicule as mere 'dipping' might be acceptable to God, if accom-
panied by moral preparation."

Josephus has expressed himself in such a way as to explain how it was
that some early writers regarded John as a Hemerobaptist, that is to say,
one who inculcated daily baptism. " To meet together practising immer-
1 hat the act was a part of daily worship.

His contemptuous remark about "begging off" and "[slight] errors,"
''/"/' QCtimcs used to mean physical failure), may illustrate the

dislik.- that others mi-lit feel for the use of afao-is, as a mere "letting off"
of punishment.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

law " where " the law " means " the law of Christ fulfilling
the law of Moses," as is shewn by his words elsewhere, " Bear
ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ 1 "

In the picture of Christ washing the feet of the disciples,
the Fourth Gospel puts all this into a metaphor, in which the
infirmities and errors and lapses manifested by us in our
daily walk through life are likened to the dust on the
feet of the traveller. Concerning the true disciple, Jesus says,
" He that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet 2 ." All
(it is implied), even the best, need this daily washing. At the
close of the scene, Jesus says, " If I... have washed your feet,
ye also owe [as a debt] to wash one another's feet 3 ." This is
almost the only use of the word "owe" in this Gospel 4 . It
means that we "owe" the debt of "love" to God and to man,
and that, although we may approximate, we can never quite
attain, to the full payment of it. An unkind nurse, with a
child walking in a miry lane, might exact punishment for each
spot caused by a slight carelessness. We ask God our
Nursing Father to be kind, and daily to wash away such spots
from us, as we also endeavour to wash them from our brethren.
This is no aphesis in the sense of " letting off" but it is an
aphesis in the sense of " putting away sin," and it suggests, in
a very helpful way, the twofold mystery of that mercy, or
kindness, or forgivingness, which is " twice blest," because the
forgiver, while " restoring " others " in a spirit of gentleness 5 /' is
found to be also at the same time restoring, refreshing, and
strengthening his own soul.

1 Rom. xiii. 8, Gal. vi. 2. On this, and on " Metaphors expressing
sin," see Son 3495 ae.

2 Jn xiii. 10. On the reading, see Jo h. Gr. 2659^, to which add Clem.
Alex. 1 1 6 iravra p.ev ovv airo\ovop.da TO. a/zaprTy/iara, ovKen 8e eV/zfi> irapa
TTofiag wiKoi (Clark " no longer entangled in evil" but really " no longer
evil except as to the feet"\ see Steph. Thes. vi. 202 and comp. Jas. iii. 2
" in many things we all stumble (Trrcu'o/iei/)."

3 Jn xiii. 14. 4 It occurs also in Jn xix. 7.

6 Gal. vi. i " Restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness?

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

15. Jo /ins conditions for baptism

Mark says that all the country of Judaea, and all the
people of Jerusalem, " began to be baptized " or " were being
baptized " by John, " confessing their sins," and Matthew
(adding "the [people of the] circle of the Jordan") agrees
with Mark as to " confessing their sins 1 ." But Luke omits
this mention of " confession."

In fact, however, though Luke omits the word, he inserts a
great deal that implies it, supplying what is missing in Mark.
For Mark does not say whether the confession was of a
general or particular kind, nor whether it was accompanied by
anything but mere worlds. But Luke says that the multitudes
asked the Baptist "What must we do?" And the Baptist
replied besides other things addressed to the rich who had
"two coats" that the publicans were not to extort and the
soldiers not to do violence. This leads us to suppose that if
we had the exhortations of the Baptist fully before us ex-
tending over many months, or perhaps years, before the arrival
of Jesus we should find that the publicans, like Zacchaeus,
"confessed" that they had "extorted," and promised to "restore
fourfold," and that some of the avaricious (who were the men
with "two coats") promised, like Zacchaeus, to give "the half"
of their goods to "the poor."

Moreover, Matthew and Luke agree in saying that the
Haptist said to certain persons whom Matthew calls "many
of the Pharisees and Sadducees," but Luke "multitudes 2 "
that they must "produce fruit worthy of [their] repentance."
The same passage has these words, "Think not to say in
yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I say unto

1 Mk i. 5, Mt. iii. 6.

1>I v tin ir may have been some confusion arising from a Hebrew

.in \\hi. h "the many" might be confused with " the great people?

who formed the Sanhrdrin, where the chief priests belonged to the

SaddiK can party. Comp. Erub. 75 b "R. Joseph said ' I confused rabbim

with rabbit" '^- "many" with "rabbi."

JOHN BAPTIZIiNG THE PEOPLE

you that God is able from these stones to raise up children
to Abraham 1 ." Some have thought that "stones" meant
those with the "stony heart" mentioned by Ezekiel, to whom
the Lord promised to give "one heart and a new spirit 2 ." But
in any case the Baptist, by using such words, makes us think
of God as creating sons of Abraham out of "stones," as He
created Adam out of "dust." And how, we ask, would He do
this except by breathing His Spirit into the stones, as He
breathed it into the dust of Adam? Thus we are prepared for
the doctrine of a new birth.

The Fourth Gospel contains, later on, a discussion be-
tween the Jews and Jesus about Abraham. In this, Jesus
denies that they are Abraham's children because they do
not the works of Abraham, and denies that God is their
Father because they do not love Him, the Son of the
Father. The reference to Abraham's works certainly includes
a reference to Abraham's kindness, hospitality, and to use the
Philonian term "philanthropy*? There, Jesus makes regene-
ration, and sonship to God, depend, in effect, upon "love."
According to Matthew and Luke, the Baptist, though not
teaching this, prepares the way for Him who was to teach it.

About all these matters of the Baptist's teaching, and about
the conditions he imposed for admitting men to baptism, the
Fourth Gospel is silent. It confines itself to the "witness" of
the Baptist. Apparently it passes over all his early teaching 4

1 Mt. iii. 710, Lk. iii.-; 9 (with "begin" instead of "think").

2 Ezek. xi. 19, xxxvi. 26. Jerome on Mt. iii. 9 quotes Ezek. and takes it
as signifying the inclusion of the Gentiles.

3 Jn viii. 39, 41 2. On Abraham's (f)i\av6pa>7ria see Joh. Gr. 1935,
and Philo ii. 16, 30 where the preceding context (ii. 13) mentions God's
<iXai>0po>7ria. The Gospel, and Philo, both imply that one cannot be
a " child of Abraham " without loving man.

4 Comp. Jn i. 15 ''This was he that I said (or, they said)." These are
the Baptist's first words, and, according to the former rendering, they may
mean " For years I have been saying... 2cti& this, though I knew it not till
to-day, was the Person about whom I was saying it...."

A. B. 65 5

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

and baptizing, so as not to begin till he had made so great
a name that the rulers sent from Jerusalem to question him as
to his mission and authority. In that interview, it happens,
by accident, that the Evangelist does mention "confessing" in
connection with the Baptist, but it has nothing to do with
men's "confession" of their sins to him; it introduces his
"confession" to the deputation from Jerusalem, thus: "And he
confessed, and denied not, and he confessed, I am not the
Christ 1 ."

The Johannine non-intervention as to this "confessing" of
" sins " is but one of many instances where John agrees with
Luke in omitting some detail about the Baptist inserted by Mark
and Matthew. As such, it does not require further comment.
But it should be noted, in passing, (i) that the confession
of sins was a prominent part of the Jewish service on the Day
of Atonement, (2) that part of this service was a purification
with "clean water" (as mentioned above, p. 57, n. 3) connected
by the Jews with a prophecy of Ezekiel about " a new heart "
and "a new spirit," (3) that this purification coincided with the
beginning of the New Year, so that it might well have been
in the Baptist's mind when he called on Israel to enter on a
new stage of spiritual life in turning to Jehovah.

As to the forms of words in which the candidates for
baptism made confession, and the Baptist admitted them to
baptism or baptized them, we have absolutely no definite
knowledge. But we know that the Mishna recording the
High Priest's confession of sins on the Day of Atonement,
represents him as twice addressing God in the words "Alas,
O NAME, thy people, the house of Israel, has sinned 2 ." If
the Baptist baptized "(lit.) into, the NAME," and if some
form of words including this term passed from him to Christ's

1 Jn i. 20. On the repetition through negation, and on the twofold
I oh. Gr. 2598, 2607.

hnmi 35/>, ic|)c;iu-d in 41 , 66 a, and comp. Dalman Words
j>]>. i V.2 3 on tlu- habitual use- of " the Name" for the Tetragrammaton.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

disciples, before the Resurrection, it becomes easy to understand
how the form would become naturally and rightly interpreted
as "the name of Jesus," or "the name of the Son," or "the name
of the Father as revealed by the Son through His Spirit," or
"the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 1 ."
Also it becomes easy to understand Paul's saying to the
Corinthians, " I thank God that I baptized none of you save
Crispus and Gaius, lest any should say that ye were baptized
into my own name*" Without some hypothesis of a mention
of THE NAME, and on the hypothesis of some definite
name such as "Father," or "Son," or "Jesus," the words are
difficult. For, if Paul, when baptizing " Crispus " for example,
said, " I baptize thee into tJic name of Jesus" how could anyone
say " Paul baptized Crispus into his own name " ?

1 6. / [ r lie re did Joint baptize the people ?

Mark and Matthew say that the people of Jerusalem and
Judaea (Matthew adding "and all the surrounding-country of
the Jordan") " madc-their-way-forth to John and were baptized
by him in the river Jordan"; and Luke, using the same verb
of motion, reports what John said "to the multitudes that
made-tlieir-way-forth to be baptized by him," but does not
mention " the Jordan," or any other neighbourhood as the
place of the baptizing 3 . Luke's parallel mention of Jordan
almost the only mention in his Gospel is in a sentence that
reverses the words peculiar to Matthew quoted above. For
whereas Matthew says that (what we may call) "the circle
of the Jordan" came to JoJm, Luke says that Jo Jin "came to
all [the] circle of the Jordan*"

1 See Son (Index "Name"). "To the name," "into the name," and
u in the name," have so many meanings in Hebrew and Greek (not to
speak of Latin) that the baptismal form might easily assume different
shades of meaning. 2 i Cor. i. 14 15.

3 " Make-one's-way-forth " is K7ropevo/iai in Mk i. 5, Mt. iii. 5, Lk. iii. 7.

* Lk. iii. 3 rjK6(v els Traa-av Trepi^^pov TOV 'lop8dvov. The Other instance
in Lk. is iv. I vTreVrpe^ei' OTTO TOV 'lopftdvov.

67 52

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

We cannot expect the Fourth Evangelist to intervene in a
direct way here. From his point of view, what does it matter,
such a mere detail as this? It refers to the Baptist in his
relation to the people, not to the Baptist in his relation to
Jesus; and the Fourth Evangelist is not interested in John
the Baptist at all except in the latter relation, that is to say,
so far as the Baptist "bears witness to the Light." Con-
sequently there is no Johannine intervention at this point
to tell us where the people were baptized. But there will be
when he comes to clear up later obscurities of the Synoptists,
and to tell us where " John was baptizing " on the day before
he " seeth Jesus coming to him."

Later on, too, the Fourth Gospel will shew us indirectly
that Mark and Matthew are probably wrong here, and Luke
is right. John moved about from place to place. Matthew had
grasped the facts but the facts reversed. It was not that "all
the circle of the Jordan came to John," but that John "came to
all the circle of the Jordan," presumably choosing places where
there was "much water." At one time, the Fourth Evangelist
will tell us, it was "^Enon near to Salim 1 ." But, before that, it
was "Bethany beyond Jordan where John was [at the time]
baptizing-." And it was there that the Baptist testified most
conspicuously to Jesus. Probably, too, though the Evangelist
does not describe the baptism of Jesus by John, he intends us
to assume that, as Bethany on the West of Jordan was the
scene of His anointing, so Bethany on the East was the scene
of His baptism.

1 7. Johns clothing and food, passed over in the Third

and the Fourth Gospel

Mark and Matthew describe the Baptist as having "a

hern girdle about his loins 3 ." This is said of no other

man in the Bible except Klijah. Mark also says that he was

thcd with the hairs of a camel." This might seem to

1 J '' 23- 2 Jn i. 28. 3 Mk i. 6, Mt. iii. 4.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

mean " with the hairy skin of a camel," which would be hardly
possible owing to its size and weight. Matthew, however, says
" clothing made from the hairs of a camel." Now the Jews
used clothing made for the rich from the soft wool of a
camel. Sackcloth not necessarily made from the hairs of
a camel 1 they always called by its name of "sackcloth." If
the Baptist wore a " mantle of hair," i.e. a sheepskin or goat-
skin, such as is mentioned as the usual clothing of a prophet
in Zechariah 2 , early tradition may have applied to him the
passage that describes Elijah as wearing a " leathern girdle,"
and as being " a lord (or, owner] of hair." Some take this as
meaning " long-haired." Others take it as " wearing a garment
of hairy, or untrimmed, skin*." Perhaps Mark's tradition
arose out of an original statement that the Baptist, like
Elijah, was "a lord of hair" supplemented by an addition
intended to make it clear that it was not the hair of the
prophet himself. Matthew adopted Mark's version with a
slight change.

Luke simply says " The word of God came-[to-pass] on
John... in the wilderness."

If this instance of Lucan parallelism with Mark- Matthew
tradition about the Baptist could fairly be considered by itself
apart from other instances, we might argue that they were
two different interpretations of a Hebrew original saying that
the Spirit of God " clothed or clothed itself with John in the
wilderness" that is, "came mightily upon him," as is said
sometimes in Scripture 4 . Mark and Matthew might take
this as describing the manner in which John, under the
influence of the Spirit, actually and literally clothed himself,
and might add details to make the meaning clear. Luke

1 See Hor. Heb. on Mk i. 6, and Levy iv. 200 a.

2 Zech. xiii. 4 "a mantle of hair." The phrase occurs also in Gen. xxv-
25 about Esau. Comp. Heb. xi. 37.

3 2 K. i. 8. Gesen. 972 a takes the phrase thus. The LXX regularly
renders " mantle," when connected with Elijah, by " sheepskin."

4 Judg. vi. 34, i Chr. xii. 18, 2 Chr. xxiv. 20.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

might take it metaphorically and spiritually. Similarly Luke
says expressly, in the Introduction to his Gospel, that John
the son of Zacharias was to be (not Elijah, nor even like
Elijah, but) one going before the face of the Lord " in the
spirit and power of Elijah 1 ." But another explanation may
be found in the fact that Luke omits many passages in Mark
where Elijah is mentioned 2 .

The Fourth Evangelist, though for the most part dis-
agreeing with Luke where Luke diverges from Mark, agrees
with Luke in rejecting those passages which might seem to
encourage the belief that the Baptist was literally Elijah.
But he goes further. He denies the truth of such a belief.
This he does dramatically, through the Baptist himself, at
the outset of the Baptist's testimony, in the words "They
asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith,
/ am not."

As regards the food of the Baptist, namely, that it was
"locusts and wild honey," Mark appears to have inserted
this detail to shew how the Baptist was supported in the
wilderness by the hand as it were of God, without the hand
of man, somewhat like Elijah by the brook Cherith 3 .

Mark places these details just after the words " and they
were baptized by him... confessing their sins," and just before
the words " And he preached saying, There cometh he that
is stronger than I." Matthew, perhaps thinking that the

1 Lk. i. 17. 2 E.g. Mk ix. 1113, xv - 356-

3 " Locusts " were a regular article of food for the poor, so that there
is nothing improbable in this detail. It is worth noting, however, that
(l) the usual Hebrew word for "locust" in Hebrew, 'arbeh^ resembles
words from <trb, meaning " raven" "wilderness" "sweet" ; (2) there was
much discussion among Jews as to the " ravens " that supplied Elijah (see
Cholin 5 //, and r /<//. r. Wii. p. 147 (on Gen. viii. 7) c.). Some main-
-1 that Klijah's " ravens" were men. Jewish disciples of the Baptist
might say about his food in the arabah, playing on the word and on
Klijali's " [ftvens," that the "honey" was God's gift, like the "honey from
tin- rock" in the 1'salms, and that what were "ravens" in Elijah's case
were "locusts" in the case of John.

JOHN BAPTIZING THE PEOPLE

account of the Baptist's clothing and diet did not come
suitably just before his announcement of the Saviour, places
the details before the baptizing, altering Mark's order. And,
to many, Mark's mention of the " leathern girdle " and the
rest might well seem out of place and out of proportion.
But if we understand that the clothing and the food of the
prophet John in the desert seemed to Mark the appointed
outward signs of his being Elijah, coming as a herald to the
Messiah, then we shall agree that he did not place them
unfitly from his point of view, meaning : " Thus came John
with the outward signs of being Elijah, the herald of the
Lord, and then he began to proclaim as a herald, saying,
4 There cometh he that is mightier than I....'"

The rule of Johannine non-intervention in matters affecting
John the Baptist, where Luke omits what Mark inserts, has
been stated and illustrated above somewhat fully, in order to
dispense with the necessity of restating the rule hereafter.
In future instances the rule will simply be referred to.

CHAPTER III

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

IN this Chapter the prominent difference between Mark
and the other Synoptists is not of the kind that will usually
come before us, where Mark expresses harshly or obscurely
something that is altered or omitted by Luke. On the
contrary it is an instance of Marcan omission. But here, as
elsewhere when we use the term "omission," we must not
commit ourselves to the view that Mark omitted what he
knew to exist but regarded as outside the scope of his Gospel,
or outside the scope of his subject for the time being. It is
possible or at all events we must for the present regard it as
possible that Mark knew nothing about the words omitted,
which relate to the nature of the future baptism. Mark speaks
merely of "baptizing with the Holy Spirit? Matthew and
Luke add "and with fire." John does not adopt this addition.
Part of the object of this Chapter is to shew why he does
not add this, and why he adds something else.

i . John's first utterance

According to Mark, the Baptist " was-preaching (or,
began-to-preach) saying, There-cometh he that is mightier
than I...," so that his first public utterance was "There-
cometh 1 ." But according to Matthew and Luke, his first
public utterance was " Ye offspring of

1 Mk i. 7. 2 Mt> iij, 7? Lkt iij. ?

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

This can be explained on the hypothesis that Mark writes
with a view to brevity and edification, omitting all the
Baptist's utterances except those that bore witness to Jesus ;
whereas Matthew and Luke write at greater length telling
the reader more about circumstance and fact. And the fact
seems to have been (according to Matthew-Luke) that the
Baptist did not utter the Marcan saying about " coming " till
he had rebuked the "offspring of vipers," who approached
him for baptism whom Matthew calls u many of the Pharisees
and Sadducees," but Luke "the multitudes." These men
were presumably hypocrites. If so, it is probable that they
did not come to be baptized until the new baptism had become
fashionable, or, at least, notorious. To acquire such notoriety-
it must have been going on for some time. It would seem,
then, a legitimate inference that the Baptist did not begin to
utter his testimony to Jesus till he had experienced some
sense of failure. He had begun to baptize unto repentance.
At first, those whom he attracted were for the most part the
devout and earnest. But presently he became the fashion and
multitudes flocked to him. Among these were some that were
lukewarm or insincere. At last came some, men of high position,
who were mere " vipers." Then, and not till then (it might be
inferred) the Baptist began to preach the advent of a Mightier
One : " I and my baptism cannot deal with this evil : there
cometh a Mightier One, bringing with Him a more searching
baptism ; He must deal with it."

The Fourth Evangelist, with even more than his usual
sense of dramatic fitness or natural development, meets any
controversial questioning as to the Baptist's first utterance, by
bringing him on the stage, as it were, with a reference to what
kc Jiad said before he was brought on the stage : " John beareth-
witness of him, and crieth, saying, This was he that I said
he that cometh behind me is become before me... 1 ." Thus

1 Jn i. 15 (see above, p. 35 foil.).
73

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

he suggests to the reader of the Three the reflection that,
although the mention of the Coming One as the Baptizer
with the Spirit may have 'been late in the Baptist's teaching,
yet the mention of the Coming One in a general way may
have been very much earlier and may have been very often
repeated.

2. " There cometh " and " behind me "

The Marcan tradition about the Baptist's first word, " there-
cometh? must be compared with the Matthew-Luke tradition
that the Baptist, on the point of death, sent two disciples to
Jesus with the question, " Art thou he- that- cometh, or are-we-
to-expect another 1 ?" Both there, and in the Entry into
Jerusalem, " he-that-cometh " is a title of the Deliverer 2 . The
" coming " is regarded, not as mere futurity, but as divinely
decreed futurity. It represents future righteous judgment of
God, according to the words in the Psalms "for he cometh, for
he cometh, to judge the earth*" The title, though popular in
Galilee at the time, seems to have been a transient one. In
the Epistle to the Hebrews, " He that cometh will come " is
a misquotation of Habakkuk's " coming it will come," that is,
"it will surely come 4 "; and I have not been able to find any
late Jewish or Aramaic use of "he-that-cometh" in this sense 5 .
But it is easily intelligible that, during a period of intense
Messianic expectation when " the age that is to come " often
meant the Messianic age "he that is to come" would mean

1 Mt. xi. 3, Lk. vii. 19 (lit.) "Art thou the coming-one (6 ep x o^fvos) ? "
Joh. Voc. 1633. '() tpxopcvos is in all the Gospels. But
also "son of David," Lk. xix. 38 " King," Jn xii. 13 " King
Mk xi. 10 adds " Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father
David."

i' . ci . i. 13.

4 lldi. x. 37 quoting llab. ii. 3.

6 On Mt. xi. 3, Hor. Hel>., Wetstein, and Schottgen, give no instances.

Nor doc- Dalinan s //',W.v (Index f/^o/Liei/os) give any.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

the Messiah in popular parlance 1 . When that disappointing
period had passed away carrying with it recollections of
many Messianic Pretenders Jewish tradition might naturally
drop the title that pointed to a coming Person (" he that is to
come"\ though they retained the title that pointed to a coming
Age (" the age that is to come ").

To return to the Marcan tradition " Thcrc-cometh he that
is mightier than I." There is no difficulty in regarding these
words, if taken by themselves, as a prediction of a Messiah in
popular talk, which we may illustrate from the Woman of
Samaria's talk, " I know that Messiah cometh-" But the next
words, " after me," or " behind me," introduce an ambiguity.
For though, in that position, they are still compatible with
the hypothesis that " there-comcth " refers to the Messiah,
they are also compatible with the hypothesis that " thcrc-
cometh " is to be taken with " after me," or " behind me "-
" there cometh after (or, behind} me he that is mightier than I."
In that case, " cometh " loses its technical Messianic meaning
by being combined with " after " so as to mean " followeth
as a disciple," or " followeth in point of time."

This arrangement has actually been adopted by Matthew,
who has " He that cometh after (or, behind} me is mightier
than I." Luke, on the other hand, retains the possibility of
a Messianic use of "coming" but he sacrifices "after (or,
behind} me": "I baptize you with water, but there cometh
he that is mightier than I." Luke's reason for doing this
namely, the ambiguity of the Mark-Matthew phrase "after
(or, behind) me " is shewn by his substitution of a different
and unambiguous Greek preposition in the Acts, where he
represents Paul as repeating the words of the Baptist in such
a form as to shew that he took the meaning to be, not

1 Levy (i. 1840, 197) gives several instances of " May it come on me
if." This he interprets as meaning " May misfortune befall me if" a
form of oath. Perhaps it would be better to say " May retribution, or
judgment, fall on me." 2 Jn iv. 25.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

" behind me," but " after me [in point of time}" thus, " And as
John was fulfilling his course, he said, What suppose ye that
I am? I am not [he]" meaning, " I am not the Coming
One, or the Redeemer"; and then, " But behold, there cometh
one after vie [in point of time}, the shoe of whose feet I am
not worthy to unloose 1 ."

Passing to the Fourth Evangelist, we have to ask whether
he, too, when introducing John the Baptist on the stage,
reproduces any of these phrases about " coming " and " behind
me." It has been shewn in the Introductory Volume 2 that he
represents the Baptist as repeating, and playing on, the
double meaning of " behind me," in such a way as to shew
that to be temporarily "behind," in the character of a disciple,
was not incompatible with an essential and permanent
superiority. But we have now to add that the Evangelist
does this thrice in connection with " coming 9 !' And, before all
these clauses, he introduces the word "coming" in his contrast
between the " man " (John) and the Light, thus : " He (emph.)
[i.e. John] was not the light... There-was the light, the true
[light] which lighteth every man coming [continually} into
the world 4 ."

These repetitions and plays on words point to a mystical
meaning, namely, that the Messiah or Redeemer of man is to
be regarded, not in the popular Galilaean aspect as "He that
is to come in the age that is to come" or " He that is to come as
the Son of David and to reign over His prosperous people
for a thousand years or more" but as the Benefactor, who
has been "coming" to men's help from the beginning and
whose business it is (so to speak) thus to "come." In this
t of "coming," the Word of God is not only the present

tS xiii. 25 "after," /^rd, not
- /'<>!(>/'<>/</ f/V;.v/W, Introduction, p. 2 foil.

Jn i. 15 far&TWfiov c/>X "/"""" fpirpoo-Qcv /*oi ycyovtv, i. 27 OTTIO-O)
i-ov, i. 30 oTrura) fjiov cpxerai dvqp....

4 Jn i. 8-9 (>ft. Gr. 2508).

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

Life and Light of men ; it also quickens and illuminates their
glance into the future. The Johannine Revelation tells us
that God is the BEING and the WAS and the COMING 1 . The
Johannine Prologue, partly through the confessions of John
the Baptist, but still more through the declarations of the
Evangelist himself, gives suggestions of the same doctrine
about the Logos: In the beginning WAS the Logos; the
true Light WAS, but it was also continually COMING ; its
name is Monogenes, the BEING in the bosom of the Father.
All these are statements of the Evangelist. But they are
confirmed by sayings of the Baptist about the incarnate
Logos sayings that, although they might only imply pre-
cedence, are capable of being taken as pointing to an eternal
pre-existence : " He was before me," " He was my First (or,
Chief) 2 ." Modern critics, perhaps, hardly make sufficient
allowance for the latitude that might be given by Jews of
a mystical or spiritual turn to such words as those of Micah,
who represents God as saying " There shall come forth unto
me one that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are
from of old, from everlasting" where the Targum has " There
shall come forth... the Messiah to be ruler... ."

3. "He that is mightier than /"

The Greek word "mighty" (elsewhere often rendered
"strong") frequently refers to the "might" or "strength" of
this world, as when Israel says, concerning the Canaanites,
"They are stronger than we," and Paul, "God hath chosen the
weak things of the world that he might put to shame the strong
things"', and Zechariah, "Not by might, nor by strength, but
by my spirit, saith the Lord of hosts 4 ." In the Three Gospels,

1 Rev. i. 4, 8. 2 See/0//. Gr. 2665-7.

3 Mic. v. 2. See Enoch xlviii. 2 6 (ed. Charles) and editor's note
ad loc.

4 Numb. xiii. 31 (comp. Deut. iv. 38, vii. i), i Cor. i. 25 7, Zech. iv. 6,
all using iV^u/joy or i<rxvs.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

Jesus only once mentions " the strong one." Then it refers to
Satan. There Luke adds a mention about "a stronger than
he," that is to say, God 1 . . But Epictetus declares that no good
and free man will "follow the stronger" i.e. the tyrant of the
hour 2 .

The Fourth Gospel never mentions either "strength" or
" strong." It implies " strength " indeed not, however, the
strength that drives, but the strength that draws as when
Jesus says, " I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all
men unto me 3 ." "Drawing" implies the strength of the King,
whereas " driving " would imply the strength of the Despot.
The "drawing" of Jesus is the same as that with which the
Lord "drew" Israel, saying "I drew them with cords of a man,
with bands of love." There the love is that of the Father 4 .
In the Song of Songs the love is that of the Bride-
groom, to whom the Bride says "Draw me, we will run
after thee 5 ."

Though the Fourth Gospel does not represent the Baptist
as saying that Jesus is "strong," or "stronger" than himself, it
represents him, later on, as declaring that Jesus is the Bride-
groom, whereas he himself is only the Bridegroom's friend.
That later utterance of the Baptist may throw light on his
use, here in the climax constituted by the third repetition of
" after me " of that Greek word for "man" which mostly means
"mighty man" or "husband": "After me cometh a man 9 ." In
the LXX, this word very often represents forms of the Hebrew
"'mighty" or "mighty -man" Knowing this, the Fourth Evan-
gelist might consider that the Greek word for "man" in the

1 Mk iii. 27, Mt. xii. 29, Lk. xi. 21 2.

- Kpirtct. ii. 13, 22 3, quoted in/0/j. Gr. 2799 a.

-' Jn xii. 32. * Hos. xi. 4.

at i. 4- Part of the Targ. is " Draw us to the foot of Mount Sinai
and x'ant unto us thy Law," See Son 3583 (\x) c "on Sinai, where the

i->als look place."
fl Jn i. 30.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

noblest sense, better than the Greek word for "strong," ex-
pressed the Baptist's meaning l .

4. " The latcJict of whose shoes I am not sufficient to
stoop-down and loose*"

Luke omits a word, " stoop-down," inserted by Mark.
But it is a detail in the expressions of John the Baptist that
does not bear on his relations with Jesus and is therefore not
one of the instances where the Fourth Gospel can be expected
to intervene.

Some of the variations of this tradition, including
Mark's " stooping-down," may be explained by the fact
that the only " loosing of the shoe-latchet " mentioned in the
Law is not a menial act but an act expressive of contempt for
the person whose shoe-latchet is loosed. In order to indicate
that the act is here that of a menial, Mark may have inserted
" stooping-down " ; but it is expressed more clearly by the
paraphrase " I am not worthy " in the Acts and the Fourth
Gospel 3 .

1 The Greek aw/p, in LXX, corresponds to the Heb. or Aram, for
"mighty? "mighty-man (vir)" &c. about 40 times. In Prov. xxiv. 5,
"man (vir)" is rendered by LXX K/mWcoi/.

- The following variations should be noted :

Mk i. 7 "the latchet of whose shoes I am not sufficient (IKUVOS) to
stoop-down (Kv\lfa$) and loose."

Mt. iii. 1 1 " whose shoes I am not sufficient to carry Oao-ratrai)."

Lk. iii. 16 "the latchet of whose shoes I am not sufficient to loose"
(omitting "stoop-down").

Jn i. 27 " the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy (agios) to loose."

Acts xiii. 25 (Paul is speaking) "But when John was fulfilling the
course [of his prophecy], he said (or, used to say, e'Aeyei/) What do ye
suppose me to be ? I am not [he]. But behold there cometh after me
(/zer' e/A) one of whom I am not worthy to loose (lit.) the shoe of the feet."

'Iicavos might mean "sufficiently strong." It is not such good Greek
as agios in the sense of " worthy." 'Y7roAud> (not Auco) is the correct Greek
for loosing the shoe-latchet in the ordinary way, and it is the word used
in Deut. xxv. 9, 10. But there the man "whose shoe-latchet is loosed"
is a title of contempt.

3 The Heb. given by Delitzsch for agios in Jn i. 27 (which is also the

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

Matthew appears to have substituted some other tradition,
which he supposed to be of similar meaning and to be free
from the appearance of conflicting with the Law. But this,
too, is obscure. Horae Hebraicae illustrates it from Jewish
rules as to what services may be performed by Jewish (not
Gentile) servants for masters taking a bath 1 . But perhaps
the origin of the phrase is entirely different. It may have
been some early Galilaean contrast between two methods of
preaching the gospel, with allusion to Isaiah's saying (quoted
by Paul) concerning the " beautiful feet " of the preachers' 2 .
Luke alone and he only in the Mission of the Seventy has
preserved a tradition of prohibition, which might mean that
the Missionary is not to "carry " cumbersome things, including
" shoes with thongs," which perhaps we might here call " boots''''
The parallel Mark, and Mark alone, has preserved a tradition
of positive precept, that the Missionary is to be shod with
"sandals" i.e. to wear light or festive shoes 4 .

Space forbids discussion of these verbal details. But the
mention of them gives us a profitable glimpse into submerged
regions of early Galilaean allusive expression, the past exist-
ence of which we are bound to keep always in mind though we
may be seldom able to detect its present effect with certainty
in any particular case.

regular Heb. for agios in LXX) somewhat resembles the Heb. given by
Delitzsch for Kv^as in Mk i. 7 (which is also occasionally the Heb. for
KUTTTco in LXX). Possibly Mark may be combining two rendering's of
one word. The margin of a Hebrew Gospel perhaps gave the Heb.
44 worthy" instead of the Heb. "sufficient," and the former was erroneously
incorporated in the text as "stooping-down" along with "sufficient."

1 Comp. Mcchilt. Wii. p. 236 (on Exod. xxi. 2) " He shall not wash
thy feet, nor take off thy sandals, nor carry things to the bath house."
Add (icn. r. on Gen. xvi. 6 "-dealt hardly, i.e. made Hagar carry her
laK to the bath."

' )i -IIM -n on Rom. x. 14 foil. (Lomm. vii. 214) quoting Is. lii. 7 and
Mt. x. 10, but not the parall. Mark, nor Luke on the Seventy.

I.k. x. 4. In the Precepts to the Twelve, Lk. ix. 3 does not mention

4 Mk vi. <). On ovii/fi<JAioi/ and vTroS^/xa see Corrections 390 (ii) (e) a.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

5- "I [f or ni y P ar t\ nave baptized you with water, but he
will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire "

In Mark, the words " with the Holy Spirit " terminate the
Baptist's preaching 1 . The Prophet says, in effect, to those
who have received his baptism, " I for my part have now done
for you the work I was sent to do. But it is by its nature
incomplete. I was sent merely to baptize with water. He
that comes after me will baptize you wit/i the Holy Spirit.
That is my gospel, or good-tidings, to you."

But in Matthew, as also in Luke, the last words of the
Baptist are, " the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire*"
These do not seem exactly "gospel" or "good-tidings!' Yet
Luke adds : " With many other exhortations therefore
preached-he-good-tidings unto the people 3 ."

Matthew and Luke also differ from Mark in this respect,
that they represent the Baptist as saying, not " / have baptized
you" but " / am baptizing your In Matthew, these words
are uttered as part of a continuous utterance to those who are
called "offspring of vipers"; and Matthew (alone) inserts
"unto repentance" after "baptize," as though to emphasize
their wickedness. But Luke makes a break, after the warning
to the " offspring of vipers," and introduces a new audience
thus : " And when the people were expecting, and all were
reasoning in their hearts about John lest by chance he might
be the Christ, John made answer saying to all, ' I for-my-
part....'"

This distinction of audiences Matthew's being the
" offspring of vipers," while Luke's is " the people " may
make a difference in the interpretation of the words that
they both add after " He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit"

1 Mk i. 8. But Mt. iii. 1112, Lk. iii. 1617 add "and with fire,
whose fan is in his hand... the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable
fire."

2 Mt. iii. 12, Lk. iii. 17. 3 Lk. iii. 18.

A. B. 81 6

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

namely, " and with fire, whose fan is in his hand, and he
will thoroughly cleanse his threshing floor, and gather the
wheat into his garner, -but the chaff he will burn up with
unquenchable fire 1 ."

I n Matthew, the fire would seem to be the fire of retributive
destruction as though the Baptist said "the Messiah will
baptize you with the Spirit if you accept Him, and with the
fire of destruction if you reject Him." But in Luke, the fire
may be regarded as cleansing souls, just as, in the Law, fire is
appointed to cleanse metals, so that Luke may mean "with the
Spirit and with its cleansing fire." In the context, both of
Matthew and of Luke, the Spirit seems to be regarded as a
winnowing wind that does what is best (so to speak) both for the
wheat and for the chaff. The fire, cleansing the pure metal
from the dross, may perhaps be regarded as " doing what is
best " in the same way. The announcement of this purifying,
this " doing of what is best " for the good and the bad, may be
called " good tidings 2 ." But the introduction of the thought of
this twofold influence takes off the reader's attention from the
bright and joyous character of the gospel of Christ for which
the Baptist prepared the way. And, since it is also
ambiguous Matthew apparently regarding it as a threat
addressed to an "offspring of vipers," but Luke rather as a
declaration of God's righteous will addressed to " the people "
we cannot be surprised if the Fourth Evangelist not only
omits all mention of baptism with fire, but also suggests in the
context, and emphasizes afterwards, other kinds of purification,
and, in particular, purification with blood.

1 Mt. iii. 12, Lk. iii. 17 (almost identical).

2 Comp. Epict. ii. 6, 1 1 foil, about the duty of the ear of wheat to pray
that it may be "parched," that is, ripened.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

6. Baptism with blood

The two prophets, Ezekiel and John the son of Zacharias,
had some experiences or characteristics in common, shared by
no other prophet. Ezekiel, alone among the ancient prophets,
saw what John also saw "the heavens opened 1 ." Ezekiel
also alone spoke of a bestowal of new life on the " dry bones "
of Israel, by means of " wind," " breath," or " spirit 2 ." And,
in Ezekiel, the new life follows a promise of a " sprinkling
with clean water " as well as the promise of " a new heart "
and " a new spirit 3 ." These two predictions resemble the
Baptist's prediction of " baptizing with the Spirit."

But further, Ezekiel goes on to say, in the name of Jehovah,
" Neither will I hide my face any more from them, because I
[shall] have poured out my Spirit upon tJie house of Israel, saith
the Lord God 4 ." The perfect ("have poured out") in itself
creates a difficulty. And in Ezekiel, elsewhere, this " pouring
out " on the part of Jehovah, mentioned in about a dozen
other passages, always refers to God's fury or wrath. Here,
accordingly, the LXX takes " spirit " to mean " the wrath of
my spirit," and adopts the rendering "poured out my wrath*?
Jewish tradition, however, interprets this as one of four
passages where " pour out " is used in a good sense 6 . Two of

1 Ezek. i. i. '-' Ezek. xxxvii. I foil.

3 See Son 3544 b, where it was shewn that " sprinkle " meant " throw
in a volume " ; but there should have been added the references to Ezek.
xxxix. 29 &c. which follow above.

4 Ezek. xxxix. 29 " I [shall] have poured out," is an attempt to express,
by the English equivalent of "effudero," what Jerome more exactly
expresses by "efmderim" (which he distinguishes from Joel ii. 28
" effundam ").

:> The LXX means " I have exhausted my wrath and will henceforth
be propitious."

6 Gesen. 1049 gives these four passages, and no others, as mentioning
the "pouring out" of Jehovah's "spirit." Echo, (Wii. p. 108, rep. p. 140,
on Lam. ii. 4) quotes the four instances of "pouring out" in a good sense,
and also four instances in a bad sense, e.g. Lam. ii. 4 "he poured out his
fury like fire."

83 62

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

these, quoted from Joel by Peter in the Acts of the Apostles,
are applied by him to the first Pentecostal outpouring of the
Spirit on the Church 1 . In Joel, the "pouring out" is to be
" upon all flesh," and it is added " also upon the servants and
the handmaids will I pour out my spirit." R. Tanchuma
quotes this universal outpouring of the Spirit " in the age to
come " as a contrast to the giving of the Spirit to this or that
prophet or ruler in the present age ; and another tradition
connects Joel's prophecy with the saying of Isaiah, quoted in
John, that " all men " shall hereafter " be God's disciples 2 ."

The instance of "pouring out the spirit" in Zechariah is
not of the same kind as the other three : " I will pour out upon
the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem,
the spirit of grace and supplication, and they shall look unto me
(or, him) whom they have pierced 3 ." But still the thought is
present of a purifying spirit coming in a flood upon those who
lift up their hearts in prayer ; and the words when combined
with the contextual "they shall look unto him whom they
pierced," and when interpreted in a mystical Christian sense-
prepare the reader for the thought of a baptism with the blood
of the crucified Saviour.

The stress laid by John, not only in his Gospel, on the
" water " issuing with the " blood" from the side of the crucified
Jesus, after He had " delivered up his Spirit," but also in his
Epistle, on the threefold witness of "the spirit" and "the water"
and " the blood" must be considered along with his express
quotation from Zechariah about looking unto Him " whom

1 Acts ii. 1718 quoting Joel ii. 2829.

2 Numb. r. (on Numb. xi. 16, Wii. p. 413), Deut. r. (on Deut. xxiv. 9,
\Vii. p. 83) quoting Ezek. xxxvi. 26 "a heart of stone," Joel ii. 28, and
Is. liv. 13 (quoted in Jn vi. 45). It may be noted that Luke, who in the
Acts quotes Joel's prophecy about " all flesh? quotes also in his Gospel
(in connection with John the Baptist's prediction of the new baptism)
words in the context of Isaiah that are not quoted by Mk-Mt., namely,
"and nlljle.sh shall see it together" (Lk. (as LXX) "and all flesh shall see
tin- salvation of God"). 3 z e ch. xii. 10.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

they pierced 1 ." John does not, it is true, expressly quote the
words "pour out... the spirit" as well as the words " look unto
him whom they pierced." But it is practically certain that
he must have interpreted the former in the same mystical
way as the latter, and that he regarded the whole of Zechariah's
prophecy as applying to the crucified Saviour, who became
" a fountain " for the cleansing of " sin," and for the regenera-
tion of believers with a birth "from above 2 ."

7. " The Lamb of God"

Both before and after the Johannine mention of " baptizing
with the Holy Spirit," the Fourth Gospel places a declaration
of the Baptist about Jesus that He is " the Lamb of God that
taketh away the sin of the world 3 ." (i) What precisely does
the Evangelist mean by this ? (2) What does he suppose the
Baptist to have meant by it ? And (3) what is a historian to
say about it if asked, " Did the Baptist actually use these
words ? "

The Evangelist's purpose is probably to enlarge our
notions of purification or baptism and, in particular, to lift
us out of the ruts of controversial dogmas about baptism in
fire as distinct from baptism in water by suggesting to us
other metaphors of purification. The Logos (says Origen)
when regarded as " drink," is " to some men, water ; to others,
wine ; to others again, blood " ; and, when regarded as
baptism, " the same Logos is baptism of water, and of spirit,
and of fire ; but, to some also, of blood 4 ." According to this

1 Jn xix. 34 7, i Jn v. 6 8, Zech. xii. 10.

2 Comp. Zech. xiii. i " In that day there shall be a fountain opened...
for sin." Rev. i. 7 "every eye shall see him, and they that pierced him ;
and all the tribes of the earth shall mourn over him," combines the
"piercing" with the "mourning" of Zech. xii. 10 14.

3 Jn i. 29, 36, shortened, in the second instance, to "the Lamb of
God."

4 Origen Comm. Joann. vi. 26 (Lomm. i. 243). Prof. Flinders
Petrie (Religion of the Egyptians, 1912, p. 13) quoting from the Hermetic

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

view, the Baptist's twofold testimony to Jesus as " the Lamb
of God " would seem intended by the Evangelist to prepare us
for the thought of " the blood of the Lamb " ; and it is akin
to the symbolism of the closely-following Feast at Cana,
where the " six waterpots of stone after the Jews' manner of
purifying " are to be contrasted with the " water become
wine " ; and that same " wine " is to be regarded as a type of
the " blood " which is to flow, along with " water," from the
Crucified Saviour.

Also, by this twofold exclamation of the Baptist which
sounds like a confession suddenly extorted by a spiritual
presence our minds are suddenly arrested and half-turned,
and then (on reflection) turned right round, to the thought of a
Person, mysteriously pure, purifying, innocent, and gentle
gentle to everything except to the tyranny of sin. We forget
the Baptist's reproaches of the " offspring of vipers," and his
threatenings of "fire"; and we concentrate our thoughts on
Him whom he calls, first, " the Lamb of God that taketh
away the sin of the world," and then " the Lamb of God "
without any mention of " sin." The first utterance suggests

treatise About the Common Mind (before 332 B.C.) says " In that is the
rule of Fate ; Agathodaimon, the First-born God ; Life owing to Energy,
Power, and Aeon ; and Logos often used of human reason, the strongest
phrase being 'Unto this Logos pay thy adoration and thy worship.' In
the treatise on the Cup, or rather Font, the Logos doctrine begins to
develop thus : ' With Logos not with hands did the Demiourgos make
the universal Cosmos.' Conversion is the prominent motive of the
treatise. The great Crater or Font full of Mind had been sent from
God for men ; ' Baptize thyself with this Font's baptism, thou that hast
faith that thou canst ascend to Him who hath sent down the Font,... as
many as understood the tidings, and immersed themselves in Mind,
Ix'.ime partakers in the Gnosis.' With this we must connect the
baptism of the ascetics described about IOA.D., where the initiate was
'made a partaker of the waters of purification."' There is much food for
thought in the phrase "Cup, or rather Font," especially when we bear in
mind that tin- word for "cup" is Kpartjp, "mixing-bowl," called (Steph.
Thes. iv. 1927) Kparf^p 'A-yatfov Aat/iopoff, of which the primary meaning
would refer to drinking, not to washing.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

the Lamb of the Passover, or of the Daily Offering, purifying
the sinful ; the second suggests that those who are purified are
now sinless, " purchased " by the blood of the Lamb, so that,
as Revelation says, they " follow the Lamb whithersoever he
goeth 1 ." And the very next sentence in the Gospel mentions
disciples " following 2 ."

But secondly, what does John suppose the Baptist to have
meant by it? Can we suppose that, in the Evangelist's
opinion, these truths about the Lamb of God, which were not
made known to the Apostles till after the Lord's Resurrection,
were revealed to the Baptist already ? More probably he
believed that the Baptist, as being a prophet and the greatest
of the prophets, was led to use language that was not only
true for himself as he understood it, but also more amply true
for those that were to come. This is what we might infer
from many prophecies in the Old Testament and from what
is said about them in the New. The Epistle of St Peter
recognises that the ancient prophets " sought and searched
diligently 3 ," but implies that they did not find fully. And
this Gospel distinctly recognises (as also do the Synoptic
Gospels) that the Baptist did not "find fully." He was "of
the earth " ; Jesus was " from the heaven and above all 4 ." That
being so, we have now to attempt an answer to the third
question before us, namely, as to the meaning that could have
been attached by the Baptist himself to these words, since he
could not have meant all that we Christians mean by them.

1 Rev. xiv. 4. "These," it is said, "were purchased from among
men," and Rev. v. 9 describes them as "purchased" with the "blood" of
the Lamb.

2 Jn i. 37 " the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed
Jesus."

3 i Pet. i. 10. 4 Jn iii. 31.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

8. /;/ what sense might the Baptist speak of Jesus as
"the Lamb of God" ?

Some help for modern readers toward answering this
difficult question might be derived from the remarks of
Clement of Alexandria about the babes or lambs of God in
general, and about Jesus as the Babe or Lamb of God in
particular 1 . We must also think of the Aramaic " youngling,"
in Hebrew, " lamb " ; and of the Hebrew use of " suckling " to
mean a " pupil " ; and of the passage in Isaiah where Aquila
and Theodotion support, in effect, the testimony of the LXX
describing the Suffering Servant of God as a " suckling,"
apparently despised for his youth as well as for his humble
presence 2 . A Targum on the birth of Moses in Exodus says
that Pharaoh had a dream in which "a lamb" that is, Moses
is seen in one scale of a balance, outweighing the whole of
the land of Egypt which is placed in the other 3 . These verbal
usages, and these associations, may help us to understand
how the Baptist without any definite allusion, and perhaps
without any allusion at all, to the Lamb of the Passover or
the Lamb of the Daily Sacrifice 4 might burst out into a
rapturous expression of admiration and devotion for his own
pupil: "Not my pupil, but God's, God's own ' suckling,' a
very Lamb of God ! "

Toward such a homage the last of the Prophets, being
himself of a comparatively austere and stern disposition,

1 Clem. Alex. 1041 12 (see " Babe of God" in Light 3705, 3817 a /).

2 See Son 3519 ef (quoting Jerome on Is. liii. 2 (R.V.) "a tender
plant").

3 Exod. i. 13 (Jer. Targ.).

1 '1 li.it is to say, though there are both these allusions, they are not
made by the Baptist. The Baptist uttered the words, the Evangelist
found in them the allusions. Of course, whenever a pious Jew used
the word " lamb " in a metaphorical sense, he might connect it distantly
with th< sacrificial " lamb." But that is a different thing from connecting
it directly with the thought of the Lamb of the Passover.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

might be all the more moved by a sense of contrast, and by
a recognition of a new and strange and divinely attractive
power in this Little One, who taught, or seemed to teach, a
new doctrine, or rather to convey a new power, by which the
" lambs " were to prevail over the wolves, and the " little ones "
over those whom this world called great.

The homage cannot be understood unless we make an
effort to apprehend the possibility of a combination of babe-
like purity and God-like power, which might absolutely
constrain the Baptist to make an exclamation of this kind,
somewhat as (we may suppose) the sons of Heth were forced,;
by the recognition of a prince-like and noble nature, to say
to Abraham " Hear us, my lord, thou art a prince of God
among us 1 ."

Against this view there may be quoted the words of the
Baptist himself, "And I knew him not ; but he that sent me
to baptize with water, he said unto me, Upon whomsoever thou
slialt see the Spirit descending, and abiding upon him, the same
is he that baptizeth with the Holy Spirit 2 ." This may be
urged as shewing that the Baptist's belief was not based on
the innate beauty and divineness of the character of Jesus,
but on a sign, such as that which the Pharisees were always
demanding, " a sign from heaven."

But there are " signs " and " signs." Such an argument
ignores the difference between a sign that is moral or spiritual
and one that is non-moral or non-spiritual. If a magician
promises to make me see him stop, with his uplifted hand,

1 Gen. xxiii. 6, LXX "a \a\ngfrom God" Targ. "great in the presence
of the Lord." Comp. Exod. ii. 2 (about Moses) the babe was "good [to
look on]," Acts vii. 20 " goodly to God. n Josephus Ant. ii. 9. 7 " divine
in form." The Jews said that one of the names of Moses was " Tob-iah"
i.e. "the Good One of the Lord? See Wii. (on Lev. i. i) and Pesikt.
p. 243. Jewish traditions on Eccles. iv. 13 14 (Wii. ad loc.} say that the
"poor and wise youth" may be either (i) the principle of goodness that
enters into man from his thirteenth year, or (2) "Abraham the prince of
God." 2 Jn i. 33.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

the motion of the earth or, to speak popularly, the motion of
the sun and if he does it and then says to me, " Is not this a
great thing ! " I am obliged to say " Yes." But I may add,
" Yet it is not spiritually great ; and, in comparison with
spiritual goodness, it is a very small thing." On the other
hand, to have one's eyes opened so as to be enabled to discern
the Spirit of Goodness descending, is great in a different way,
great in a spiritual region, and with a greatness above all
kinds of material greatness. And if this influx of spiritual
vision came on John the Baptist during intercourse with Jesus
of Nazareth, is it not a reasonable as well as a spiritual
supposition that the vision was connected with that inter-
course as effect with cause? Perhaps it would not be too
bold to say that John would never have seen " the Spirit
descending" on Jesus, if he had not first been disposed to
exclaim, even before the descent, " I have need to be baptized
by thee," and perhaps even, " Behold, the Lamb of God."

It is probable that John, who was like Ezekiel in "seeing
the heaven opened," followed him also in his ways of thought
so far at least as this, that he often dwelt in meditation on
that " likeness as the appearance of a man " which Ezekiel
saw above the Chariot on high 1 . If so, he would not find so
great a difficulty as some modern thinkers find in seeing a
connection a "natural" connection, in the sense of divine
" nature " between God in heaven and Man on earth. On
this point we may take a hint from the early Christian poet
Nonnus, who, when describing Christ, " walking," as '' seen "
by John the Baptist, paraphrases the text in such a way as to
convey an allusion to Ezekiel's chariot :

Having seen Christ walking on the earth as a traveller
on foot,

The uplifted Charioteer of the Chariot that goeth on high-.
. k. i. 26.

Nonnus on Jn i. 36 and Son 3583 (xii) / comp. 3040 dl On
"walking" (amid the Churches), see Notes 2998 (xxviii)/

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

This poetic paraphrase is, if one may so say, in all
probability historically correct. That is to say, it represents
the historical fact so far as this, that the mystic John the
Baptist perceived in Jesus a fulfilment of his dreams and
visions of the revival of Israel, as predicted by Ezekiel.
There was to be the descent of a divine power along with
" the appearance of a man." There was to be the divine gift
of a new heart, a new spirit, a cleansing with water from
above, a new life in the dry bones of Israel 1 . Not only the
prospect of all this, but also the actual presence of a part of
it, he realised in Jesus, from whom he personally felt a flow of
spiritual life coming forth to himself, somewhat as Peter felt
when he exclaimed, " Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast
words of eternal life." According to Matthew, the Baptist
said to Jesus, " I have need to be baptized by thee."
According to the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist said about Jesus,
" Behold, the Lamb of God."

By the laws of evidence laws which men who know them
are bound morally as well as logically to observe we are
not justified in accepting either the Matthaean or the
Johannine tradition in its exact words, as having an authority
equal to that of a saying of Christ supported by the threefold
Synoptic testimony. But we are justified in accepting both
as being neither inventions, nor gross and absurd exaggera-
tions, nor mere anachronisms, but honest and reasonable
attempts to hand down, in a reasonable though somewhat
idealised form, the Christian traditions, accepted at the time,
about the attitude of John the Baptist toward Jesus of
Nazareth 2 . From a spiritual point of view, these early
Christian traditions may well be regarded, even by the keenest
and most ardent lovers of scientific and historical research, as

1 Ezek. xxxvi. 25 7, xxxvii. i 14.

2 For a sketch of the difficulties attending the tasks of the several
Evangelists, see Son 3374 A.

JOHN PREACHING OR PROPHESYING

being no overstatement but perhaps rather an understatement
of the truth 1 .

1 A word should perhaps have been added about the Baptist's
probable attitude to the sacrifices in the Temple. If he held Essene
views he would not if we may believe Josephus (Ant. xviii. i, quoted in
Son 3584 b] participate in those sacrifices. But he might have a very
high and pure conception of what the spiritual sacrifice ought to be
(comp. Ps. xl. 8 "to do thy will, O my God"). Hence he might con-
ceivably use language like that which the Fourth Gospel imputes to him
concerning Jesus as fulfilling that ideal. John the Baptist is clearly
regarded by the Fourth Evangelist as not accompanying Jesus to
Jerusalem on the occasion when He attempted to purify the Temple.
What is the Evangelist's view of this absence? Is the Baptist to be
regarded as holding aloof (i) in accordance with his general Essene
habit, or (2) for some special reason ? If the latter, may we suppose that
he regarded Jesus as running unwarranted risks, endangering both
Himself and the success of His mission by opposing the rulers of the
Jews in a region where they reigned supreme ? Did he, in a word,
regard his disciple and successor, Jesus, as being like the "lamb" in
Jeremiah (xi. 19 (LXX) dpviov) or in Isaiah (liii. 17 (LXX) dp.vos} ? See
Son 3519 / and Notes 2998 (xxxii) bd.

The multitude of possible meanings and allusions attachable to the
Baptist's words "the lamb of God" diminishes the probability of any one
particular meaning or allusion. But it also increases the probability that
some one or more of these meanings and allusions must be accepted, and
thus strengthens the conclusion that some title of this kind was actually
given by John the Baptist to Jesus, and that it is not a fiction of the
Fourth Evangelist.

CHAPTER IV

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

THE Fourth Gospel does not describe " The Baptism of
Jesus." " On what ground, then," it may be asked, " can a
Chapter be claimed for it in a treatise entitled The Fourfold
Gospel ? " On this ground, that the Fourth Gospel assumes
the Baptism, alludes to the Synoptic traditions about it, adds
traditions of its own about it, and subsequently enlarges on
baptism with water and the Spirit in such a way as to shew
that it has in view wrong deductions, as well as right deduc-
tions, that might be drawn from it.

On the terrestrial baptism of Jesus in the Jordan, and on
the momentary "opening" of the sky above the Jordan, the
Fourth Gospel says nothing ; but (if one may so express it)
on the celestial act corresponding to that terrestrial pheno-
menon, and on the future consequences of that act, it says a
great deal. In no Chapter more remarkably than in this will
it be found that the study of what the Fourth Evangelist
pointedly omits is almost as important as the study of what
he inserts to explain his omissions.

i. The "coming" of Jesus, when was it?

When did Jesus "come"? Mark in a clause placed
immediately after the Baptist's final words " I baptized you
with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit "-
answers the question thus : " And it came to pass in those
days came Jesus." "In those days" meaning in Scripture

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

almost always evil days when applied to the past 1 is used
as follows about Moses, with the Hebraic "and it came to
pass," as in Mark : "And it came to pass in those days, when
Moses was grown up, that he came forth unto his brethren
and looked on their burdens 2 ." It would therefore be a fit
phrase for introducing the advent of Jesus when He came
forth to look upon the burdens of His fellow men and to
bring them from evil days of servitude into an aeon, or age,
of freedom.

Why, then, does not Matthew use it ? Perhaps because
he has already used it about John the Baptist: "In those days
arriveth John the Baptist preaching... 3 ." Perhaps Matthew
regards the evil days as being ended with the coming of John.
He introduces the coming of Jesus immediately after the
Baptist's doctrine, thus, "../he shall burn with fire unquench-
able.' Then arriveth Jesus... 4 ."

Luke uses " in these (or those] days " in connection with
the conception and birth of Jesus 5 , but not about His " coming."

1 Gen. vi. 4 "There were giants in those days" is the first instance.

2 Exod. ii. 11. The LXX has "in those many days," partly influenced,
perhaps, by a following sentence (Exod. ii. 23), " And it came to pass in
those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel
sighed." There are many other instances in the Bible where "many
days " is used, as the Jews said, not because the days were really " many,"
but because they were really weary, and seemed " many." See Lev. r.
(on Lev. xv. 25) where Wii. p. 126 quotes, by error, Exod. ii. II " Es war
nach vielen Tagen." It should be Exod. ii. 23.

Moses " went forth " again (Exod. ii. 13) " on the second day," and the
Midrash calls attention to this, as if it had a mystical meaning. See
below on Jn i. 29 35 " On the morrow he [i.e. John] seeth Jesus coming
unto bim.... Again on the morrow John. ..looked upon Jesus as he walked."

'' Ml. iii. I ''arriveth (rrapu-yiWrat)."

4 Mt. iii. 1213 "arriveth (TrapayiWat)." " Then" is a characteristic
i b in Matthew, and therefore nothing symbolical can be inferred
from it in his Gospel, though it is often symbolically interpreted in the
Midrash (see Exod. r. on Exod. xv. i).

'' Lk. i. 39, ii. i. Lk. iv. 2 "in those [forty] days" stands on a different
foot i 111- from the Hebraic phrase.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

The Baptist's "coming" he dates with precise reference to
the reign of Tiberius Caesar 1 . But, in contrast, he does not
date the "coming" of Jesus, or definitely describe Him any-
where as " coming." Indeed he seems to avoid such a mention
in connection with the Messiah and to reserve it for His
forerunner. It is the Baptist whom he brings on the stage as
^coming" into the circle of the Jordan "in the fifteenth year
of Tiberius Caesar." And it is to the Baptist alone that
Luke immediately afterwards directs our thoughts : to his
proclamation of the baptism of repentance, his warnings to
the multitudes, his precepts to various classes of disciples, his
indirect disavowal of any claim to be the Christ, and his
avowal of his own inferiority to a future baptizer with the
Holy Spirit and fire ; concluding with the statement that,
after he had " preached good tidings with many other exhorta-
tions" to the people, "Herod the tetrarch...shut up John in
prison-."

Not till these last words have removed the Baptist from
the scene (and almost altogether from Luke's Gospel), does
Luke now go back to Jesus whom his last mention left at
Nazareth, as a boy of twelve years old, " advancing... in favour
with God and men 3 ." And even now Luke tells us nothing
about what Jesus had been doing during this long interval ;
nor at what time, nor whence, nor whither Jesus now came,
when He presented Himself to John for baptism ; nor what,
if anything, John said to Jesus, or about Jesus, after His
arrival, or still later, after the baptism had been accomplished.
Even if we regard Luke's last sentence about John's being
" shut up " as a parenthetical anticipation, still the introduction
of "Jesus" as already "having been baptized" is strangely
abrupt if we read the sentences rapidly together, thus :
"...he shut up John in prison. Now it came to pass, when
all the people had been baptized, that, Jesus also having been

1 Lk. iii. 13. 2 Lk. iii. 120. 3 Lk. ii. 52.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

baptized, and being in the act of praying, the heaven was
opened." How natural for Luke's readers to say, " But you
have not told us when or. where Jesus was 'baptized,' or even
that He was 'baptized' at all; why do you omit all these
things ? "

An answer to these questions is suggested, in part by-
Luke's own Introduction, but in part also by the following
parallel in the two earlier Gospels which Luke had before
him :

Mk i. 9 Mt. iii. 13

...came Jesus from Nazareth of ...arriveth Jesus from Galilee... to-

Galilee and was baptized '.. .by ward John to be baptized by him.
John.

Matthew implies an interval, or at all events the possibility
of one, between the " arrival " and the " baptism." Jesus
" arrived " (we may reasonably infer from the context) not
alone, but with other postulants for baptism. These postulants
the Prophet must have tested in some way before baptizing
them. To test such a multitude some of whom he rejected,
as being " offspring of vipers 1 " must have taken time. For
a time, then, Jesus may have been a disciple of John, either
in one and the same place, or following "behind him" from
place to place, in the circle of the Jordan. True, Matthew
tells us that John said to Jesus " I have need to be baptized
by thee," but Matthew gives us no grounds for supposing
that John said this to Jesus in view of any previous acquaint-
ance or connection between them.

This is Matthew's position, and it presents no difficulty.
But how different is the position of Luke ! For Luke has
distinctly told us in his Introduction that there had been
between the mother of John and the mother of Jesus a very
close connection before the birth of either child. Had the
two mothers never met again ? Had the two children never

1 Mt. iii. 7, Lk. iii. 7.
96

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

met, since the day when Elisabeth called Mary " the mother
of my Lord 1 "? Even if the two children had never met, had
they never heard of one another? Had the son of Elisabeth
never heard of that Son of Mary whom his mother called her
"Lord"? In any case, when they did meet at last in the
circle of the Jordan, what did they say to one another ? All
these questions about the meeting of the two grown-up
children so imperatively demanded an answer from Luke, if
he described their meeting, that he may very well have
decided since he could not answer them not to describe
their meeting at all.

In the Fourth Gospel the time of the " coming " is signified
by nothing but the phrase " on the morrow" This appears to
have a mystical meaning, as referring to the six days of the
spiritual Genesis, that is to say, the Creation of the Church :
" On the morrow he [i.e. Johri\ seeth Jesus coming unto him and
saith, Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin
of the world!" Origen and the Diatessaron appear to be
right in regarding these words as uttered by John at the
moment of Christ's coming to him to be baptized-. On the
preceding day Jesus had been " behind " John, as a disciple,
" in the midst of" the crowd, unrecognised by the Pharisees,
but already so far recognised by John that he could say of
Him " In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not,
one coming behind me, the latchet of whose shoe I am not
worthy to loose." But now, when the Prophet "sees" the
Logos "the light that lighteth every human being, [con-
tinually] coming into the world " " coming " to him, and no
longer " behind " him, he himself receives enlightening, and
his eyes are opened to enable him to discern the Spirit
descending. And immediately afterwards, the baptism having

1 Lk. i. 43.

2 Origen Comm. Joann. vi. 30 (on Jn i. 29) otoi/ei yap tv fgfjs <amo>Aa>
appears to refer to the baptism technically called "enlightening [that
follows] next-day," see below.

A. B. 97 7

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

now taken place, John exclaims, " I have beheld the Spirit
descending as a dove out of heaven and it abode on him 1 ."
According to Origen, a progress in revelation is implied by
" on the morrow!' as compared with the preceding day ; and
he says perhaps playing on the double meaning of "en-
lightening 2 /' technically used for " baptism " " Jesus cometh
as it were in enlightening [that follows] next-day," being
now " not only recognised as standing * in the midst even of
those who knew [Him] not/ but by this time also seen...''
This use of " on the morrow " here to introduce a new period
of progressive creation would accord well with its meaning
elsewhere in the context 3 .

Reviewing the facts, and asking whether the Fourth Gospel
has anything that spiritually corresponds to the Marcan
phrase " in those days " in connection with the " coming " of
Jesus in accordance with its Jewish traditional meaning,
that is, " days of darkness and trouble " we may reply that
the Johannine day before "the morrow" is metaphorically
a day of darkness, or at all events of twilight before the dawn.
It is the day of the Priests and Levites and Pharisees ; the
day of those who, under the conventional tyranny of names
" the Christ," " Elijah," " the Prophet "dispute the authority
of the Spirit ; the day in which the Deliverer " stands in the

1 Jn i. 32. It may be asked, "Where is the Temptation to come, so
as to fit in with this arrangement ? " The Diatessaron places it between
Jn i. 34 and Jn i. 35, in other words, between two episodes which are
severally introduced with the phrase (i. 29) " On the morrow" and (i. 35)
"on the morrow again? The omission may be illustrated by the
omission in Chronicles (noted in the Introductory Volume, pp. 79 80)
of the rebellion of Absalom &c. after the phrase "after these things?

2 See Son 3407 (vii) a. One reason why Greeks might avoid the use
of "the baptized" (substituting "enlightened") might be that "baptized"
was regularly used for people "immersed [in pleasure]," "soaked [in
wine}* &c., see Steph. Thes.

:{ See/o//. Voc. 1717 h and Son 3583 (xii)^on the Hexaemeron of the
Creation of the Church which is implied by the context, and by the use
of enavpiov in Jn i. 29, 35, 43.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

midst of" the people who "do not know" Him; a day in
which the darkness is striving to overcome the dawning
Light of the World, and the Prophet himself, though re-
cognising the approach of a Master, has not yet received the
sign that is to announce the future Baptizer of Israel. " The
morrow" changes all this. The eyes of the Prophet are^
opened, and "he seeth " Jesus, the Light of the World,
"coming" to him. This is the first day of the new Genesis,
on which the new Enlightenment or Baptism is to begin, and
it corresponds to the day when " God saw the light that it
was good 1 ."

In all this, the contrast between the Johannine Gospel
and Luke both in those respects in which Luke differs from
Mark and Matthew and in others is very striking. Both
Mark and Matthew describe the " coming " of Jesus to John
or connect it closely with John; Luke mentions no "coming"
of Jesus at all ; the Fourth Gospel says that the occasion on
which John "saw" Jesus "coming" was the one on which
he hailed Him as " The Lamb of God which taketh away the
sin of the world."

Then as if to say to the readers of Luke, " This was not
the result of any previous acquaintance between John and
Jesus or between Elisabeth and Mary" it adds immediately
the following words of John, " And I knew him not'' We are
not to suppose that the Fourth Gospel hereby denies the
historical truth of Luke's narrative about Elisabeth and Mary,
but rather that it makes a spiritual protest against wrong
inferences from it : " Some say that John the son of Elisabeth
'knew' Jesus the son of Mary to be his Lord, even from

1 This is not the place to discuss the stages of the Creation of the
Church in the Hexaemeron of the Fourth Gospel, but we may contrast
it, perhaps, with the seven days in Ezek. iii. 16 17 (on which see Origen)
regarded typically as needful for the "watchman's training." During
that time the prophet Ezekiel does nothing ; but Jesus builds up the
Church.

99 72

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

childhood. That was not a prophet's 'knowing! The
1 knowing' of Jesus by John such ' knowing ' as might enable
John to bear witness to . Him that all men might believe
did not come, and could not come, till the Spirit descended
and said to John, as in old days to Samuel anointing David,
'This is he'."

To the question, therefore, " When was the ' coming ' of
Jesus?" Mark and Matthew convey vague answers; Luke
gives no answer at all ; and the Fourth Gospel says, in effect,
" The ' coming ' was not into this place or that, nor into the
bodily presence of this person or that, but into the hearts of
men, represented by John the Baptist, who was the ' man
sent from God,' the appointed witness, that all might believe
in the Light. And He, the Light, came into the heart of
John * on the morrow ' after the time of darkness during which
the Lord had been ' standing in the midst ' of men and John
himself had not known Him. The ' morrow ' was like the
morrow after the darkness that was on the face of the deep ;
on that ' morrow,' and on this, God said ' Let there be light V

2. The "coming" of Jesus ', whither was it?

Luke's omission of the " coming " may be in part explained
by some early obscurity indicated in the slight verbal deviation
of Matthew from Mark :

Mk i. 9 Mt. iii. 13

...came Jesus from Nazareth of ...arriveth Jesus from Galilee

Galilee and was baptized (lit.) to (or, near) the Jordan toward

into the Jordan by John. John to be baptized by him.

The expression " baptized into the Jordan " might be
defended, as vernacular Greek, from a passage in Plutarch,
quoting a vulgar Greek charm that says to a sufferer, "Baptize
thyself into the sea 1 ." But such a use is non-existent in the

1 I'lut. Mor. 166 A "call the old witch, and baptize thyself into the

100

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Greek Testament. And it is difficult to believe that Mark
would use " baptized into Jordan " here, after having used
" baptized in Jordan " in the preceding context.

The Jew in Origen's Celsus speaks of Jesus as " being
bathed by the side of John" where one MS has "Jordan" for
"John 1 "; and Origen previously refers to extracts taken by
Celsus from " the gospel of Matthew but perhaps, too, from
the rest of the gospels about the dove that alighted on the
Saviour when He was being baptized (lit.) from the side of
John-" Here two MSS omit "from the side of John" and
one has "by the side of John" and the Editor says "What if
the right reading is by the side of Jordan"?" In N.T., "baptize
into" is used only in connection with a spiritual element
(sometimes represented by a person) into which, or whom,
one passes by baptism, e.g. " baptized into repentance" " into
Christ Jesus" " into Christ's death" " into the name of Paul"
" into Johns baptism" " into Moses" " into Christ" " into the
name of the Lord Jesus"

These facts and perhaps we may add the variations of
the MSS in Mark as to the order of the words make it
doubtful whether the extant text of Mark is free from error
the original having perhaps been " came and was baptized into
the baptism of John" or " into John" or " came to the baptism
of John" This would agree with Matthew's version, "came...
toward John to be baptized by him."

The Fourth Gospel appears at first sight to agree with
Matthew in saying that Jesus " came " to John. But the
contexts differ. Matthew seems to imply a journeying
(" arriveth ") to John. The Fourth Gospel may mean that
Jesus, who had been on a certain day " standing " among
John's disciples, " came " to John " on the morrow " to be
baptized 3 .

From Letter 1039 <7, quoting Cels. i. 41 irapa TO>

Origen Cels. i. 40 irapa rov 'I. 3 Jn i. 26 9.

101

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

It is true that a place about which we shall speak
presently is mentioned in the Johannine context " These
things were done in Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was
baptizing. On the morrow he [i.e. John] seeth Jesus coming
unto him...." But "these things were done" is vague. We
are not told that Jesus "came" to Bethany. John moved
from place to place baptizing. As we do not know how long
Jesus had been with him, we can only infer, as probable, that
there had been a " coming " of Jesus to Bethany; but we know,
as a certainty, that there had been a " coming " of Jesus to
John. The Fourth Gospel prefers to regard the "coming"
as connected with persons, not with places. It first described
the non-incarnate Light as " coming into the world " that is,
to the inhabited world, to enlighten it. Then (in the Baptist's
words) the incarnate Light or Word is twice mentioned as
"coming behind" His forerunner. Now at last He is "seen
coming to " that forerunner through whose " seeing " He is to
be " seen " by mankind.

3. " From Nazareth? " of Nazareth? " Nazarene?

" Nazoraean? (See also Appendix /.)
There is an ambiguity in Mark's tradition about Christ's
"coming":

Mk i. 9

And it came to pass in those Then

days there came Jesus from Galilee.
Nazareth 1 of Galilee...

Mt. iii. 13
arriveth Jesus

from

It may be illustrated by:
Mk xv. 43 Mt. xxvii. 57

There came Joseph There came a rich
from Arhnathaea-. man from Arima-

thaea, named Joseph.

Lk. xxiii. 50 52
A man named Jo-
seph . . . [a man] from
Arimathaea ... ap-
proached Pilate.

"Jesus from, i.e. of, Nazareth" occurs elsewhere in Mt. xxi. u,
Jn i. 45, Acts x. 38, but always with the article before a.
2 W. H. inarg. places the article before OTTO.

102

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

The Revised Version, in the first of these two Marcan
passages, has "from Nazareth," and, in the second, "of
Arimathaea." Probably the distinction is correct. But it is
justified only by inference, not by any distinction in the
Marcan Greek 1 . As to Joseph, the Lucan parallel shews
that Luke took "from Arimathaea " to mean " a man from,
or, of, Arimathaea," and the circumstances shew that Luke
was right. As to Jesus, the parallel Matthew shews that
Matthew took the meaning to be "journeying from Galilee."
For "Jesus front Galilee" meaning "Jesus of Galilee" is
unheard of in the Gospels. Perhaps Matthew omitted " from
Nazareth " because of its ambiguity. But if this was Matthew's
motive it is not certain that he was right. It is possible,
though not probable, that Mark meant " there came Jesus
of Nazareth of Galilee" where " Nazareth of Galilee " would
be used like "Bethlehem of Judaea?

The only other Synoptic instance of "from Nazareth "
occurs in Matthew's description (peculiar to himself) of the
crowd shouting round Jesus as He rides into Jerusalem,
"This is the prophet, Jesus, the [man] from Nazareth of
Galilee 2 ," where the other three Gospels mention "king," or
" kingdom."

Luke nowhere uses the phrase "from Nazareth" though
he mentions " Nazareth " almost as often as the other three
Evangelists taken together 3 . The reason is probably this,
that he is anxious to emphasize the fact that Jesus was born
not in Nazareth but in Bethlehem. His parents indeed
such is Luke's view lived in Nazareth, and Jesus would
naturally have been born in Nazareth. But, by a providential
interposition, He was born in Bethlehem, so that He might

1 That is, the text of W. H., which has no article before a?ro.

2 Mt. xxi. u, a short insertion peculiar to Matthew.

3 Mt. (3), Mk (i), Jn (2), but Lk. five times, of which four are in
the Introduction.

103

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

have been described with strict accuracy as "Jesus from
Bethlehem" not "Jesus from Nazareth''

Matthew, though agreeing with Luke as to facts namely,
birth at Bethlehem, but domicile at Nazareth takes an
exactly opposite view of providential interposition. Jesus, he
says, was born in Bethlehem of Judaea, the home of His
parents, and would have been domiciled there in the natural
course of things. But when His parents, after fleeing with the
babe to Egypt, " returned " to the land of Israel, Joseph was
afraid to go to Judaea, and, being " warned [by God] in
a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee, and came and
dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophets [saying] that ' He shall be
called a Nazoraean 1 .' "

These two opposite views are brought before the reader of

Mark here, when Mark for the first time mentions "Jesus

from Nazareth" without any parallel mention of it in Matthew

or Luke, and where the question arises " Does this imply that

Jesus was born at Nazareth, or merely domiciled there ? "

We have now to ask how John intervenes. He does it, as
often, dramatically, in a dialogue. The dialogue mentions
"from Nazareth" in two Greek forms, 1st, "from" meaning
domicile, 2nd, "from" or "out of" meaning extraction*. The
dialogue is between Philip and Nathanael. Philip says to
Nathanael " Him have we found who has been portrayed by
Moses in the Law, and by the Prophets Jesus, son of Joseph,
the [man] from (i.e. domiciled at) Nazareth*" The preceding
verse uses the two Greek prepositions about Philip, thus :
" Now Philip was from [i.e. domiciled af\ Bethsaida, [but] out of

1 Mt. ii. 223.

2 "From" meaning domicile, OTTO: "from," or "out of," meaning
extraction, . See Joh. Gr. 228993 " 'Arro and e* describing domicile
or birth-place."

3 Jn i. 45 cypcnjrci'. See Son 3493 n "ypa'0o> with a personal object
regularly means ' draw.' " " From" is here aTrd.

104

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

[i.e. a native of} the city of Andrew and Peter [Capernaum] 1 ."
Thus the reader has been prepared to render "from Nazareth"
in Philip's utterance, " domiciled at Nazareth'' But Nathanael
has not been thus prepared, and he consequently confuses the
two. He substitutes " out of" that is, "native of!' in his reply :
" Out of Nazareth can any good thing be' 2 ? "

Philip does not retort on Nathanael " You have confused
domicile with extraction'' He simply says, "Come and see."
Nathanael comes, and sees, and believes. No mention is made
of his confusion of one word with another and consequent error
in inference. No explanation is given, such as, " Jesus might
have been domiciled at Nazareth, though born at Bethlehem."
Thus the Evangelist, by what he does not say, and by what he
does say, achieves two objects. He makes us say to ourselves,
" There was an answer to Nathanael's objection, although
neither he nor Philip saw it." At the same time we are led
to imitate the faith of Nathanael and Philip and to say to
ourselves concerning the conflicting accounts of Matthew and
Luke, "There may be similar answers to objections of our
own arising out of these accounts, although we at present
cannot see the answers."

Space forbids detailed discussion of the Johannine motive
in illustrating the Mark-Matthew phrase " Jesus from Naza-
reth," but a word may be added in answer to the question
" Does the Fourth Evangelist favour the Matthaean or the
Lucan view of what has been called above ' the providential
interposition ' ? " The answer should probably be, " He
favours both." But it cannot be justified here, for it depends

1 Jn i. 44 "from" an-o, "out of" . If Philip had known Andrew in
early life, that would explain why Jesus went to call him, after Andrew
and Peter had become His disciples. According to Clem. Alex. $22
(Son 3377 a), it was to Philip that Jesus said "follow me," and "leave the
dead to bury their own dead."

2 "Out of," fK. See Son 3375, suggesting, as the right reading, "Can
Good, i.e. Redemption, spring from Nazareth ? "

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

on the meaning of the word " Nazoraean " and its relation to
" Nazareth " one of the most difficult of New Testament
questions from the earliest time, and now perhaps more
difficult than ever, because we know more definitely the
insignificance of Nazareth a place nowhere mentioned in the
Talmuds or Josephus and because of etymological difficulties
arising from the forms Nazoraean and Nazarene in the
New Testament, and other forms preserved by Epiphanius.

The question is discussed in Appendix I. But an outline
of the answer is this. While accepting Luke's view that Jesus
was providentially born at Bethlehem, John also accepted
Matthew's view that Jesus was providentially domiciled at
some obscure village called Nassara^ Natzara, or Nazara,
" in order that " He should be called by the common people
" Natzoraean" " Natzoraean " was primarily derived from the
name Netzer, the Branch, or Rod, of Jesse, given in Isaiah to
the Messiah on whom " the Spirit of the Lord " was to
"rest 1 ." This title, apparently used with allusion to David
as being the youngest son of the aged Jesse 2 , symbolized
rejuvenescence for decaying Israel, and was sometimes used
by the populace like " the Son of David," to denote the
Messiah as the Healer, Lifegiver, and Restorer of Liberty to
Israelites.

When the Roman soldiers presumably neither knowing
nor caring what " the Nazoraean " meant but only using it as
the title given by the Galilaeans to their ringleader tell
Jesus that they seek " Jesus the Nazoraean" John represents
Jesus as replying " I am he." Also John and John alone,

1 Is. xi. i 10. To this there appears an allusion in Philo ii. 437

KafluTTtp yap V7roTp.r)6evTO>v orfAexeov (comp. Is. X. 334 " lop the boughs...
<:ut down the thickets ")...i/<?a cpvr) /SXaorui/ovo-tv (Is. xi. i). Mangey's
Index to Philo gives only four quotations from Isaiah, but one of them
occurs (ii. 435, Is. liv. i) a little above.

2 Comp. i S. xvii. 12 (R.V.) "an old man... stricken [in years]," and
see Appendix I, p. 315 foil.

106

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

inserts " the Nazoraean " (as well as " the King of the Jews ") in
the title written by Pilate (presumably as God's instrument)
on the Cross. These facts suggest that John may possibly
have had in view some allusion to the " providential " domicile
in Nazareth when he makes the learned Nathanael pass
suddenly from his objection to " from Nazareth " into a
rapturous acceptance of Jesus as " King of Israel " as if he
said to himself playing on the word, after the manner of
Jews " Say not ' from Nazaraj but rather ' Netzer', for He
is the Branch of Jesse, on whom rests the Spirit of the Lord,
He is the Son of God, the King of Israel." If this is the
Johannine thought, then it is not an accidental coincidence
that the first mention of " Nazareth " in the Fourth Gospel is
followed shortly by a mention of " King of Israel," and the
last mention of " Nazoraean," in the same Gospel, is connected
with " King of the Jews 1 ."

4. The place where Jesus was baptized

The place where John was at first baptizing has been
discussed above. The place where Jesus was baptized may
have been different. Mark or at all events Mark's present
text says that Jesus was baptized " in " (literally, " into ")
the Jordan 2 . Matthew says that Jesus came to the Jordan
to be baptized. Both imply that it was some place on the
bank of the Jordan. Luke is curiously indirect. In the
two passages which contain his only mentions of the Jordan,
he tell us that (i) "John came into all the circle of the

1 In Appendix I, attention has been called to passages in the Aboth
where a birthplace-name is substituted for the usual "ben," "son of." It
may be added that " man of (vir) " is also sometimes substituted (or
added), e.g. i. 3 " Antigonus a man of(v\r) Soco" In some instances the
meaning is disputed and the text is doubtful, but in this the text does not
vary ; and there is a play on the personal name "Soco" in i Chr. iv. 18,
see Lev. r. (on Lev. i. i, Wii. p. 3) and Megill. 130, where two different
reasons are given for applying " Soco " to Moses.

2 But there is some doubt about the text, see above, p. 101.

107

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Jordan;' (2) "Jesus turned back from t/te Jordan 1 !' But as
to the meeting between Jesus and John, and the place of it,
and the place where Jesus was subsequently baptized, he tells
us nothing. Both places might have been either on the bank,
or at some distance from the bank, in " the circle of the Jordan."

The Fourth Evangelist, after relating John's predictions
concerning the Messiah, says " These things were done in
Bethany beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. On the
morrow he seeth Jesus coming unto him." If (as was shewn
above to be probable) this "coming" was "coming" to
baptism, which immediately took place, we may infer that the
Johannine writer desired to suggest that Jesus was baptized
in Bethany. But he does no more than suggest it. Perhaps,
toward the end of the first century (as in Origen's time) there
were on the Jordan more places than one that claimed to be
the exact place, and the Evangelist did not desire to arbitrate
between them. Similarly, he avoids other details of the
baptism, saying, for example (through John the Baptist) that
the Spirit was to descend, and did descend, but not that it
descended at the moment of the baptism which indeed he
refrains from describing.

Why then does the Fourth Evangelist mention any place
at all in connection with John's baptizing ? And is there any
reason why, if he mentions any place at all, he should mention
this place in particular, " Bethany beyond Jordan " ?

It is characteristic of this Gospel that things at the
beginning prepare the way for things at the end. There is a
hexaemeron, and a Passover, both at the beginning and at the
end. The water and the wine at Cana prepare the way for the
water and blood from the Cross. We have seen in the last
section that " Nazareth " and " King of Israel," in the story of
Nathanael's conversion, perhaps prepare the way for Pilate's
inscription " Jesus the Nazoraean, the King of the Jews." So

Lk. iii. 3, iv. i.
1 08

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

here, perhaps, the anointing of Jesus from heaven in Bethany
beyond Jordan, when He began His Gospel, and the anointing
of Jesus on earth in Bethany this side of the Jordan, when He
was on the point of closing His Gospel, may have appeared to
the Fourth Evangelist to present a correspondence worthy of
record.

There may have been another reason. " Beyond Jordan "
was a symbolic phrase. True, it was ambiguous. Luke
perhaps because it was ambiguous never uses it 1 . But it
might well seem a pity to omit all mention of the fact that
Jesus, at this stage of the Gospel, was in the position of His
first namesake, Joshua, or Jesus, " beyond Jordan," preparing
to cross over to war and conquest. Another reason for using
the phrase might be that Isaiah mentions "beyond Jordan,
Galilee of the nations " in connection with the people who
"saw a great light," and that this is quoted by Matthew as
referring to the coming of Jesus when He " came and dwelt in
Capernaum which is by the sea 2 ." To Matthew's interpretation
of Isaiah the careful historian, Luke, might object that
Capernaum was not " beyond Jordan " which, for an Israelite,
naturally meant the East of Jordan. This objection the
Fourth Gospel perhaps has in mind, and at all events certainly
meets, by substituting for " Capernaum " Bethany, to the East
of Jordan, as the place where " John was baptizing " on the
day before "he seeth Jesus coming unto him" Jesus, the
"great light*."

1 On Luke's non-use of "beyond Jordan" see/0//. Voc. 1813 <, comp.
1714 b.

2 Mt. iv. 13 foil., quoting Is. ix. i 2.

3 Jn i. 28 9. No one has ascertained the existence of a town called
"Bethany" beyond Jordan. It might mean "the place of fountains," or
" the place of a boat." There are various readings, such as "Bethabarah,"
and " Betharabah." Origen would like to amend " Bethany," but testifies
indirectly to Bethany as being the original reading.

I have been informed by a friend that it has been identified by
Colonel Conder (P.E.F.Q.S. 1877, pages 1847) with "the well known

109

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

5. "Ascending from the water" and "praying"

Just before the vision of the opening of the heavens
and of the descent of the Spirit, Mark apparently, and
Matthew certainly, speak about Jesus as " ascending from the
water," and as seeing the vision. But Mark might possibly
mean John, not Jesus. Luke mentions, not "ascending" but
"praying" thus, "when Jesus was praying the heaven was
opened 1 ." Also Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and other very early
authorities, state, or imply, that a " fire," or " light," was
kindled on the Jordan when Jesus rose up from the water 2 .
Perhaps the parallelism between "ascending" and " praying"
and these legends about " light " and " fire," may be due, in
part, to some Hebrew traditions derived from the various
meanings of a Hebrew verb meaning "lift up" "light \a
candle]" "burn," and of its noun-forms meaning "ascension"
" whole-btirnt-ojfering*"

But the recently-discovered Odes of Solomon suggest
another explanation arising from the use of " soul " for " self 4 "
sometimes in Hebrew, and much more frequently in Syriac,
so that "lifting up the soul" (that is, in prayer) might be
taken to mean " lifting up himself" (that is, in bodily action)
"emerging" (as Justin says) from the waters of the Jordan 5 .
Thus the Odes say " I spread out my hands in the ascension
of my soul" and " I rested on the Spirit of the Lord and it

district of Batanea, which has left traces of its name to the present day in
the district called Ard el Bethanieh 'beyond Jordan'." Ps. Ixviii. 22
"from Bashan...i\om the depths of the sea," might be supposed to refer
to the passage of the Jordan, but Targ. and Jewish traditions, e.g. Gittin
57 , take " Ba-shan" as implying a deliverance from the "teeth' of
" wild beasts."

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

2 See From Letter 5579, 5835, 620 foil.

3 See From Letter on Mk i. 10 &c.

4 On "soul" meaning "self" see Gesen. 660 a. In Hebrew, it would
mean the real self, but not the bodily self.

1'ryph. 88 quoted in From Letter 557.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

lifted-me-on-high to tke high place 1 !' The Biblical Hebrew
Psalms thrice mention the " lifting up " of " tJte soul" to God,
and the Targum in each case adds " in prayer " ; but the
Syriac has "/ lift up my soul'' without "in prayer." This,
but for the context, would mean, in Syriac, " / lift up myself *?

Ezekiel is said to have been " lifted up," and " carried,"
that is, by the Spirit 3 . So also was Jesus, in the Temptation.
Paul was caught up into the third heaven 4 . In Revelation,
the Seer hears a voice saying, " Come up hither," and
immediately he is "in the Spirit" and sees a vision 5 . The
Fourth Gospel does not say that there was any " lifting up "
or " praying," but it says that the descent of the Spirit was
foretold by God to John the Baptist, as the sign by which he
was to recognise Him who was to baptize with the Spirit.
The words "On whomsoever thon shalt see 6 " imply that
others would not " see," so that the sight was of the nature of
a " vision," and, as being a " vision," might imply " lifting up
in the Spirit."

This part of Luke's narrative shews signs of being drawn
from Hebrew 7 . In Hebrew, "soul" would have its usual
meaning. But Luke might think it well to paraphrase it as
"praying" just as theTargumist of the Psalms thought it well
to add " in prayer" This Luke might do for clearness, in
order to indicate that (in his view) what followed was not a
vision produced by the " lifting up of the soul," but the sight

1 Odes of Solomon xxxv. 8, xxxvi. i foil, quoted in Light 3922 s.

2 Ps. xxv. i, Ixxxvi. 4, cxliii. 8.

3 Light 3986. 4 2 Cor. xii. 2.

6 Rev. iv. 12. Jn i. 33.

7 Because of the constr. (Lk. iii. 21) with eV T&>. See Introd. p. 112
and Son 3333 e. The temporal eV ro>, referring to the past and meaning
when, must be distinguished from eV r<u referring to the present and
meaning " in the midst of" " in the act of? as in Ox. Pap. iv. 743 (B.C. 2)
(.v TO) e p.e TTfpKnrao-dai (lit.) "in the midst of my being distracted at the
time I was unable to meet Apollonius," ed. "owing to my worries."
I hope to deal with the Lucan use of eV ro> in Section III of this work.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

of something in a bodily form, simultaneous with " praying."
The Fourth Gospel on the other hand makes it clear that
what followed was a vision.

6. The opening of the heavens

Mark says that Jesus (or, less probably, John) " saw the
heavens in-the-act-of-being-rent (or, cloven) " ; Matthew and
Luke, that "the heaven was opened 1 " It is probable that
" rent " was the original, and was corrected into " opened'' as
being the more common word in such cases. " Rend the
heavens " occurs in Scripture nowhere but in Isaiah " O that
thou wouldst rend the heavens 2 ." This the Targum explains
as alluding to the descent of fire at the prayer of Elijah. But
other Jewish traditions explain it as referring to the giving of
the Law at Sinai, as though the Prophet said, " O that thou

1 Mk i. 10, Mt. iii. 16 "heavens" (pi.), Lk. iii. 21.

2 Is. Ixiv. i. The LXX has "open (ai/oi>>)" (like Mt.-Lk.) but Aq.,
Symm., and Theod. have " tear (pijyvv^L)^ This passage is the only one
where the LXX renders the Heb. by dvoiya, whereas it has 8iappr)ywp.i
more than forty times.

See From Letter 568 quoting Test. XII Pair. Levi 18 (ed. Sinker)
"The heavens shall be opened. ..and the glory of the Highest shall be
uttered on Him, and a spirit of understanding and sanctification (or,
consecration) shall rest upon Him in the water." But note that ib.,
ed. Charles, adds that "in the water" is "a Christian addition found in
all versions and in all MSS but e of the Greek." Also add Test. XII
Patr. Jud. 24 (ed. Charles) "And the heavens shall be opened unto him,
to pour out the spirit, even the blessing of the Holy Father ; and He
shall pour out the spirit of grace upon you ; and ye shall be unto Him
sons in truth," but A "And the heavens shall be opened unto him, and
the blessings of the Holy Father will be poured down upon him. And He
will pour down upon us the spirit of grace. And ye shall be His true
children by adoption." Israel, being baptized in the Red Sea on its way
to Sinai where the heaven was opened so as to send down the Law to the
Chosen People, might be regarded as prefiguring a baptism of Israel's
;ih ; but no actual baptism is mentioned in either of these two
passages. In both, ripo/yca, not vxifa, describes the "opening" of the
heavens.

112

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

wouldst come down to men again, as thou didst in the giving
of the Law at Sinai, giving us the Law anew ! "

Isaiah's prophecy goes on to mention " fire 1 ," and " adver-
saries," in such a context as to suggest that the " rending " of
the heavens is for the moment merely, to allow the descent of
the lightnings of God's chastisement. In the Gospel, the
context speaks of " a dove," and conveys the thought of
peace and divine favour. But still the question arises, " Are
we to regard this "rending, or cleaving, of the heavens" as
temporary, like that in the Book of Wisdom, which, when
describing " things that pass away like a shadow," likens them
to " the light air being rent, or cloven, by the force of the
whirring of a bird's wings' 2 ?" The same word is used there
as in Mark. Moreover Justin Martyr, the Sibylline Oracles,
and others 3 though they speak of the dove as " alighting,"
and one writer adds " from the lower-air 4 " make no mention
of the heaven being " rent " or " cloven 5 ."

The Fourth Gospel, a little later on, speaks of " the
heaven " as being destined hereafter to be " seen " as *' set-
open" i.e. permanently open. This is so expressed as not to
contradict the belief that there had before been a vision of
" rending." It represents Jesus as making promises, first to
Nathanael, " Thou shalt see greater things than these," and

1 Is. Ixiv. 2 " As when fire kindleth the brushwood and the fire causeth
the waters to boil ; to make thy name known to thy adversaries."
Comp. Lk. ix. 54 where James and John (formerly disciples of John the
Baptist) say " Lord, wilt thou that we bid fire to come down from heaven
and consume them ? "

2 Wisd. v. ii 7rvfVfjia t ..<rxiCup-fvov.

3 From Letter 643 foil.

4 Comp. Deut. iv. 17 "any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven?
where the Targums have " in the lower air of the firmament of the
heaven." It is a Jew in Origen's Celsus that speaks of "the lower-air"
(From Letter 644).

6 Comp. Odes of Solomon xxiv. i where (Light 3999 (ii) 5) the right
translation seems to be "The Doveyfew down on the head of our Lord
Messiah, because He was her head."

A. B.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

then to his companions, " Ye shall see the heaven set-open, and
the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of
Man 1 ." The disciples are apparently supposed to have heard
of the preceding " rending " or " opening " of the heavens, not
indeed described in this Gospel, but perhaps implied in God's
promise to the Baptist, " thou shalt see the Spirit descending."
These words might well be assumed to mean that for him, as
for Ezekiel, the " heavens " would be " opened " that he might
see " visions of God." This being so, Christ's words would
appear to mean, " John saw the heavens opened for a moment,
but ye shall see them opened so as not to be shut again 2 , and
opened to allow, not only descent from heaven to man, but
also ascent from man to heaven."

7. "And straightway... he saw "

The words "straightway" and "saw" bear on the question,
" Are the writers recording what follows as a vision or as
a fact ? " The passage is one of a very few where Mark's
frequently used " straightway " is also used by Matthew, Mark
having " and straightway going up," and Matthew " straight-
way went up 3 ." "And straightway'' in the LXX, thrice
represents the Hebrew "and behold" ; and, in the present
narrative, Matthew has "behold, the heavens were opened,"
whereas Mark has "he beheld the heavens being... 4 ."

The Hebrew "and behold'' without a finite verb, is used in
narrative for the first time thus, " And God saw all that he

1 Jn i. 50 I " set-open (ui/fovyora)."

- Jn i. 51 ai/ewyora i.e. "open" (not "opened") as we distinguish in
Knglish between " the door is open" and "the door is opened" This use
of the word is condemned by Phrynichus, and much discussed by
grammarians. It does not occur in LXX exc. Tob. ii. 10. In different
contexts (i Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12) Paul speaks of a "door open (a/>eovyei/),"
and a "door Opened (avtyyP** 1 )}" On the whole passage, see Son 3138.

:! Mk i. 10, Mt. iii. 16 cMvs (not cuBtws which Mark never uses).

4 Mk i. 10 eiflei/, rendered here " he beheld" to shew its similarity to
Mt. iii. 1 6 tSou, "behold." On ci>6vs, Heb. "behold," see Corrections 455^.

114

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

had made, and behold, good, exceedingly 1 ," where Symmachus
inserts " was " before " good." The next instance is about
Noah's dove, " And behold, in her mouth, an olive leaf," where
the LXX omits " behold " and has " had an olive leaf' 2 ." The
next is about the Word of the Lord coming to Abraham,
" And behold, the Word of Jehovah to him, saying," where the
LXX has " And straightway the Voice of the Lord came-to-pass
to him, [the Lord] saying... 3 ." In the account of the ram that
was Isaac's substitute, " And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and
looked, and behold, a ram behind [him]...," Symmachus has
"and tJiere appeared a ram 4 ." These facts may explain why,
in parallel passages in the Three Gospels, (i) " behold"
(2} "immediately" and (3) "there appeared" or "there came"
are so frequently used as equivalents 5 . In all such cases
"behold" appears to have been the original, which was
differently paraphrased by the different Evangelists.

In the passage under consideration, according to Hebrew
precedent, "and behold" would occur without a verb, thus,
" And behold, [there ivere in a vision'] the heavens being-rent-
asunder, and the Spirit descending, and a Voice from the

1 Gen. i. 31. Symm. inserts "was" (cat Jjv <aXa) but it is not in the
H ebre w.

2 Gen. viii. 11. These instances are taken from Mandelkern p. 337.
In Gen. viii. 13 (where the Heb. adds a verb) "he looked, and behold the
face of the ground was dried," LXX has merely one verb, "he beheld that

3 Gesen, 244 a - In Gen. xv. 4 <ai cvdvs (fx>vf) Ki/pt'ou fyivm

\tya)v, the masc. participle seems to be used because " the Voice "
implies "the Lord." [In Gen. xv. 3, which is omitted as being speech not
narrative, LXX renders " behold" by 6 df.]

4 Gen. xxii. 13. This instance is not in Strong's Concordance nor in
Gesen. 244 a.

5 See Corrections 352 for five passages where Mark appears to have
paraphrased " and behold" while Matthew and Luke agree in retaining it.
In one of these Mark (xiv. 43) has his favourite phrase "and straight-
way" See also ib. 454 foil, for passages where Matthew's exclamatory
"behold" is parallel to Mark's verbal "-behold," Mark never uses the
Hebraic " and behold"

115 82

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

heavens... 1 ." Mark seems to have taken "behold!" as
"beheld" but also to have paraphrased it as "immediately*?
So he has " immediately... beheld" And he includes in this
"beholding" the "Spirit" as well as " the heavens." But
when he comes to the "Voice," perceiving that this could
not have been " beheld" he leaves it in the nominative
("and [there was] [e^eVero] a voice") very harshly and
unexpectedly 3 .

Matthew improves on this. He has, correctly, " and
behold" But he paraphrases the abrupt Hebrew nominative
without verb, by saying " the heavens were opened." Then
he follows Mark in applying "beheld" to "the Spirit
descending as a dove." Lastly, he inserts "behold!" a
second time before " Voice," so as to shew that the meaning
is " and behold, [there was] a Voice saying," adding the
nominative participle (: saying" to make the construction still
more clear.

Luke, on the other hand, perceiving that the three marvels
the opening of the " heavens," the descent of the Spirit, and
the Voice are all on the same level as respects truth and
reality, sees a defect in Mark and Matthew, who place them
on a different level. For about the Spirit they say merely
" he saw the Spirit" But then, changing the construction,
they go on to say " And {there was] a voice" or " And behold
[there was] a voice" as though the latter were more real than
the former. Therefore Luke not only applies to all these
three revelations the words " it came to pass that " (so as to
place them on an equality) but also adds about the Holy Spirit
that it descended " in a bodily form 4 ."

Comp. Mk i. 1 1 W.H. *cnt (fxovrj [e'-yeVero] CK ru>v ovpavwv.

2 On Mark's habit of combining two Greek renderings of one Hebrew
original (called "conflation") see Clue 145 foil. ; and on his tendency to
follow the style of the LXX in Genesis, see 353 a, 455 a, 456 (ii).

3 This assumes that W.H. [cyeWo] is not a part of the text.

4 The constructions in the Three Gospels are severally, Mk i. 10 u
fi8tv trxtfofUvovt rovs ovpavovs cat TO Trv(i>p.a...K.aTa^aivov ...xa!

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

The Fourth Gospel does not relate these three events, but
merely represents John as testifying to one of them, namely,
the descent of the Spirit, thus, "/ have beheld the Spirit
descending as a dove out of heaven, and it abode upon him.
And I knew him not, but he that sent me to baptize in water
he said unto me, ' Upon whomsoever thou shalt see the
Spirit descending and abiding upon him, this is he that
baptizeth in the Holy Spirit.' And I have seen and have
borne witness that this is the Son of God 1 ." This does not
deny the vision of the opening of the heavens, nor a Voice
from heaven, but it withdraws the attention from these things
and fixes it on the descent of the Spirit, as being witnessed
by John, and on this as being a sign promised beforehand by
the Word of God speaking to John.

The Diatessaron gives the Voice from heaven as " This is
my beloved Son," with Matthew ; not " Thou art my beloved
Son," with Mark and Luke. The Fourth Gospel avoids
choosing between the two by giving neither. But it leads us
to the conclusion that " This is" represents the more important
aspect, namely, the promise of God to John, and the testimony
of John that the promise had been fulfilled. The Synoptic
Gospels do not shew, as the Fourth Gospel does, that the
descent of the Spirit was not seen by anyone except the
Baptist, whose office it was to testify to it.

8. The descent of the Spirit

Mark says "The Spirit, as a dove, coming-down into
him " ; Matthew, " the Spirit of God, coming-down, as if [it
were] a dove, coming upon (or, toward} him" ; Luke, "[that]

[rylvcro]..., Mt. iii. 16 17 KOI iSoi< ^Vew^^r/o-ai/ (marg. -f-aira)) 01 ovpavol
KCII ddfv TTVfvua Oeov Karaftaivov ...K.OI I8ov (fxavr)... \fyova~a..., Lk. iii. 21 2
eyeVero 86...dv<pxdr)vai TOV ovpavov KOI /cara/S^vai TO Trvevpa TO ayiov...

<ai <j)a>vT]v...yfvt(T()ai.... Luke alone describes the Spirit here as "the
Holy Spirit."
1 Jn i. 324.

117

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

the Holy Spirit came-down in a bodily form 1 as a dove upon
(or, toivard) him 2 ." These differences may be illustrated by
the " coming " of the Spirit " into " Ezekiel, where the Hebrew,
Aramaic, and Syriac have " into" but the Greek has " upon*?

Mark appears to mean that the Spirit did not merely
alight upon Jesus as a bird on a branch, but passed into Him,
as a bird into its nest. This need not mean that the Spirit
was " seen " in the form of a dove ; but it must include the
meaning that the Spirit was in some way perceived by John
to be not merely alighting " upon " Jesus or coming-down
" upon " Him, but also " abiding? But here a difficulty arises.
It could be seen entering "into" Him, but it could not be
seen abiding " in " Him.

The Fourth Gospel meets the difficulty by subordinating
"as a dove" and sacrificing "entering into? But it com-
pensates by emphasizing the " abiding? This is repeated
twice. First the Baptist says " I have beheld the Spirit
coming down as a dove from heaven, and it abode upon him."
Then God's prediction of this descent is added. God had
before said to him, " On whomsoever thou shalt see the
Spirit coming down and abiding upon him, this is he that is
[to be] baptizing in the Holy Spirit 4 ."

Here it is to be noted that " as a dove " does not occur in
the divine prediction, but only in the Prophet's account of the

1 "A bodily form " may have been suggested by some Aramaic version
of Mark's tradition, namely, that the Spirit passed " into " Jesus. " Into?
or "into the midst of? might be represented by "in the body of? see
Gesen. 156^: on Job xxx. 5, "The midst (Aram.) of men," where the
word for "midst" is identical except for vowel pointing with a word
rendered o-w/ia in Nehem. ix. 26, Ezek. xxiii. 35.

2 Mk i. 10 "into (*)," Mt. iii. 16, Lk. iii. 22 " upon (or, toward} (eVt
with accus.)." For the rendering of els rtva after ep^o/xai as "come to (or,
on} a person," neither Thayer nor Swete (ad loc.} gives any instance in the
correct text of N.T. (From Letter 680^) ; Lk. xv. 17 is not one.

; I./ck. ii. 2, iii. 24 r)\6(v eV/. In Ezek. xxxvii. 10, the LXX agrees
with Heb. and Aram, and Syr. (Vn)A&v s). The Heb. might mean "in
me" or "into me." 4 J n i- 3 2 > 33-

118

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

vision that fulfilled it. The context indirectly implies a
contradiction of the notion that the dove was " in a bodily
form." For we can hardly suppose that it was continually
seen, even by John, " in a bodily form as a dove," and
" abiding on " Jesus.

The descent " as a dove " is perhaps intended to be
distinguished from the descent of an eagle suddenly descending
on its prey. And the " abiding" indicates that the dove has
found her nest. The Baptist perceives in Jesus the continual
abiding of the Spirit. How he perceived this we are not
told. But he might know it, not by any outward brightness
on the face of Jesus like that on the face of Moses which,
according to the Biblical narrative, was seen by all, and which
endured only for a season and at intervals but by an inward
and spiritual grace and permanent glory discernible by the
Prophet in virtue of his prophetic insight.

It has been noted above that Luke, alone of the
Synoptists, describes the descent as being, not that of " the
Spirit," or " the Spirit of God," but that of " the Holy Spirit."
On the other hand the Fourth Evangelist appears to
emphasize the fact that it is " the Spirit " and not " the
Holy Spirit " by repeating the two phrases in the same
sentence uttered by God (" thou shalt see the Spirit. ..baptizing
in the Holy Spirit"}. Perhaps he implies that the Baptist,
not being " from above," could not see " the Spirit " in the
form indicated by " the Holy Spirit," " the Paraclete," whom
the Father would send in the name of the Son, but " whom
the world cannot receive, for it beholdeth him not 1 " ; but
that he could see " the Spirit " so far as the Spirit could be
manifested to one of the Prophets who, like himself, were " of
the earth," though sent to prepare the way for Him that
" cometh from above 2 ."

1 Jn xiv. 26, 1 6 17.

2 Jn iii. 31. In Jn, " Holy Spirit" occurs only in i. 33, xiv. 26, xx. 22.
See 50* 3622 &

119

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

9. The Dove

For Greeks and Romans, the Dove, as a symbol, meant
Love and Peace. For Jews it was more complex. Often it
meant Love and Fear. The fear of the Enemy along with
the Love of the Lord is suggested in the words " Oh that
I had wings like a dove ! " and there Israel is the Dove chased
by powers of evil, and sighing that she might " fly away " to
her Lord and " be at rest 1 ." Similarly one of the Odes of
Solomon says, " The Dove flew down on the head of our Lord
Messiah because He was her head 2 ." That seems to regard
the Dove as the Bride. But another Ode says, " As the
wings of doves over their nestlings... so are the wings of the
Spirit over my heart 3 ." That suggests the thought of the
Dove as the Mother of the saints.

These passages indicate how the Dove, meaning the
spiritual Israel, might be regarded as the emblem both of the
spiritual Bride and also of the spiritual Mother. A well-
known passage in the Talmud represents " a Voice from
Heaven " as " sighing like a dove" and saying, " Alas, that
I have destroyed my house, burned my temple, and made my
people exiles among the Gentiles 4 ! " Presumably this is the
Voice of the Holy Spirit, regarded as that of God the
Mother 5 , or (as He is called in the Law) the Nursing Father,
of Israel.

Another aspect of the Dove is suggested by the scriptural

1 Ps. lv. 6.

- Li^/it 3999 (ii) 5, quoting Ode xxiv. I from Codex N.

3 Odes of Solomon xxviii. i 2, see Light 3793 c. Comp. Jerome on
Is. xi. 2 quoting the Gospel of the Nazarenes in which the Holy Spirit,
descending on Jesus, said, "My Son, in all the prophets I have been
ting thee...." This implies the utterance of the Dove, the Mother,
hut in ;i new sense as the Mother in heaven, corresponding to the
FatliiT and the Son in heaven.

1 Ih'rach. 3 a.

' "<;od the Mother." Comp. Clem. Alex. 956 (Quis Div. 37) ro

p.cv <i()f)T)T<>v nvTov lIri)/>, ro fie *)^v crvfJLTradfs yeyove MtjTTjp.

120

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

narrative of the Creation. There the Spirit that " hovered "
or " brooded " upon the face of the waters seems likened to a
bird. In Jewish traditions, it was likened by some to " a
dove 1 ." Whether the Baptist had, or had not, this image in
view, it was probably in the mind of the Fourth Evangelist,
who, as has been frequently said above, regards the beginning
of the Gospel as corresponding to the beginning of Creation.

Again, another tradition connects itself with the Dove of
Noah. " When," it asks, " did the Dove bring light into the
world ? In the days of Noah." The meaning is that the
Dove, which is the type of Israel, brought the olive leaf, which
represents the Law of Light and Peace, when all the world
was under the waters of sin and darkness 2 . Thus the Dove,
Israel on earth, may be regarded as doing below what is done
above by the Dove, the Mother of Israel in heaven which
Mother might be identified with the Spirit that is by the side
of God, the divine Wisdom, described in Scripture as His
"delight" above, and as finding "delight" in "the habitable
earth" and in "the sons of rnatr."

It might seem that the Baptist, if he was of the same
temper as his two disciples James and John who wished to
call down fire from heaven on those who repelled Jesus
would be prepared to see the "hovering" of the Spirit rather in
the vision of an eagle, as described in Deuteronomy 4 , than in

1 Gen. i. 2, Deut. xxxii. 1 1 (Gesen. 934 ) the only instances of the
Heb. "hover" or " brood/' Comp. J. Chag. ii and Chag. 15 a and Gen. r.
(on Gen. i. 2, Wii. p. 10) all referring to the same traditional utterance
of Ben Zoma. His inference is condemned by R. Jehoshua, but not
(apparently) his assumption that the action of a bird is contemplated.
Gen. r. ib. has " this bird " instead of " dove." Gen. r. ib. gives another
tradition " The Spirit of God is the Spirit of King Messiah."

- Cant. r. on Cant. iv. i, Wii. p. 103.

3 Prov. viii. 22, 30, 31. In Pesikt. Wii. p. 59 foil., Cant. ii. 12 "the
voice of the turtle-dove" is explained as referring to Moses, Joshua,
Cyrus, Messiah, each of whom is the herald of Spring.

4 See Deut. xxxii. 911 "For the Lord's portion... As an eagle... he
bare them on his pinions."

121

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

that of a dove, traditionally connected with the opening words
of Genesis. But this argument, though plausible, would
ignore the basis of all the Baptist's prophesying, namely, the
thought of a new and regenerate Israel. The Deuteronomic
" eagle " does not imply regeneration. It is the guardian of
Israel in "the waste howling wilderness." It lifts them up
above perils. But it does not make Israel anew. What the
Baptist contemplates is a new era, the beginning, the spring,
of a new spiritual Year, of which the Dove would be the fit
harbinger.

Philo speaks of the Deluge in language that would
harmonize with such a thought. It is, he says, " a purification
of sublunary things, the earth having washed itself clean and
risen-to-light as it was belike when first created 1 ." This
implies a kind of baptism. Also the Odes of Solomon, after
saying that the Dove "flew down upon the Messiah," and
that she sang over Him and her voice was heard, goes on to
speak of the Deluge, apparently saying that the end and the
object of the destruction was a new life 2 .

Philo also bears witness to the existence of very early
traditions that connect the purification of the earth by the
Deluge with Spirit as well as with water. The Scripture, it is
true, says simply that " God made a wind to pass over the
earth, and the waters assuaged 3 ." But the Hebrew for
" wind " is the same as the Hebrew for " spirit " in the sentence
"the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters." In
both sentences the Jerusalem Targum has "the spirit of
kindnesses, or mercies" (presumably meaning "spirit," not
" wind "). Philo, while admitting that " some say it means
wind" (in the story of the Deluge), adds that he does not
understand how wind could have this effect. He calls it "a

1 Philo ii. 144.

- () f /fx of Solomon xxiv. i, 6 (Light 3781^, 3793^)-
a. viii. i.

122

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

spirit of divine power 1 ." According to the Midrash on Genesis,
the first mention of "the spirit (or, wind)" as "hovering,"
points to the second similar use of it, " God brought a spirit
(or, wind) over the earth." That is to say, in both cases God
said, " How long shall the world lie in darkness ? Let light
break forth 2 ."

These facts shew that Jews, from the first century onwards,
connected the Spirit of God on the waters at the Creation
with the thought of a Dove in one way, and the Spirit of God
on the waters of the Deluge with the thought of a Dove in
another way different it is true but agreeing in representing
the Dove as the sign of life and light emerging from the
waters of death and darkness, after the world had been as it
were " buried " in baptism and had begun to rise to a new and
purified existence. In both these aspects, the thought of the
Dove, as accompanying the Messiah who was to baptize with
the Spirit, would be appropriate to John the baptizer with
water 3 .

10. The voice from heaven

The Fourth Gospel gives no version of a " voice " of God
" from heaven " concerning Jesus as being " beloved Son."
But it mentions what the Three do not mention an
utterance of God to the Baptist about Jesus : " Upon whom-
soever thou shalt see... this is he that baptizetli in the Holy

1 Philo adloc. " spiritum divinitatis," "vix vento...sed invisibili virtute
divina." Josephus omits "wind" altogether in giving the substance
of Gen. viii. i. Perhaps he agreed with Philo negatively (that "wind"
could not have the power attributed to it) but either dissented from Philo's
positive and theological inferences or thought it inexpedient to submit
them to Gentile criticism.

2 Gen. r. on Gen. i. 2, Wii. p. 9.

3 My discussion of "the dove" in From Letter (685 724), published
in 1903, did not take sufficient cognisance of the parallelism between the
Creation and the Deluge, and the Jewish poetic traditions about both ;
nor could it include the passages in the Odes of Solomon published in
1909.

123

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

Spirit? and it adds that John afterwards refers to the
fulfilment of God's utterance as follows : " And I have seen
and have borne witness that this is the Son of God (or, the
Elect of God} 1 !' Let us note the sequence, or rather the
apparent want of sequence. God promised the Baptist that
the descent of the Spirit should designate the future Baptizer.
The Spirit descends. The Baptist exclaims, not, " I have
seen the future Baptizer" but " I have seen the Son (or, tJie
Elect) of God'' How can we explain this ? Does the
Prophet assume that " he that baptizeth in tJie Holy Spirit"
must be identical with "the Son (or, t/te Elect) of GW' 2 ?

Taking "baptize with the Holy Spirit" as a metaphor
expressive of the most searching purification, we may say
that we are on the search for some original tradition that
might be expressed in three forms "son" "elect" "purifier*"
Hence kprimd facie case appears for an original Aramaic bar,
meaning " son " in Aramaic, but in Hebrew "pure" " clean"
and also " winnowed wheat" being derived from a Hebrew
word meaning " purge out " or " purify." The case is
strengthened by the fact that in the second Psalm, applied by

1 Jn i. 334 (SS "elect" for "son").

2 Comp. Mk ix. 7, Mt. xvii. 5 "beloved son," Lk. ix. 35 "elect (or,
chosen) (eKAeXey/zcW) son." In From Letter 786-816, an attempt was
made to explain the variation of "elect" and "beloved? but only in a
particular case; and the parallelism between " one baptizing " and "elect"
(or "son") was not considered at all.

3 It is important to remember by what widely differing words the
thought of " purification " may be expressed. For example, there is the
word " lye," used in melting metals. The Hebrew for this identical in
consonants with the Aramaic bar, "son" occurs only (Gesen. 141 a) in Is.
i. 25 " as with lye, I will purge away thy dross." But it is only one of many
kindred Hebrew forms signifying purification by selection, e.g. by winnow-
ing corn, refining metal &c. Jerome, in his commentary on Is. i. 25, calls
alu-ntion to these differences of metaphor : " But also in the Gospel," he
says, "the same sense is given under a different metaphor (Mt. iii. 12,
Lk. iii. 17) 'whose winnowing-fan is in his hand, and he will cleanse his
threshing-floor, and he will purify the wheat" (so Jerome), "and gather
the corn into barns, but the chaff he will burn-up in fire unquenchable'."

124

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

all early Christians (and by what Rashi calls " our Rabbis ")
to the Messiah, there occurs the word " bar " in a passage
rendered, by R.V. text, " kiss the son" but, in R.V. margin,
" lay hold of instruction " or " worship in purity" Here
" instruction " is the rendering of the LXX, as also of the
Targum, but "purity" is that of the later and more accurate
Greek translators. Thus "son" and "purifying" are con-
nected, as alternatives of a very early date indeed, in the
interpretation of one of the most frequently quoted Messianic
Psalms.

But this same Psalm has the word " son" in unmistakable
Hebrew (ben, not bar), thus, " Thou art my Son, this day have
I begotten thee." And this is the utterance of the Voice
from heaven in Luke according to some very early authorities 1 .
This leads us to ask whether these very early authorities may
not be right. Luke, if his text is correctly given by Codex D,
may have followed a Hebrew Gospel, which gave the Voice in
Hebrew, as a quotation from the second Psalm. Luke may
have rendered the Hebrew exactly into Greek. Mark and
Matthew may have followed an Aramaic paraphrase.

Such a paraphrase freer and fuller than that of Mark-
Matthew, supposing Mark-Matthew to contain a paraphrase
is actually extant in the Aramaic Targum on the second
Psalm. It avoids possibly as being anthropomorphic the
words " I have begotten thee," as follows : " Beloved, even as
son to father, [even so] art thou pure unto me, even as on the
day on which I had created thee." This introduces into the
Hebrew the words "beloved*' and "thou art pure unto me"
The tradition followed by Mark and Matthew (supposing
it to be a paraphrase) introduces "beloved" and "in thee
I am well pleased'.' Between these two paraphrases, as

1 E.g. Justin Martyr and Codex D. See Son 3333 /, comparing
Mk xv. 34, where Codex D gives the quotation from the Psalms "Eli,
Eli &c." in Hebrew instead of Aramaic.

125

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

paraphrases, there is this difference, that the Jewish Targum
avoids " begotten," and gives quite a new context to " day,"
while the Christian Gospels (except Luke in Codex D) avoid
" begotten this day " in both cases, perhaps, for doctrinal
reasons.

We must now return from " This is my Son " to the
above-quoted " kiss the Son " in the same Psalm, where
" Son " is bar. This is one of two Scriptural passages where
bar means "son" Jewish tradition, commenting on both,
endeavoured to shew that in both the word meant also
'"pure" and especially that purified and winnowed "wheat"
which made up the bread of the Law 1 . In the context of the
Synoptic passage now under consideration, Matthew and
Luke describe the Messiah with His winnowing fan, and with
His fire, purifying and gathering the wheat and this in close
connection with <: baptizing with fire 2 ."

Very similar is the substance of a Jewish parable on the
" kiss " in the second Psalm. It personifies the Straw, the
Stubble and the Chaff. " The world was made for me," says
each of the three. The Wheat replies, " Wait till you come to
the threshing-floor." The parable proceeds " Then came the
Master of the House and winnowed the chaff to the winds,
and cast the straw down for litter, and burned up the stubble ;
but the wheat he stored up, and whoever saw it threw it
kisses (Ps. ii. 12, taken as 'kiss the pure [wheat]') 3 ."

These traditions reveal a connection between Jewish

1 See Lev. r. on Lev. x. 9 (Wii. p. 83) quoting Prov. xxxi. 2 " what, my
son" that is, "the commandments and warnings of the Law, which are
named bar 'pure,' as in Ps. ii. 12. ..because all its words are ''pure'"'
Crop. Numb. r. on Numb. vi. 2 (Wii. p. 214)). See also Gen. r. on ('.en.
xxxvi. 43 (Wii. p. 407). On bar "son," see Gesen. pp. 135 and 141.

2 Mt. iii. 12, Lk. iii. 17, immediately following the words "shall
baplixe in the Holy Spirit and fire."

:! Gen. r. (on Gen. xxxvi. 43) Wii. p. 407, rep. Cant. r. (on Cant. vii. 3)
Wii. p. 1 68. Both quote Mai. iv. I on the fire, and Is. xli. 16 on the
winnowing wind.

126

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

thoughts of Messiah (i) as the Son, (2) as the Elect, or Pure,
of God, (3) as the Purifier 1 . For the Jews, the second Psalm
was a Psalm of war. The Son was to have "the Gentiles" for
His " inheritance," and to " break them in pieces with a rod of
iron," if they did not accept their appointed Sovereign. " Kiss
the pure [wheat] " meant " Accept the purifying Law and the
chastising reign of the Messiah."

This War Psalm of the Jews appears in the Acts as the
War Psalm of the Christians, the first utterance of Christian
Psalmody. There, of course, the old phrases assume a new
meaning. The Targum said that " kiss the Son, or the Pure,"
meant " receive the Law." The LXX said that it meant
" lay hold of instruction" using a word (paideia, familiar to us
in pedagogue) that called up thoughts of " boy-training " and
hence of the " little-boy (paidion) " who, in our Gospels under
the name of " little-child " is often the centre of our Lord's
doctrine. The influence of the War Psalm, and in particular
of the phrases " thou art my son " and " lay-hold-of paideia-"

1 Such a connection, so far as it concerned "sonship " and "purifying,"
would be facilitated in Greek by the LXX of Ps. ii. 12 "lay hold of
instruction (TraifieiW)," i.e. etymologically "boy-training," or "child-
training." On TraiSeta Philo and Clement of Alexandria are diffuse:
see Light 37696-, and 39745 (quoting Clem. Alex, on " the child-training
of that Little Child," i.e. of Christ on the Cross). But in the Psalm, the
Messiah is Himself training or chastising, not being trained.

2 See Light 3769 c, quoting Philo i. 5445. The only two LXX
instances of irals representing Heb. "son" are Prov. iv. i "Hear, [my]
sons (naldfs), the instruction (-rraidfiav) of a father" (which may be ex-
plained as a play on words) and ib. xx. 7 "a just man. ..blessed are his
sons (naidas) after him " (where I cannot explain the use of rrmdas for
viovs}.

Philo (i. 369) describes Jacob as " reputable in the sight of (Prov. iv. 3)
both the Parents" (the Mother being HatSfta). Being "trained" as an
athlete, Jacob received the name of Israel, i.e. Seeing God. Comp.
Ps. xviii. 26 "with the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure? Targ. "cum
Jacobo qui fuit purus coram te, elegisti filios ejus de cunctis populis
segregastique...," where, as often, the Targ. paraphrase of the Heb.
"pure" includes a mention of "selecting" "pure," or "purified," being
taken to mean " refined," or "chastened," so as to become "elect."

127

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

is apparent in the early Petrine speeches in the Acts where
Jesus is repeatedly called pats 1 , or " boy " (probably not
" servant ") in connection with His resurrection and with His
defeat of " the kings of the earth " by means of the Cross.

In accordance with these thoughts Clement of Alexandria
says that the " child-training of the Little-Child" extended
"to all the children, gidding-as-children us His babes," and
he connects this " child-training " with the " spreading out of
the hands " on the Cross. The Cross is connected both by
him and by Origen with the Psalmist's " rod of iron" with
which the Child is to " break the nations in pieces " according
to the Hebrew original, but to "shepherd them "according to
the LXX 2 .

1 Hals occurs in Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 25, 27, 30 (and not again till xx. 12
" they brought the boy living"). In all these passages there is an echo of
the War Psalm, and rrals means "Jesus" in all except iv. 25 (where
context is doubtful).

2 See Light 3974 5 on Clement, and add Origen on Ps. ii. 9, where
he tries to reconcile the "shepherding" with the sternness of the context,
and concludes by saying that Jesus is "a shepherd shepherding with
an iron rod, and (Jn x. 11) 'a good shepherd*? and that the iron rod
is the cross, for, " though the substance of it is wood, the strength of it is
iron." Iloi/iaiWii/, " to shepherd," occurs thrice in Rev. (ii. 27, xii. 5,
xix. 15) quoting Ps. ii. 9 (LXX) "shepherd with the iron rod" and once
(Rev. vii. 17) of " the Lamb that is in the midst of the throne " shepherding
the Saints.

Gesen. 949 prefers the LXX, supported by Syr. and Vulg. ("reges"),
to the Heb. supported by the Targum. But (i) "break" (not "shepherd")
seems favoured by the parall. " dash in pieces " ; (2) " break " is similarly
applied in Job xxxiv. 24 (Gesen. by error xxxiv. 34) " he breaketh-in-pieces
mighty men... and setteth others in their stead," and Jerem. xv. 12 "can
one break iron, iron out of the north " ; (3) the Heb. for 7roi/Luui/eo is very
much more common than the Heb. here used for "break in pieces" and
is very similar to the latter and likely to have been corruptly substituted
for the latter ; (4) Troi/iatW is 4 times erroneously substituted by the LXX
for other words (besides in Ps. ii. 9).

128

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

ii. The Baptist's interpretation of tJie voice

There is no probability that John the Baptist would have
been influenced by the LXX. If therefore the Voice about
the " Son " at the baptism of Jesus seemed to him akin to the
utterance about the " Son " in the second Psalm, we must infer
that he regarded Jesus as destined to " break in pieces " " the
nations " either in a literal or in a spiritual sense. The literal
sense taking " kings of the earth " and " rulers " and "judges
of the earth," to refer to Herod Antipas and his Jewish party,
and to the chief priests, as well as to Pontius Pilate 1 would
seem the more probable. It would accord with the Baptist's
subsequent imprisonment by Antipas ; with his message to
Jesus, interpreted as an appeal to Jesus to release him from
prison ; and with the account of the Baptist given by Josephus.
It would also harmonize with the tone of James and John,
the Baptist's former disciples, beseeching their new Master,
Jesus, to let them call down fire on a Samaritan village.

Taking this view of the promised Son, as coming with
" a rod of iron," the Baptist's preaching would naturally
contain a large, if not a predominant, element of warning or
threatening, and the " baptism with the Spirit " would be for
the evil as well as for the good, destroying the former by the
same means that refined and purified the latter.

But when we speak of " the Baptist's preaching," what do
we mean? It may have lasted for some years. It must
certainly have lasted for many months. Is it likely that it
remained the same from the beginning to the end ? The
Baptist says in the Fourth Gospel, concerning Jesus, " And
I knew him not." However we may interpret " knew him" can
we suppose that when at last the Baptist really " knew him"
his teaching was not affected by the "knowing"? Most
Christians will feel assured that it must have been affected,

1 Comp. Acts iv. 25 foil.
A. B. 129 9

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

and affected profoundly. The former confidence of the Baptist
in the Lion of the tribe of Judah may have been combined
later on with a new hope in the Lamb of God, and the fusion
may well have been incomplete. At one time " The Lamb
of God " might be uttered with conviction. At another, when
the Lion of Judah seemed needed, the question could not be
kept back, " Art thou he that is to come, or do we look for
another ? "

Modern students of the New Testament have perhaps not
sufficiently considered the effect that would be produced upon
John the Baptist (according to Johannine narrative) by Jesus
as Worker of "signs." According to the Synoptists, John
was shut up in prison before Jesus performed any " mighty
works " ; but according to the Fourth Gospel, Jesus had
performed them in abundance before the Baptist's imprison-
ment and while Prophet and Messiah were co-operating.
What would be the result ? We have to place ourselves
among men unaccustomed to distinguish (so-called) "miracle"
from " miracle. " Acts of healing, stupendous, but still natural,
they would place on the same level as actions that no man
could now by any possibility call " natural." Would they not
consequently acclaim Jesus as a Prophet for whom all things
were possible, and before whom, if He but willed it, the bars
of Herod's prison would fall to the ground and the imprisoned
prophet would be released ? Would not the Baptist share
this belief ? And when the belief was not fulfilled, when the
bars did not fall, might he not consequently pass from his old
faith in Jesus, to disappointment in Jesus, though perhaps
ultimately to new faith in Jesus of a higher kind ?

If there was indeed, as seems certain, some variation
in the Baptist's teaching at various times, we must be on
our guard against inferring too much from the silence of
Mark, who gives to the Prophet's words rather less than
twice the space he devotes to his food and clothing. Both
Matthew and Luke, in their enlargements, testify that it

130

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

contained a note of warning or threatening, and their view is
in itself probable and confirmed by such scanty evidence as
exists. But, even if the Baptist interpreted the Voice about
the Son, or Baptizer, largely in this sinister sense, it does not
follow that the Fourth Evangelist regarded it as the right
interpretation. If John the Baptist interpreted the Voice in
one way, and the Evangelist regarded Jesus as interpreting it
in another, we can understand better why the Fourth Gospel
does not record it as definite words " coming from heaven,"
but only as a "saying" of God communicated to the Prophet
according to prophetic precedent.

1 2. The Johannine interpretation of tJie voice and the vision

We pass to the question of the highest interpretation of
the heavenly voice and vision, as distinct from the lower
interpretation of it likely to have been adopted by a Prophet
who, great though he was, was not equal to the typical " little
one," or " lesser one," who was " in the Kingdom of God 1 ."

This is a subject of the very greatest importance. If this
very beginning of the Gospel, this opening of the heavens,
this descent of the Spirit, this voice of God, conveyed a
different meaning to the Last of the Prophets from that which
it conveyed to the Firstborn of the Kingdom, then we must
expect to find in the doctrine of Jesus, from the first, a gentle
negative protest, increasing in its strength, against the old
teaching and in favour of the new.

The view of the Messiah so far as it was derived from the
second Psalm, might be expressed, for example, in the words
of Revelation " She [i.e. Zion, the Church, the Mother of the
faithful] was delivered of a son, a male-child, who is destined
to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod ; and her child
was snatched up to God and to his throne 2 ." Nothing here

1 See Son 3523 foil.

a Rev. xii. 5 ercKfv viuv, ap<ri> is strange, and cannot well be explained

131 92

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

about the life, the sufferings, the death and the resurrection of
the "son" ! Nothing to indicate that He was the "firstborn
among many brethren''! Nothing to suggest that in His
Ascension, He was not "snatched up" so as to leave His
brethren desolate, but went away from them, for the purpose,
and (as it were) on the condition, of coming to them again
continually in His Spirit, or Paraclete, so that He might be
continually descending to answer their prayers, and ascending
with their prayers that the prayers might be answered !

Against such a negative and unsatisfying conception it is
reasonable to expect that Jesus Himself would directly or
indirectly protest. That He did so indirectly we know from
the Synoptic account of His doctrine about kings, and rulers,
and from His answers to the question " Who is the greatest ? "
And inquiring whether in the Fourth Gospel there is any
suggestion of such a protest in connection with the " opening
of the heavens " and with the mention of a Son, we call to
mind that Jesus alluded to that part of the Synoptic narrative
which described the opening of the heavens, promising His
disciples that they also should hereafter behold them opened,
and that, too, permanently, so as to see through them " the
angels of God," and these, not merely " descending " but also
" ascending." Here there are two things that might naturally
take the reader by surprise : " Ye shall see the heaven opened
and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son
of Man." Would not the angels " descend " before they
"ascend"? And should we not expect "the Son of God"
rather than " the Son of Man " ?

This unexpected " Son of Man " is all the more strange
because Nathanael has just acclaimed Jesus with the latter
title, " Rabbi, thou art the Son of God'' He has also said,

by Jerem. xx. 15 (lit.) "a son [yes] a man-child" (in the mouth of a
messenger). Perhaps it is to suggest force, "a man [from the cradle]."
Comp. however Lk. ii. 23 apo-t i/, which represents in Exod. xiii. 2 " first-
born (LXX TTptoTOTOKOV 7Tp(t)TOy I>f'y)."

132

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

" Thou art King of Israel." The reply of Jesus seems to
mean " You do not quite understand at present what ' Son of
God ' means, or what ' King of Israel ' means. Before you can
know what is meant by ' Son of God ' you must know more of
what is meant by ' son of man.' And before you can know
'the King of Israel ' you must know what a true ' King' is.
The 'King' ministers to His subjects. The angels or
messengers of God minister to ' the son of man '." Thus
Jesus seems to be setting Himself against a worldly interpre-
tation of the Voice proclaiming Him God's Son. The new
King was not to subdue " the kings of the earth " with an
earthly " rod of iron 1 ."

But this is negative. It is more difficult to explain what
is positive in this doctrine. In particular, what is meant by
" the Son of Man " on whom " the angels of God " are to
" ascend and descend " ?

13. " The Son of Man"

For a full discussion of the meaning of" the Son of Man "
in the Gospels the reader is referred to the treatise thus
entitled in this series. There, attention was called to Balaam's
doctrine " God is not a man (yir) that he should lie, nor a sou
of man (filius hominis) that he should repent" and the belief
was expressed that Jesus, embodying the conception of the
"son of man" in His own person, might teach a doctrine
antithetical or at all events supplementary to that of Balaam :
" God is Man that He should pity, and the Son of Man that

1 In the Fourth Gospel, "king" is almost exclusively used by those
who misunderstand Jesus (vi. 15, xviii. 33 9, xix. 3 21). In Jn xii. 13,
the multitude welcomes Jesus as " king," in the fulfilment of prophecy
(Jn xii. 15, Zech. ix. 9), but it is probably implied that they do not under-
stand what the term means, as thus applied, any more than the multitude
understands it when they sought (vi. 15) "to take him by force to make
him a king."

133

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

He should love 1 ." But the last word in this expression was not
well chosen. Instead of " love," it would have been better
as the question is about changing one's mind and " repenting"
of the " evil " that one proposed to inflict to have said
"forgive." And to this we shall have to recur later on, when
Mark, with startling abruptness, brings the title Son of
Man before us for the first time in the words "But that ye
may know that the Son of Man hath authority upon earth
to forgive sins!' But for the present the question is how
to explain the Johannine introduction of the Son of Man
in connection with " the angels of God ascending and
descending."

The Bible nowhere mentions such an ascent and descent
of angels except in the narrative of Jacob's dream about the
ladder that reached to heaven 2 . In the Biblical text there,
the Son of Man finds no place. Nor is it easy for modern
readers to see how Jacob could be regarded as the type of an
ideal Son of Man on whom angels might descend. But the
Jerusalem Targum shews that Jews could thus regard him.
It describes the angels as descending to look on "Jacob the
pious whose likeness is in the throne of glory'' Another
tradition says " They ascended and beheld the express-image
above, they descended and beheld the express-image below,"
where the editor explains that there is an allusion to the vision

1 See Son 3119. The Midrash on Numb, xxiii. 19 ad loc. and else-
where calls attention to instances (e.g. Exod. xxxii. 14) where God does
" repent concerning the evil " that He proposed to bring on sinners, but
maintains that He does not "repent" concerning the good that He has
promised. The word here used for " repent" (nhm] implies a change of mind
(i) to, or (2) from, sorrow or anger (Gesen. 636 7). In the second sense
it means "comfort" or " soothe" " Me-nahem? the Comforter, is given as
a name of the Messiah in Jer. Berach. ii 4 (3) in a long story about the
destruction and the rebuilding of the Temple, ending with a quotation
from Isaiah (x. 34, xi. i) about the "fall" of " Lebanon " (where the con-
text speaks of a " lopping of boughs ") and the " rod out of the stem
of Jesse."

- Gen. xxviii. 10 foil.

134

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

of Ezekiel mentioning " man " in various connections with the
" throne " in heaven 1 .

According to Philo, the " ladder " so far as human nature
is concerned is the soul, of which the basis is the bodily
sense and the top is the mind, and through which the logoi of
God pass unceasingly up and down 2 .

In a different tone and style, the Midrash on " Let us
make man " introduces a saying endorsed by several Rabbis
that, after " God saw all that he had made," we should read
instead of "and beJiold \_it was] very good" "and behold MAN
good*" And this quaint fancy immediately follows a still
more quaint interpretation of a passage in the Psalms personi-
fying some of the relations between God and Man. " Surely
his salvation is nigh them that fear him, that glory may
tabernacle in our land. Kindness (R.V. mercy) and truth are
met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.
Truth springeth out of the earth and righteousness hath looked
down from heaven 4 ." In the Bereshith, these attributes of
God are regarded as angels, contending against one another,
some supporting, some attacking, the proposal to create such
a being as " man," or " the son of man 5 ." Against such wild
and dangerous personifications there comes as it were an

1 Gen. xxviii. 11 12, Ezek. i. 5, 10, 26, Chullin 91 b (transl. Gold-
schmidt). See Levy i. 3945 quoting passages that distinguish between
"the likeness of the express-image" and "the express-image itself," but
giving a different text QfChullinqi b distinguishing between "the likeness"
and " the likeness of the express image."

2 See Son 3378 quoting Philo i. 641 3. From what Jesus says
about the "angels" of "the little ones," we may infer that He regarded
the " angels " as associated with prayers from man and answers from God.
See Son 3159 quoting Ephrem on Mt. xviii. 10, and Sir. xxxv. 17 a c
Heb. "The crying of the poor. ..will not remove till God shall visit...."

3 Reading m-a-d\.t. "very? as a-d-m i.e. " adam " or "man"

4 Ps. Ixxxv. 911, see Gen. r. on Gen. i. 26 (Wii. p. 32).

5 The same context quotes Ps. viii. 4 "What is man that thou art
mindful of him, and the son of man that thou visitest him?" as being
uttered by angels pouring contempt on man.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

admonition in the doctrine of Jesus that " the angels of God "
wait on " the son of man " consistently with what is said in
the Johannine Prologue where the Psalmist's words "glory"
and " tabernacle " and " kindness " are connected with the
Word from whose " fulness we all received " : " The Word...
tabernacled among us and we beheld his glory... full of grace
and /;7////...from his fulness we all received 1 ."

The Lucan story of the song of the angels at Christ's
birth describes angels as descending to sing to the shepherds,
concerning the Babe in the cradle, " Glory to God in the
highest, and on earth peace among men in whom he is well
pleased 2 ." They may be said to " descend on the Son of
Man " on that occasion, waiting on Him as it were, at the
moment of His entrance into this material world. But the
Lucan angels are not Johannine angels. The former are
beautiful figures, helping us from outside with heaven-sent
help. The latter are inseparable from humanity, being perhaps
describable as the thoughts of God helpfully identifying
themselves with the purified personalities of men. The
Fourth Gospel, instead of " peace, among men in whom God is
well pleased" leads us to think of " peace, in the Man in whom
God is well pleased" peace in the incarnate Logos, " from whose
fulness we all received." It is a part of His being. Not that
the gift of "peace" is to come at first. "Peace" is Christ's
gift at parting 3 . The angels ascend before they descend. At
first, the "glory" that issues from the Son must be that of
" grace and truth " whereby He draws disciples to Himself

1 Jn i. 14, 1 6. "Kindness" in the Psalm corresponds, much more
closely than " mercy " would, to "grace" in the Gospel (see Son 3553 c\

* Lk. ii. 14.

; Jn xiv. 27 8 '"''Peace I leave with you. ..ye have heard how I said to
you, I go away...," xvi. 33 "These things I have spoken unto you that in
me ye may have peace? followed by the threefold post-resurrectional
utterance xx. 19, 21, 26, "Peace be unto you," are the only mentions
of "peace" in the Fourth Gospel. Note also the frequent N.T. salutation,
" grace and peace " " grace " first, " peace " afterwards.

136

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

and promises, through Himself, to convey to heaven their
aspirations after truth and kindness and righteousness, and,
through Himself, to bring them down fulfilled for them on
earth. Then, and not till then, can they have " peace."

The more closely we examine this utterance to Nathanael,
the more exactly will it seem to summarise the gospel of
Jesus. But it also summarises the gospel of Ezekiel. It
turns our thoughts away from the Psalmist heralding the
approach of the Son with " the rod of iron " to that Prophet
for whom the " heavens were opened," revealing a " throne "
on " wheels," drawn by four living creatures, all, so to speak,
imbued in some sort by the appearance of a " man," and with
the "appearance of a man" seated above the throne itself,
and the whole of this moving system this Chariot as the
Jews called it instinct with a " spirit " that inspires its
motion. Fresh from this vision of "the appearance of a man"
above, the prophet is himself addressed as " son of man "
below, and is made to feel that by this title, though often used
elsewhere contemptuously, he himself is encouraged to claim
kinship with God. At the same time he is bidden to exercise
his human privilege of " standing," without which, if he
remains grovelling as a beast, he cannot hear God " Stand
upon thy feet and I will speak with thee 1 ."

Then the Spirit enters into Ezekiel, as also it entered into
Jesus, and the prophet receives his message. It is not indeed

1 Ezek. ii. i, on which see Jerome "Jacens sermonem Dei audire non
poterat. Sed audit cum Moyse (Deut. v. 31) Tu vero hie sta meciim.
Quod et Daniel (x. 11) accidisse sibi commemorat." Comp. Gen. iii. 18
(Targ. Jer. I and sim. Jer. II) " Adam answered, I pray... that we be not
accounted as the cattle to eat the herb of the face of the field ; let us
stand up and labour with the labour of the hands... and thus let there
be distinction, before thee, between the children of men and the offspring
of cattle." See Son 3117 "The Man on the throne in heaven addresses
the prophet as ' son of man ' on earth, as much as to say, ' Thou, made in
my image, art destined to be superior to the Beasts on earth, as I am
superior to them in heaven ; and thou art to go as my messenger to
deliver Israel from the Beasts'."

137

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

a message of good-tidings, but it is intended to prepare for
good-tidings, and, such as it is, it is the prophet's food 1 , given
to him before the Spirit lifts him up and carries him away 2 .
Somewhat similarly " the Spirit," as we shall see, carries Jesus
into the wilderness 3 , where He proclaims that man " lives "
" not by bread alone " but by " the word of God," and the
angels are described as "ministering" to Him 4 .

In the Synoptists, the subsequent mentions of the Spirit
in a positive aspect are overshadowed by the frequent
mentions of "unclean spirits," and by the prominence given
to sin against the Holy Spirit. They also give prominence to
" angels." They do not make us feel (so keenly as the Fourth
Gospel does) the new atmosphere that must have come into
the world if indeed " the Spirit " that fills the Universe with
God's goodness came down into the man, Jesus, and not only
came down into Him but also abode on Him, already touching,
as it were, those whom He called and whom He helped,
even before the time had come that it should pass into their
spirits, after His resurrection. But the Fourth Evangelist
does make us feel this. The Dialogue with Nicodemus (on the
new birth in " water and the Spirit ") and the Dialogue with
the Samaritan woman (on worshipping God " in spirit,"
because " God is Spirit ") though they do not pretend to
expound Christ's thoughts in Christ's words, appear to be
nearer to the expression of the kernel of His doctrine than
the isolated Marcan traditions about Spirit in a good sense
or " spirits " in a bad sense.

And so, too, as regards " the angels of God," the Fourth
Gospel seems here to express Christ's actual doctrine, in its

1 Ezek. iii. i " Son of man, eat that thou findest."

2 Ezek. iii. 12 "Then the spirit lifted me up."

3 See below, p. 148 foil, for the "carrying" of Jesus by the Spirit,
variously expressed by the Synoptists.

1 Src below, pp. 146 foil., 173 foil., where Luke is shewn to omit
mention of the "angels."

'38

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

spiritual essence, more correctly than do those Synoptic
passages which, perhaps by misunderstanding 1 , represent
" angels " instead of " saints," as co-assessors in the judgment
of the world. Among the Jews themselves it is probable that
many different classes of angelswere recognised participating,
some more, some less, in human personality and human
attributes. The Fourth Evangelist appears to regard them
as ministers of salvation inseparable from the Son of Man,
and as ascending from earth before they descend from heaven,
and perhaps best (though only approximately) described as
men's real, purified, and spiritualised selves.

Reserving further comment on the title " Son of Man "
until it comes before us in its Marcan order as the title of Him
who had " authority on earth to forgive sins," we conclude
at present that in the Fourth Gospel it represents the unity
between God and Man symbolized by the opening of the
heavens and the ascent and descent of the angels of God. In
the context in which it is introduced, it seems to shew a deli-
berate anthropomorphic suggestion as opposed to what we
might call the theomorphic exclamation of Nathanael " Thou
art the Son of God."

It has been shewn elsewhere, in the traditions about Jesse,
called the Man, and about David, the Rod of Jesse, that a
Talmudist played on the saying in the Song of Moses, " the
Lord is a Man-:' The Song adds "of War." And that
addition suits the tone of the warlike interpretation of the
Second Psalm. But if Jesus interpreted that Psalm, and all
the warlike Psalms, in a spiritual sense as denoting a warfare
against evil and a " breaking in pieces " of the powers of Sin,
then He may well have read a new meaning into " Man of
War." For Him it would signify " The Man who creates Peace

1 See Son Index " angels," and especially 322033.

2 Exod. xv. 3, see Appendix I, p. 316.

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

out of War," "the Man who conquers sin by forgiveness."
Contradicting Balaam, He would say " God is like 'the son
of man,' and most of all like him when the son of man bears
the sins of others in pity not the pity of contempt, but that
divine pity which is breathed by love, hope and faith and,
by this pitying, forgives."

140

CHAPTER V

THE TEMPTATION

ONE object of this Chapter is to shew what there is in the
Fourth Gospel corresponding to " temptation " in the Three.
But another object, and perhaps a more important one, is to
ascertain in what way, if in any, John intervenes, as regards
a Mark-Matthew tradition, omitted by Luke, that " angels
ministered " to Jesus during or after the Temptation, and
also to examine the Johannine attitude toward "angels," as
compared with that of the Synoptists severally.

As regards " temptation," I have met with a protest which,
if it were well founded, would render it superfluous to enter
into a detailed examination of the Synoptic narrative. "John,"
it is said, " recognised that the Synoptists described a veritable
temptation, as of the sons of men. But the Johannine eternal
Son could not be ' tempted.' The whole Synoptic narrative,
to him, was impossible. He could not modify and spiritualise
and transform it more suo. He could not insert a particle of
the story in any form. It is not worth while therefore, in
a study of the Fourfold Gospel, to go into any details about
the additions of Matthew and Luke to Mark, or even about
the omissions of two or three Marcan words by Matthew and
Luke."

There is some truth at the bottom of this protest. Some
hasty readers of the Synoptic narrative, passing by the second
and the third temptations as being out of the range of human
experience, and fastening on the first, might carry away from
it, as their sole inference, that Jesus was tempted by hunger

141

THE TEMPTATION

to turn stones into bread which might be called " a veritable
temptation, as of the sons of men." But would Mark be
responsible for that Mark, who nowhere at this point
mentions either "hunger" or "bread"? It would be truer,
surely, to say that Mark specified no temptation at all, whereas
Matthew and Luke specified three, one of which appeals
or appears at first sight to appeal to man's animal nature.
And, if that is so, we might reasonably expect to find John, in
the course of his Gospel, helping the perplexed readers of the
earlier Gospels to understand that which Mark left in obscurity,
and which Matthew and Luke amplified in such a manner as
to leave the way open for false inferences.

Here are some of the questions that the latest of the
Evangelists might be expected to answer. "In w r hat sense
did Christ feel ' hunger ' or ' thirst ' ? What was His ' meat ' or
'bread'? Did He ever ask any human being to give Him
meat or drink ? If He did under what circumstances, and
with what result ? Again, Mark says that Jesus was ' with
the wild-beasts.' Is it possible that Jesus discerned, around
Himself, 'wild-beasts,' 'serpents,' 'scorpions,' 'dogs,' 'bulls of
Bashan ' such as the Psalmist speaks of besetting His path,
even before that path led Him to the Cross where they
gathered round Him in His last moments?"

This last question reminds us of many poetic common-
places about the " untameable " nature of "the tongue," and
about " the keen tooth " of calumny, ingratitude, and treachery.
In particular, it suggests reflections as to the effect on Christ's
mind produced by the defection, and even hostility, of former
disciples, culminating in Iscariot's betrayal. How far could
a Son of God go in feeling these human stings and wounds
without ceasing to be divine? How far could He be free
from them, and above them, without ceasing to be human ?
Kpictetus maintained that the true Man, being one with God
in will, was, in effect, the true king, above all suffering and
trouble. Is that the Johannine view?

142

THE TEMPTATION

An opposite view is set before us by a weak sovereign to
whom Shakespeare has given immortality of a king after
a different fashion. This " king " is above all needs and pains
because he is protected from them. He does not need "bread"
because he has plenty of bread. He feels no want because
all his wants are supplied. Take his " bread " away, let
" wants " press in upon him, and he ceases to be " a king " :

I live with bread, like you...,

Feel want, taste grief, need friends. Subjected thus,

How can you say to me, I am a king? 1

Does this represent we will not say the Synoptic view but
an inferential view that might be drawn from the Synoptic
narrative by materialistic minds?

One more question. The Epistle to the Hebrews em-
phasizes the similarity between our temptations and those of
Jesus as follows : " It behoved him in all things to be made
like unto his brethren.... For wherein he himself hath suffered,
having been tempted, he is able to succour them that are
[from time to time] being-tempted," and again, " We have not
a high priest that cannot suffer-with our infirmities, but one
that hath been tempted in all things according to [the] like-
ness [of our temptations] apart from sin' 2 ." But where, in
the three Temptations of Matthew and Luke, do we find any
clear indication that Jesus " suffered with our infirmities,"
unless it be an "infirmity " to feel hunger? And what is the
" likeness" between the temptations of ordinary men and the
temptation recorded about Jesus as conveyed in the words
" Cast thyself down " ? No doubt, that temptation may be
called " typical " and may be said to " include a likeness " to
ordinary temptations. But is the " likeness " clear to a plain
man?

1 Richard II, iii. 2. 175 7.

- Heb. ii. 17 18 ; iv. 15 a-vviraO^o-ai rals daOcveiais T^/IOOI/. In N.T.,
lv occurs only here and ib. x. 34 rois 8rpiois awfirad^vaTt (R.Y.

143

THE TEMPTATION

It seems to me that the Fourth Evangelist, taking a wide
as well as a deep view of the trials and temptations that beset
the noblest natures, perceived that the Synoptic narrative,
even in its fullest form, omitted the temptations of the heart,
and especially those depressing pangs weakening if not
quickly suppressed which might momentarily arise in the
heart of the Redeemer of Mankind, when saddened and
troubled by the sorrows, the weaknesses, and the sins, of
those whom He came to redeem. For the present we cannot
enter into this question. When the discussion of the Marcan
doctrine of the " compassion " of Jesus comes before us in its
order, there will be an opportunity of considering whether
that doctrine does not indirectly give us no less insight (or,
perhaps, more insight) into the temptations of Jesus than is to
be derived from the Matthew- Luke narrative of the threefold
formal Temptation in the Wilderness. Meantime we may do
well to keep before us the possibility that John, while accepting
that narrative, may have been deliberately attempting to
supplement it by adding a threefold " trouble " that befell the
Saviour first, at the grave of Lazarus whom He rescued from
death ; secondly, at the coming of the Gentile world which
He was to rescue from sin ; and thirdly, at the " going forth "
of Judas Iscariot whom He was not able to rescue 1 .

I. " Tempting" in the Four Gospels

The Fourth Gospel does not agree with the Three in the
use of the words " tempt " and " temptation." " Temptation "
it never mentions. " Tempt " it uses once, but only in a good

had compassion on) and <rvp.7ra.dTjs only in i Pet. iii. 8 (R.V.) "com-
passionate (marg. Gr. sympathetic)." See Son 3185, on " suffering " and
"sympathy," and 3189 /t, to which add Origen (on Ezek. xvi. 5 8)
<rvp.rrua'\(i 6 dtof roJ (Xfrjaai ' ov yap acnr\ay')(VQ$ 6 ^edy.

1 Jn xi. 33, xii. 27, xiii. 21, on which see the Introductory Volume,
pp. 15962, and Son 3476.

144

THE TEMPTATION

sense O f Jesus "tempting" Philip (as God "tempted"
Abraham) that is to say " trying " him, in order to make him
" tried," or approved 1 .

" Tempt," in the Synoptists, is always used in a bad sense
of Satan or the enemies of Jesus " tempting " Him that He
may fall. On one occasion they connect it with the seeking
of a sign from Jesus 2 . It is to be "a sign from heaven."
This "tempting " is placed by Mark and Matthew immediately
after the Feeding of the Four Thousand, but by Luke who
omits that miracle immediately after an act of exorcism,
which causes " some " to declare that Jesus casts out devils by
Beelzebub, but " others " to " seek a sign from heaven," as
though to shew that Christ's power was from God above and
not from Satan below.

John represents Christ's adversaries as twice asking Him
for a " sign." " What sign shewest thou unto us," say the
Jews to Jesus purifying the Temple, " seeing that thou doest
these things 3 ?" And again, after the Feeding of the Five
Thousand, they say " What then doest thou as a sign ?...Our
fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, even as it is written,
He gave them bread from heaven to eat 4 ." In neither
passage is the " sign " expressly demanded " from heaven " ;
but in the second one Jesus inserts " from heaven " in His

1 Jn vi. 5 6 "Whence are we to buy bread that these may eat?
And this he said, trying him [i.e. Philip]...." Philip (in the Fourth Gospel)
is the only one of the first six converts whom Jesus calls with the words
" Follow me." He is the disciple to whom the Greeks come saying (ib. xii.
21) " Sir, we would see Jesus." When he says to Jesus (ib. xiv. 8) "shew
us the Father," Jesus replies " Have I been so long time with you [//],
and dost thou not know me, Philip?" According to Clement of Alexandria,
Philip was the disciple who was bidden to "leave the dead to bury their
own dead." See Son 3377 a. It is through Philip that Christ says to the
world " He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."

2 Mk viii. 11, Mt. xvi. i, Lk. xi. 16.

3 Jn ii. 1 8.

4 Jn vi. 30 31. " Thou" is emphatic : " Moses brought bread from
heaven, what canst thou do in the same way as a sign from heaven?"

A. B. 145 I0

THE TEMPTATION

reply : " Moses gave you not the bread from heaven, but my
Father giveth you the true bread from heaven'' Jesus implies
that the manna from the visible heaven was not " from
heaven," in the " true " or spiritual sense, and He clearly
regards the Jews as demanding a sign from the visible heaven.
This makes it probable that, in the Temple also, the demand
was for a sign from the visible heaven, where no magician (it
was thought) had power to work signs. But in neither
passage does John describe this demand of the Jews as an
act of " tempting."

It might seem, therefore, that the Synoptic account of
Christ's Temptation ought to be excluded from this treatise
on the Fourfold Gospel. But such an exclusion would be
contrary to our rule of including everything in Mark that has
been altered or omitted by Luke. The Marcan narrative,
though little more than a sentence, contains two statements
omitted by Luke. The first is, that Jesus " was with the wild
beasts." The second is, that " the angels were ministering to
him 1 ." If the Fourth Gospel has nothing to say on these two
points the plan of our work requires us to note the omission,
and either to explain why John would not intervene in these
two cases, or to confess that the rule of Johannine Intervention
is broken. We know of course that John nowhere uses the
word " wild-beasts " ; but, as we have repeatedly found,
difference in word must not prevent us from searching for
correspondence in thought.

As to " angels," we have seen above that John seems to
regard them as ascending and descending on the Son of Man
like human aspirations that go up to the divine throne to
return as divine ministrations. This is a very different kind
of " angel " from the one described by Luke in his Introduction
as "Gabriel 2 " Here, we find Mark inserting, and Luke

1 Mki. 13.

2 Lk. i. 19, 26. Not elsewhere in N.T. In O.T. only in Dan. viii. 16,
ix. 21. See Gen. r. on Gen. xviii. i 2 " Resh Lakish said that the Jews

146

THE TEMPTATION

omitting, a tradition about " angels " as " ministering " to
Jesus while He u was with the wild-beasts." The plan of our
work obliges us to ask, What was Luke's motive here ? But
while attempting to ascertain this particular point, we shall
also ask the same question about other passages in the Gospels
making mention, or omitting mention, of angels, and especially
any that mention them as ministering to, or attending on,
Christ.

" Wild-beasts " then, and " angels," will be the two main
subjects of this chapter. But they will have to be discussed
in their context, that is to say, as features of a narrative about
" temptation." And we ought also to bear in mind that Mark
in his next chapter represents Jesus as abruptly calling Him-
self the Son of Man 1 . Are we to suppose that Mark's brief
tradition about the " tempting" of Jesus is based on a
thought of " the son of man," described in the Eighth Psalm
as being " a little lower than the angels " ? This view is at
all events suggested by the connection of thoughts in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. For it quotes the Psalm at great
length, applying to Jesus the words "son of man" and "a
little lower than the angels" It concludes by saying that the
phase of existence implied for the Son of Man in " a little
lower than the angels " was ordained in order that He might
be " tempted" for the sake, not of angels but of men : "For
in that he himself hath suffered, being tempted, he is able to
succour them that are tempted-"

This indication of the possibilities of poetical allusion, in
these brief phrases peculiar to Mark, gives importance to
other contextual phrases, which he shares with Matthew or
Luke, and makes it desirable to examine the whole of Mark's
account of the Temptation, clause by clause.

brought with them from Babylon the names of the angels, e.g. Michael,
Raphael, and Gabriel."

1 Mk ii. 10. The only preceding Marcan mentions of vlos are Mk i. i
\ylos $foi/], i. 1 1 o v'u'is fJ-ov 6 dyaTTTjTos. " Heb. ii. 5 1 8.

147 10 2

THE TEMPTATION

2. Jesus, " driven forth" or " led up" or " led"

Mk i. 12 (R.V.) Mt. iv. i (R.V.) Lk. iv. i (R.V.)

And straightway Then was Jesus And Jesus, full

the Spirit driveth led up of the Spirit of the Holy Spirit,

him forth into the into the wilderness. returned from the

wilderness. Jordan and was led

by (or, in) the Spirit
in the wilderness.

Mark (R.V. " driveth forth ") here uses a word that he
habitually uses elsewhere to mean "casting out " and mostly
applies to the exorcism of evil spirits. When applied to
persons in LXX it regularly implies violence ; and Philo, on
the " casting out " of Adam from Paradise, has a long
comment on the word as meaning permanent exile 1 . It is
difficult to understand Mark's use of this word unless it was
an attempt to render some very strong original expression
about the force of the divine impulse, such as that in Ezekiel,
" The Spirit lifted me up and took me away... and the hand of
the Lord was strong upon me 2 ."

1 Philo i. 138 9 on Gen. iii. 24. Some might quote Mt. ix. 38 (Lk. x.
2) to shew that ex/Sa'XXo) may mean simply " send forth." But Origen's
comment (Comm. Matth, xv. 12, Lomm. iii. 351) and the paraphrase in
Clem. Alex. 319, shew that it means much more than that. As a rule, in
LXX it represents Heb. "expello," but even in the five instances where
it represents (Trommius) Heb. " exire facio," e.g. 2 Chr. xxiii. 14 &c., it
implies violence or constraint, or the casting out of something that is
unclean.

2 Ezek. iii. 1214. Comp. Lk. iv. i (SS) "and the Holy Spirit took
him and sent him forth into the wilderness," and the quotations (Burk.)
(i) " And then the Spirit sent him forth that he might be tempted"
(omitting "wilderness"), (2) ''''Immediately the Holy Spirit took [and] led
him out into a desert..."

There appears to be here a combination of Luke with Mark, making
a distinction between Christ's (i) ^return [to Nazareth]" and (2) "being
sent forth to the wilderness." So, too, the Diatessaron : "(Lk.) And
Jesus returned from the Jordan full of the Holy Spirit. (Mk) And
immediately the Spirit took him out into the wilderness." On L7roo-rp'<a>,
always "return" in Luke, see below, p. 150, n. 3.

148

THE TEMPTATION

Matthew uses the word regularly employed to denote the
"bringing up" of Israel out of the land of Egypt ; where the
upward motion is partly metaphorical, meaning ascent from
degrading bondage, but partly literal, since Israel is regarded
as being "led up" first to Sinai, after the baptism in the
Red Sea, and then, ultimately, to Jerusalem 1 . Apart from
the Acts (where it is often passively used, of putting out to
sea, as also once in Luke) it is not used in N.T. except about
Jesus as being "brought up" (i) "to Jerusalem," (2) to a
place unnamed, whence " the kingdoms of the world " are
seen, (3) "from the dead 2 ." We must therefore suppose that
Matthew means something by preferring " bring up " to
"bring" or "lead." Since He was "brought up" out of the
valley of the Jordan, the upward motion or ascent would be
literal for Jesus, as well as typical of the ascent of Israel from
Egypt. It is possible that Matthew regarded the Spirit as
bringing Jesus " up" in the air (like Ezekiel) and transporting
Him into the desert. But such "transporting" seems not to
come till afterwards. Here Matthew is more probably thinking
of "the wilderness" of Sinai as having Sinai for its centre ; so
that the going up of Jesus was like that of Israel, or, more
particularly, of Moses, led up by God through the baptism of
the Red Sea to the wilderness, where he ascended Mount
Horeb. It was natural to regard Jesus as the type of Israel,
"brought up" into "the wilderness" of Sinai, to be tempted
as Israel was tempted, but not to fall.

Later on, we shall find the parallel Luke using this rare
word to describe the " leading up " of Jesus to a special
temptation, where Matthew speaks of " a mountain 3 ." But in
the parallel to the present passage Luke omits " up " and uses,
instead, a rare form that is not used elsewhere in the Greek

1 'Ai/ayoj of Israel brought from Egypt, Gen. 1. 24 (comp. Exod. xxxiii.
12 " bring up this people "), Lev. xi. 45 c.

2 Lk. ii. 22, iv. 5, Rom. x. 7, Heb. xiii. 20.

3 Lk. iv. 5 avayaywv, Mt. iv. 8

149

THE TEMPTATION

Testament, Old or New, except in the sense of being led to
bonds or death 1 . The thought is apparently similar to that
which is expressed in Paul's saying " Behold, I go, bound
in the spirit, unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that
shall befall me there ; save that the Holy Spirit testifieth unto
me in every city saying that bonds and afflictions abide me 2 ."
But, instead of " bound in the spirit" Luke says " Jesus, full of
the Holy Spirit, returned [home] 3 from the Jordan, and
[afterwards] was led in the Spirit [like one going to bonds or
death] in the wilderness."

It seems that there were early differences of opinion about
this "leading" or "leading up." And this is confirmed by
Luke's later use of the word in this story. It describes the
" leading up " of Jesus, not into the scene of the Temptation as
a whole, and not to a mountain, but into some place not
mentioned where one of the three special temptations was
encountered ; and here the parallel Matthew explains that it
was " an exceeding high mountain ":

Mt. iv. 8 Lk. iv. 5

Again the devil taketh him And having led him up he

with [himself] to an exceeding shewed him all the kingdoms of

high mountain and sheweth him the inhabited-world in a moment

all the kingdoms of the world... of time.

Why does Luke omit " to an exceeding high mountain "?
And why does he insert " in a moment of time " ? Apparently
for the following reason. He does not believe in the existence

1 Lk. iv. i jjyero. Comp. Lk. xxiii. 32 " there were also being led

) others, malefactors,... to be put to death," and com p. i Cor. xii. 2.
In LXX rfyovro occurs 5 times (Nahum ii. 7, 2 Mace. i. 19, 3 Mace. iv. 5,
4 Mace. x. i, xi. 13) and always meaning "led" to bonds or death.

2 Acts xx. 22 3.

3 "Returned [home]" or "returned to the place whence one came" is
always the meaning of uTroa-rpe^co in Luke, who uses it about 20 times.
No other Evangelist uses it. It implies an interval between the baptism
and the temptation. This would emphasize the deliberate obedience of
Jesus to the prompting of the Holy Spirit that " filled" Him.

THE TEMPTATION

of a material " mountain " to which Jesus was transported in
order that He might look round toward the four quarters of
the world and see them all. The vision was " in a moment,"
and the place was nowhere except in thought or in the world
of visions. Somewhat similarly Jerome and Rashi explain, as
spiritual not as local, Ezekiel's transportation, " He [i.e. God]
put forth the form of a hand, and took me by a lock of mine
head ; and the spirit lifted me up between the earth and the
heaven, and brought me in the visions of God to Jerusalem 1 ."
We have now mentioned two instances of " bringing up"
expressed or implied by Matthew and Luke, in two of the
three temptations which they record ; whereas Mark merely
says that the Spirit " driveth forth " Jesus " into the wilderness "
adding afterwards "and he was in the wilderness forty days
being tempted by Satan," but not specifying any particular
temptation. Before discussing the difference between " in "
and "into" the wilderness (Mark having both "into" and
" in" while Matthew has " into " alone, and Luke has " in "
alone) we must point out that the temptation placed third by
Luke, but second by Matthew, also implies "bringing up" or
at all events placing on high, as follows :

Mt. iv. 5 Lk. iv. 9

Then the devil taketh him But he led (or, brought) him

with [himself] into the holy city to Jerusalem and caused him to

and caused him to stand on the stand on the pinnacle (so R.V.)

pinnacle (so R.V.) of the temple. of the temple.

1 Ezek. viii. 3. Origen, ad loc., speaks of it as a spectacle of sins, taking
the "northern world (KOOT/UOS-)" allegorically, but adding, in a material
sense, " There are also other worlds in the earth," for which statement
he quotes Clement of Alexandria. (Driven also quotes (Comm. Joann.
ii. 6, Lomm. i. 113) "the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the
Saviour Himself says, 'My mother, the Holy Spirit, took me just now
by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great mount Tabor ' " (quoted
again by Origen, Comm. Jerem. xv. 4, and partially by Jerome ("modo me
tulit Mater mea, Spiritus Sanctus") on Is. xl. 11).

THE TEMPTATION

Here the exact agreement of Matthew and Luke shews that
they must have followed a Greek verbal tradition, but there
is this difficulty, that the word rendered " pinnacle " is not
alleged to occur elsewhere in LXX or in Greek literature in
that sense 1 . It means " wing" not in a literal sense, but
when applied to anything that is like a wing, e.g. fin, shoulder-
blade, corner of a garment. But a pinnacle cannot be said
to be "like a wing" In LXX, however, it is used of the
wings of the cherubim 2 . And the question arises whether
the tradition followed by Matthew and Luke originally con-
tained some mention of " wing " literally, which has been
confused with " wing " taken metaphorically, i.e. " extremity "
or " corner " as applied to the building of the Temple. This
view is favoured by the following expansion of the metaphor
of "eagles' wings" in the Targum of Exodus, if we remember
that "eagle" in Greek, is a regular architectural term meaning
" the pediment of a temple " :

Hebrew

Ye have seen... how I bare
you on eagles' wings and brought
you unto myself 3 .

Jer. Targ. I.

Ye have seen... how I bare
you upon the clouds as upon
eagles' wings from Pelusin, to take
you to the place of the Sanctuary,
there to solemnize the Pascha ;
and in the same night brought
you back to Pelusin; and from
thence have brought you nigh to
[receive] the doctrine of my Law.

1 Steph. Thes. (irrepvyiov] gives only Lk. iv. 9 and (in brackets) Joseph.
Ant. xv. ii. 5. The latter does not contain the word. Clement of
Alexandria (Euseb. ii. i. 5, comp. ii. 23. 3) and Hegesippus (ib. 12) use it
about the martyrdom of James, apparently borrowing it from the Gospels
("cast from the pinnacle," "made him stand on the pinnacle of the
temple"). 2 i K. vi. 24, and see Ezek. xxviii. 16 (Field).

3 Exod. xix. 4. Mechilt. on Exod. xii. 37 "journeyed from Rameses
to Succoth, about six hundred thousand men..." says that they made
the journey "in a single moment, to prove the truth of Exod. xix. 4 ' on
eagles' wings'." This shews how Luke's (iv. 5) "in a moment of time"
might be introduced as a paraphrase.

THE TEMPTATION

Here the LXX and the Targums, including Onkelos,
insert " as " after " bare you " and before " eagles' wings."
But the Hebrew has no "as." Hence, if the Hebrew was
translated literally into Greek, and if the Greek " eagle " was
taken to mean " the pediment of the Temple," the meaning
of "wing" might be taken in an architectural sense as "ex-
tremity." The plural (" eagles' wings ") ought certainly to
have prevented such an error. But Deuteronomy repeats the
same metaphor with " eagle " in the singular 1 ; so that a
writer convinced that " a journey to the sanctuary " was
meant would need but a slight alteration of the text to adapt
it to his conviction.

The reader will note that, except as to the words " caused
him to stand on the pinnacle of the temple," Matthew and
Luke differ in their contexts (Matthew "Then the devil
taketh him with himself into the holy city," Luke " But he
led (or, brought) him to Jerusalem "). This, and the different
order in which Matthew and Luke arrange the second and
the third temptations, favour the view that the two Evangelists
while amplifying and smoothing Mark's harsh tradition
about the u casting out " of Jesus by the Spirit resorted to
scriptural precedents or to early Christian modifications of
such precedents, for the purpose of expressing the means by
which a prophet, subjected by the permission of God to
temptation, might be transported from place to place by the
Tempter.

Precedents for spiritual transportation of individuals in
Scripture were almost, if not entirely, confined to Ezekiel.
There was also, however, in Exodus, the above-quoted
beautiful description of the transportation of Israel (of
whom Christ was the representative) as " borne on eagles'
wings " through the wilderness explained by tradition as
being borne "to the place of the Sanctuary." It seems

1 Deut. xxxii. 1 1.
153

THE TEMPTATION

antecedently probable that Evangelists in search of such
precedents would use this tradition. In its Hebrew form, it
might represent an actual temptation in which the Messiah,
while being carried aloft as on an eagle's wing by the Holy
One of Israel, was tempted to cast Himself down, for a sign
to unbelievers. An easy corruption in the Greek rendering
might convert this into a temptation to cast Himself down
from "the wing of the pediment [lit. eagle] of the Holy
[Place]," i.e. the roof of the Temple 1 .

3. "Into" or "in" "the wilderness' 2 '"

The interpretation of " into (or, in) the wilderness " will
depend, in part on the preposition, " in " or " into," but in part
on the nature of " the wilderness." Are we to regard Jesus
as being "led into the wilderness of Arabia" or a led into the
wilderness of Judaea "? And again, was He "led on, in the
wilderness " to some definite spot, perhaps some mountain,
where the temptation took place? Or did the temptation
take place in the wilderness itself while He was journeying
in it ? In the former case, the wilderness would certainly
seem to be that of Arabia, and the definite spot Mount Sinai.
And even in the latter case, the wilderness of Arabia rather
than that of Judaea would seem to be more suitable for a
prolonged journeying of forty days.

Mark, after saying that John was " baptizing in the wilder-
ness," now says that the Spirit " casteth out " Jesus " into the
wilderness." The parallel Matthew calls " the wilderness " in
the first case "the wilderness of Judaea," but, in the second,
" the wilderness " simply. The inference is, that Matthew
regarded Mark's repetition of the same term as misleading,

1 Wetstein on Mt. iv. 4 quotes Eustathius as saying that the names
"eagle (afro?)" and "wing (rrrf/joi/)" are given (as well as aeVco/ia) to
certain parts of a temple, and gives passages shewing that the "wing"
was a comparatively " low " part of the building.

2 Mk i. 12, Mt. iv. i "into," Lk. iv. i "in."

'54

THE TEMPTATION

"the wilderness" being, in the first case, that of Judaea, but
in the second (as it almost always is in the Pentateuch) that
of Arabia. Luke gives us no definite assistance. But he has
previously said "The word of God came on John. ..in the
wilderness" quoting from Isaiah, u The voice of one crying in
the wilderness"; and later on he represents Jesus as saying
"What went ye out into the wilderness to behold 1 ?" In the
first and third of these cases he means the wilderness of
Judaea. This may be regarded as stretching into the wilder-
ness of Arabia, which bordered on it a fact of which we are
reminded in the story of Elijah's journey to Mount Horeb' 2 .

This, then, is probably in Luke's mind, when he says that
Jesus " was led [onward] in the Spirit in the wilderness forty
days being tempted by the devil 3 ." Paul makes a similar
journey immediately after his conversion, and he definitely
mentions " Arabia." Paul also gives his readers to understand
that he " conferred not with flesh and blood " but went to
" Arabia 4 ." And to what spot, if any, in Arabia ? We may
well suppose that it was to that sacred mountain whence the
Law had been first given to Moses, and where Elijah had
heard the still small voice ; and this view is confirmed by his
reference to Sinai in the same Epistle : " These are two
covenants, one from Mount Sinai, bearing children unto

1 Lk. iii. 2, 4, vii. 24. The only other Lucan instance of 17 cp^/io? is
Lk. xv. 4, of a flock left in "the wilderness," i.e. in the open pasture-land,
where the parall. Mt. xviii. 12 has "on the mountains."

2 Beersheba was on the border line. Comp. i K. xix. 3 8 " He
[i.e. Elijah] arose and went for his life, and came to Beersheba, which
belongeth to Judah, and left his servant there. But he himself went a
day's journey into the wilderness... axvA he arose and did eat and drink
and went in the strength of that meat forty days and forty nights unto
Horeb, the mount of God."

3 Lk. iv. i.

4 Gal. i. 15 17 "When it was the good pleasure of God. ..to reveal
his Son in me... immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood ; neither
went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me ; but I went
away into Arabia:'

155

THE TEMPTATION

bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai
in Arabia, and answereth to the Jerusalem that now is ; for
she is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem that
is above is free, which is our mother 1 ." It was natural in any
case that the Apostle should feel a prompting of his spirit to
think out the relation between the Law and the Gospel, in
the very place where the Law was first given ; but it would
be all the more natural if Paul believed that Jesus, too, like
Moses, and like Elijah, had journeyed to the same mountain.
The conclusion appears to be that " the wilderness " is
regarded by the Synoptists as, in effect, that of Arabia ; but
it remains quite uncertain, as will be seen later on, whether
the temptation is to be taken as occurring during forty days,
while Jesus was being led onward from place to place in the
wilderness, or at the end of the forty days. In the former
case, Jesus might be regarded as the type of Israel, tempted
for forty years while wandering in the desert only with this
difference that Jesus triumphed over temptation while Israel
succumbed. In the latter case, and especially if " fasting " is
introduced of which Mark makes no mention our thoughts
are led toward Moses fasting for forty days on Mount Horeb,
and toward Elijah fasting for forty days on his way to Mount
Horeb.

4. What happened during the "forty days"?

According to Mark, what happened during the forty days
was (to speak precisely) merely this, that Jesus was " being
tempted " by Satan. Mark adds, in one continuous sentence,
"and he was with the wild-beasts, and the angels were
ministering to him"; and this might naturally mean that
the " wild-beasts " were present and the " angels " were

1 Gal. iv. 246. Elsewhere (Rom. xi. 24) Paul refers to the dialogue
between God and Elijah on Mount Sinai, as leading to the inference
(ib. 5) "Even so, then, at this present time also, there is a remnant
according to the election of grace."

156

THE TEMPTATION

"ministering," throughout the forty days. But it is not certain.
Mark tells us nothing of the nature of the "tempting.'*
He omits " fasting " (or " not eating ") l .

Matthew says " When he had fasted forty days and forty
nights, he afterwards hungered." What happened during the
forty days was simply the " fasting." Not till this fasting is
over does any tempting begin : " And the Tempter came and
said unto him...-."

According to Luke, what happened during the forty days
was that Jesus was " led-on in the wilderness, being tempted
by the devil," apparently meaning that He was " led-on,"
either like Elijah or like Israel 3 . Luke does not use the
word " fast," but he says " And he ate nothing," defining the
time by the phrase "in those days 4 ." And he adds "when
they were completed he became-hungry." This agrees with
Matthew, in sense, though not in word, as to the abstinence
from food. Possibly Luke regards Jesus as being, like Elijah,
supplied with food from God sufficing for the forty days. So
Moses, on Horeb, is regarded by Philo.

These are the three different answers given by the three
Synoptists to the question, " What happened during the 'forty
days ' ? " The result leaves us uncertain as to almost every

1 Mk i. 13.

2 Mt. iv. 3. 'O TTfipdfav occurs, in N.T., only here and i Thess. iii. 5.
No illustrative instance of the absol. use of " the Tempter," for Satan,
is alleged by Hor. Heb., Schottgen, or Wetstein.

3 Comp. Numb. xiv. 34 "After the number of the days...even/0r/x
days for every day a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years."
See also Ezek. iv. 6 " thou shalt bear the iniquity of the house of Judah :

forty days, each day for a year.... ." The " forty days" of Moses were not
spent in journeying, but on Mount Horeb. " Horeb," however, is almost
identical in Heb. with some words meaning "desert " (Gesen. 352 ).

4 " Fast " does not occur in the Pentateuch, but a fuller form of Luke's
phrase occurs in Exod. xxxiv. 28 "he [i.e. Moses] did neither eat bread
nor drink water." On this Philo (i. 115, ii. 146) says that Moses was
receiving spiritual food, and so does Jewish tradition. " Fast," therefore,
might well seem an inappropriate word.

157

THE TEMPTATION

point except that Jesus was " tempted " by Satan. Even as
to that, we do not know whether the temptation is to be
regarded as taking place during the " forty days " (as seems
probable), or " afterwards," at the end of the " forty days."

5. " He was with the wild-beasts" in Mark

A brief comparison of this Marcan passage 1 with the
parallels in Matthew and Luke, which omit " wild-beasts " but
mention "fasting" (or " not eating"}, suggested that a Hebrew
original meaning "wild-beasts" had been confused by Matthew
and Luke with a very similar word meaning "fasting?' In
support of this view other reasons may be added, some of
which may throw light on the fact that whereas Matthew and
Luke represent Jesus as being tempted to create bread, John
in his nearest approach to a recognition that Jesus could
crave anything describes Him as asking for water, and as
exclaiming " I thirst 2 ."

Against this hypothesis of a confusion between " wild-
beasts " and " fasting " may be urged the extreme rarity of
the Hebrew word for the former. It does not mean beasts of
an ordinary kind but beasts of the desert and especially of a
dry waterless desert such as serpents, asps, scorpions, which
in Greek, as well as in Hebrew, might be called " wild-beasts 3 ."

1 See Clue 192 : "The most appropriate Hebrew for 'wild-beasts' in
a 'wilderness' associated with mention of Satan and suggestive of
Christ's words about 'the power of the enemy' is a word rendered
by the Septuagint once ' wild-beasts,' once ' apparitions, 1 and once
' demons.' The word is very rare (E^) an d closely resembles one that
is very common (Ql). The latter means 'fast'."

2 Jn iv. 67 "Jesus. ..being wearied out...saith unto her, Give me to
drink," xix. 28 "I thirst." Contrast iv. 32 " 1 have meat to eat that ye
know not of."

3 See Justin Martyr Apol. 60 on the " poisonous (iooXa) wild-beasts
(Sr]f)ia) [namely], vipers, and asps, and every kind of serpent " that met
the Israelites in the wilderness, and comp. J^ryph. 112 "Moses [in
setting up the brazen serpent] was not trying to persuade the people to

158

THE TEMPTATION

But it may be replied that these are precisely the " beasts "
that Mark's original might contemplate. It is true that they
are called ambiguously in the Psalms, " they-that^vell-in-tJu-
dry-desert" and it is predicted that " they shall bow before "
Solomon 1 . But Jewish poetry claimed for Solomon power
over devils; and the Midrash on the promise to Noah "the
fear of you shall be... upon every beast of the earth" declared
that the " dominion " over the beasts (as distinct from " fear ")
did not return till Solomon 2 . It was natural therefore that
Jewish traditions about the Messiah should describe these
" inhabitants-of-the-dry-desert " as bowing before the second
and greater Son of David.

We have seen above that the " wilderness " first mentioned
by Mark is called by Matthew "the wilderness of Judaea,"
which bordered on Arabia. Now a Psalm entitled " A Psalm
of David when he was in the wilderness of Judah " opens with
the words "O God, thou art my God. ..my soul thirsteth for
thee, my flesh longeth for thee in a land of drought and
weariness where no water is 3 ." The word here used for
" drougJit " is etymologically connected with the word for
" beasts-in-tJu-dry-desert" which we are considering ; and
"land of drought" is a very frequent phrase. Jeremiah
describes Israel as being led " through a land of drought and
of the shadow of death," and Isaiah speaks of the Messiah as
growing up " like a root out of a land of drought*" Also a
Rabbi while commenting on Jacob's dream, in which the
Lord was revealed at the top of a ladder whereon angels
were ascending and descending quotes the words " My soul

place their hopes on a wild-beast (Brjpiov} [that same] through which the
transgression and disobedience originated."

1 Ps. Ixxii. 9, LXX " Aethiopians," Rashi " turmas principum," quoting
Numb. xxiv. 24. The reading varies, some taking it as "devils," some as
"princes" (Targ. virapxoi). Gesen. 850 conjectures "adversaries."

2 Gen. r. on Gen. ix. 2, quoting i K. iv. 24.

3 Ps. Ixiii. i. 4 Jerem. ii. 6, Is. liii. 2.

159

THE TEMPTATION

thirsteth for thee," apparently implying that the " thirst," or
aspiration, of Jacob ascended and brought down a descending
blessing. Another Rabbi supports this view in a homely
metaphor, " As those sponges which draw water into them-
selves 1 ."

Thus the Messiah, typified by Jacob, may be regarded as
triumphing over temptation in "the land of drought" by
thirsting after God. On the other hand the Psalmist says
that Israel " went on still to rebel against the Most High in
the drought? Here Symmachus renders "in drought" by
" in thirst*? This shews how naturally the thought of
" tempting in a wilderness " might suggest to a Jew the thought
of " tempting by means of thirst? As a fact, Israel was
tempted both by thirst and by hunger ("pined with hunger
and with drouth ") but " in the land of drouth " the temptation
of " drouth " would be the more prominent of the two.

Joshua ben Levi on " the Psalm of David in the wilderness
of Judah," quoting Deuteronomy on "the great and terrible
wilderness, [the] serpent, burning (lit. seraph), and scorpion,
and thirsty-ground where there was no water," said " Serpent
points to Babel, Seraph to Media, Scorpion to Greece,
Thirsty-ground where no water is to Rome (lit. Edom). The
Serpent has a banner, the Seraph has a banner, and the Scorpion
has a banner, but the Thirsty-ground where no water is has no
banner 3 ." In the context, the Rabbi apparently personifies
Rome as Revelation does. He seems to mean that Rome
was more insidiously dangerous than the other Empires.
While tolerating Judaism (as long -as it did not disturb the

1 Gen. r. on Gen. xxviii. 13, quoting Ps. Ixiii. I.

Ixxviii. 17. Compare the two following instances of "drouth " in
Milton /'. l\t-^(iincd\. 325 u pined with hunger and with drouth " (i.e. thirst}
and ib. iii. 274 "and inaccessible the Arabian drouth" (i.e. desert}.

'I'cliill. on I's. Ixiii. i (Wii. p. 340) quoting Dent. viii. 15. The

ilnistv -round" (Cicsen. 855 a) somewhat resembles the Heb.

for "fast," but is never confused with it. In Amos viii. n, the reading of

Tiommiu, 'i. <>o3), Ai/uor (vdarns\ is an error for 5n//-ni/

160

THE TEMPTATION

Empire) she corrupted the Chosen People by diffusing a love
of servile quietude and a thirst for material pleasures. " This
sinful woman (Frevlerzn) " he says, " has no banner."

The same passage of Deuteronomy is quoted by Philo in
connection with the serpents in the wilderness, and the
Serpent of brass, and the supply of water from the Rock,
to shew how like is to be cured by like in both cases. The
bite of the Serpent that is below is to be healed by Tem-
perance, the Serpent that is from above. The thirst for
the water that is below is to be satisfied by thirsting for, and
drinking, the water that is from above 1 .

In concluding these observations on the Marcan tradition,
" He was with the wild-beasts," we must take some notice of
the ambiguity of the word " serpents " in other passages of the
Gospels. In Luke, Jesus speaks about giving to the Seventy
authority " to tread upon serpents and scorpions and over all
the power of the enemy." The Mark-Appendix has " they
shall take up serpents " after " they shall cast out devils."
The latter passage indicates a belief that power over serpents
or wild-beasts in the literal sense, went hand in hand with
power over serpents or wild-beasts in a spiritual sense. But
the former (Luke) seems to take " serpents " merely in a
spiritual sense, whether called " wild-beasts " under the domi-
nation of their superior, " the Wild-Beast," or " serpents "
under "the Serpent-." Also, the Matthew-Luke account of
the Temptation, though nowhere mentioning " serpents," or
"wild-beasts," introduces a quotation from a Psalm which
suggests a picture of the Messiah carried on the arms of
angels in the air above a multitude of wild-beasts or serpents
on the earth below 3 .

1 Philo i. 802, on which see Son 3391 foil.

2 Lk. x. 19, Mk xvi. 17 18.

:; Mt. iv. 6, Lk. iv. 10 u, quoting Ps. xci. 11 12 "He shall give his
angels... against a stone." After this follows " Thou shalt tread on the lion
and the adder...."

A. B. 161 ii

THE TEMPTATION

On the whole, it appears a reasonable conclusion, apart
from the possibility of a verbal confusion between " wild-
beasts " and " fasting," that Matthew and Luke have omitted
the former because of its obscurity. This may be illustrated
by the Pauline saying about " fighting-with-wild-beasts " at
Ephesus, which some have taken literally as meaning "fighting
with beasts in the amphitheatre " though no Roman citizen
was liable to this 1 . Tertullian illustrates the saying by
quoting "We were weighed down exceedingly, beyond our
power, insomuch that we despaired even of life 2 ." This shews
that he regarded " fighting-with-wild-beasts " as a metaphor
denoting an extreme form of trial.

On this point the language of Ignatius, on his way to
martyrdom in Rome, is very instructive. To the Smyrnaeans
he says, literally and almost as if it had become a proverb
for Christian martyrs " In the presence of wild-beasts in the
presence of God 3 ." But to the Romans he uses the Pauline
verb, "From Syria even to Rome \ fight-witk-wild-beasts...\yy
night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a
company of soldiers 4 , who only wax worse when they are
kindly treated. Howbeit through their wrong doings I
become more completely a disciple ; 'yet am I not hereby
justified'. May I have joy of the wild-beasts that have been
prepared for me... 5 ." Here we have the verb " fight-with-
wild-beasts" used metaphorically and yet with allusion to the

1 i Cor. xv. 32.

2 Tertull. De Resurrect. 48, quoting 2 Cor. i. 8. His words ("illas
scilicet bestias Asiaticae pressurae") indicate that he assumes the " beasts"
to be metaphorical.

3 Ign. Smyrn. 4.

" K\ en... soldiers." Lightfoot says "This looks like a gloss at first
si-hi, but it is found in all the copies. It is added somewhat awkwardly in
explanation by Ignatius, as his obscure metaphor might otherwise have
been misunderstood. 11 If it was added by the Martyr's amanuensis, or at
some irery early date, by another hand, it would illustrate the attitude of

iristiani toward the obscure "wild-beasts" in Mark.
6 I^n. Kant. $ 5.

162

THE TEMPTATION

literal fulfilment that is in prospect, indicated by the noun
" -n'Md-beast" And it should be noted that while he antici-
pates with joy the onslaught of the literal wild-beasts of
the arena, he feels bitterly the contact, night and day, with
the human wild-beasts, who became all the more bestial for
kind treatment.

This may illustrate the nature of the " wild-beasts " by
which the Son of Man may be supposed to have been
tempted. They were not only the " demons " or ministers of
Satan that He exorcised from the possessed ; they were also the
demons that He could not exorcise. They were the serpents
and scorpions in the hearts of those who declared that He
cast out devils by Beelzebub, and who exulted over His
disciples when they could not cast out a devil from a poor
demoniac child, making Jesus Himself exclaim, " O faithless
and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, how
long shall I bear you 1 ! " Such also were the "wild-beasts"
that collected round the Cross whom early Christians would
regard as fulfilling the Psalmist's predictions about " lions "
and "dogs" and "bulls of Bashan " exulting over the
Crucified. It was not about such creatures as those that
Ignatius could have said " In the presence of the wild-beasts
in the presence of God ! " On the contrary, the more Jesus
loved mankind, the more He must have shrunk from the
presence of such perversions of humanity, trophies of Satan,
almost as if He were forced to say "In the presence of such wild-
beasts in the absence of God ! Eli, Eli, lama sabachihani*!"

1 See Son 3518 d on Mk ix. 19.

2 If the Temptation could be regarded as a prophetic summary of
Christ's Progress through what Bunyan calls "the wilderness of this
world," then we might perhaps illustrate the Marcan emphasis on " wild-
beasts " by the Johannine emphasis on "the wolf," which, though but
once mentioned in the Fourth Gospel, is an essential feature of the
Parable of the Good Shepherd, and could not be removed without a
serious misrepresentation of the object of Christ's whole life. The re-
peated attempts, or desires, to kill Jesus of which the Synoptists say

. 163 II 2

THE TEMPTATION

Having dealt with the Marcan tradition and with its
omission by Matthew and Luke, we have now to ask whether
John appears to make any attempt to express its spiritual
meaning.

6. The Johannine equivalent of Mark

We have seen above that John differs from the Synoptists
fundamentally as to the use of the word "tempt" since he
uses it only in a good sense whereas they use it in a bad one.
Also the Synoptic accounts of the " temptation " have left us
in doubt as to the nature of " the wilderness " in which it took
place and the period of its duration, though all mention
" forty days." Further, though they agree that Satan or the
devil was the tempter, it is only Matthew and Luke that
represent Satan as addressing words of temptation to Jesus.
In Mark, we are left free to believe that Jesus was tempted by
Satan, with the permission of God, as Job was, without direct
utterance of Satan to the person tempted. In Chronicles,
where " Satan " is said to have " moved David," the parallel
Samuel says " The anger of the Lord was kindled against
Israel and he moved David 1 ." Elsewhere the Scripture speaks
of God Himself as "tempting" Israel, and uses the same
Hebrew word as when it charges Israel with "tempting"
God 2 . In such cases our English Versions mostly vary their

thing, but comparatively little are part of the trial of the Good
Shepherd who is always contending against "the wolf" and ready to do
what the "hireling" will not do to "lay down his life for the sheep."
( )f this metaphor Mark (vi. 34, xiv. 27) and Matthew (ix. 36, xxvi. 31) give
but slight suggestions, and the parallel Luke gives none at all (see Son
3278, 3425 c, 3440 b, 3548). But if we may accept the Marcan " wild-
i the Temptation as including a reference to the assaults of " the
wolf" upon "the sheep," then we may say that Mark does in an obscure
.mil indirect way include a latent reference to Jesus as the Shepherd of

1, which the other Synoptists have omitted but which John has
amplified and rinphasi/ed.
1 i Chr. xxi. i, 2 S. xxiv. I.

Gen. xxii. i, Kxod. xv. 25, xx. 20, &c. See Gesen. 650 a.

164

THE TEMPTATION

rendering, and describe Israel as " tempting" but God as
"proving" There is, however, one notable exception. Our
Authorised Version describes God as " tempting " Abraham.
But the Revised has "proved" Symmachus, taking the word
as identical with a similar one meaning " uplift as a banner"
renders it "glorified^"

This resembles the Johannine paraphrases of the Synoptic
traditions about the " crucifying " or " killing " of Jesus. For
these John substitutes "glorifying" or "lifting up" It would
therefore not be surprising if, instead of speaking of Jesus as
being "tempted" John were to say "glorified" or "lifted up"
In referring to the Temptation, this would result in the
phrase " lifted up in the wilderness" Such a phrase we find
applied to the Brazen Serpent and connected with Jesus in a
saying that follows the doctrine about regeneration from
above with water and the Spirit : " As Moses lifted up the
serpent in tJie wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be
lifted up, that whosoever believeth may in him have eternal
life 2 ."

John seems to be here glancing at the Marcan narrative
which says that Jesus was " tempted in tJie wilderness "
immediately after His baptism :! . He treats this, not as a
historical fact about Jesus, but as a spiritual law of general
application, that after the baptism there must be a " lifting up
in the wilderness 4 ." But when this law is exemplified in the

1 Gen. xxii. i on which see Field, quoting Ps. iv. 6.
- Jn iii. 14.

3 See above, p. 148 ; comp. p. 150, n. 3, where it is shewn that the
parallel Luke does not imply " immediately."

4 Comp. Pseudo-Jerome on Mk i. 12 13 "Tune Spiritus nos expellit
in desertum quadragenario numero tentandos a Satana, ut patientia nobis
probationem, probatio autem spem, spes vero charitatem generet : Cum
non sit nobis colluctatio adversus carnem et sanguinem, sed adversus
principatus, et reliqua. Et tune bestiae pacatae erunt nobiscum, cum in
area animae nostrae, munda cum immundis animalibus mansuescimus, et
cum leonibus sicut Daniel cubamus, cum spiritus non sit adversus carnem
et sanguinem, nee caro concupiscat adversus spiritum."

165

THE TEMPTATION

Word or Son, it means a lifting up on the Cross, as on a banner,
a lifting up, for sinners, of the Son of Man made like unto
sinners, and indeed, as Paul says, "made sin," for the sinful
sons of man. The essence of the Marcan saying that Jesus
" was with the wild-beasts (or, serpents) " is expressed by
saying that He became, in outward form, one of themselves,
the Serpent of Brass, identified with that which was most
sinful in themselves, in order that He, the Serpent, or Seraph
(so Origen implied) of celestial fire, might heal those bitten
by the serpents of the fires of earth 1 .

For details of the connection at first sight so abrupt
between the Johannine doctrine of the serpent and regeneration
by water and the Spirit, the reader is referred to a previous
treatise 2 . Here it will be well to add something about John's
way of regarding the wilderness as a land of " thirst " and of
"wild-beasts," attaching to both words all the associations
that Scripture attaches to the cravings that made Israel
murmur against the Lord, and to the serpents and scorpions
that attacked Israel as a chastisement. We may regard him
or rather some early and sympathetic disciple of his as
soliloquising thus :

" Matthew and Luke seem not to have perceived that
Mark's tradition had Deuteronomy in view, where it is said
to Israel, ' The Lord thy God hath led thee these forty years
in the wilderness, that he might humble thee, to tempt (or,
prove) thee/ and again, ' He led thee through the great and
terrible wilderness, serpent, burning (lit. seraph), and scorpion,
and thirsty-ground where there was no water 3 .'

.v;;/ 3396 foil, "on 'fiery [serpent]' or 'seraph,' " where, however,
the suggestion (3397) that Jerome is " probably following Origen" is an
error. See Jerome's Letters xviii and Ixi expressly condemning Origen's

'-' .W/ 3391 foil., "'Water' and 'the serpent,' how connected."

it viii. 2, 1 5, quoted above, p. 160, where a Rabbi finds an allusion

to tin- four empires of the world.

1 66

THE TEMPTATION

44 That the temptation was in some sense a ' lifting up '
Matthew and Luke have perceived. But they have taken it
as only a lifting up on the Temple, or on a high mountain.
Also they have spoken of the Lord as looking down on the
principalities and powers of this world. But what are the
powers of this evil world except the wild-beasts, or serpents,
or scorpions, mentioned in the Law and in the Psalms,
above which the Messiah is lifted up? These they do not
mention. But Mark mentions them when he speaks of ' wild-
beasts/

"Also Matthew and Luke represent the first temptation
as being to create bread. But the Law places first 'the
thirsty ground where there was no water,' and then the water
from the rock, and not till afterwards the manna 1 . Elsewhere,
the Three Gospels speak of the Lord as giving bread to men,
but they do not speak of Him as giving water. Yet all
temptation may be best described as thirst, the thirst for the
pleasures of the flesh. And the antidote to this is not to
be found in any negative Law that says, in effect, * Thou shalt
not drink this, or that.' The only antidote is the fountain of
the living water, the Holy Spirit, in man's own heart, making
man athirst to do good good service to the Father in heaven
and to the brethren on earth 2 .

" Philo speaks of the serpents of pleasure, and of the
brazen Serpent of Temperance. But the disciples of Christ
say that their brazen Serpent is Christ Himself, their Love,
their Passion 3 . Their thirst for His love, being daily satisfied,

1 Deut. viii. 15 16.

2 Comp. Sir. xxiv. 21 "They that eat me [i.e. Wisdom] shall yet be
hungry, and they that drink me shall yet be thirsty."

3 Comp. Ign. Rom. 7 coi/ [yap] ypd(pa) vfjuv fpwv rot) dirodavelv ' 6 epos
eptas eVravpcorai, /cat OVK ffrnv ev ep,oi irvp <pi\6ij\ov. Origen (see Light
3681 a "though perhaps wrongly") and other Greek authorities take
epos as meaning the personified Passion of Love, and as being applied
to Christ somewhat as dyd-n-rj is applied to God. Lightfoot ad loc.
objects, as "fatal," that "it would tear the clause out of the context."

167

THE TEMPTATION

and yet daily increased, by the living water of His Spirit,
should make them do good, not because they control their evil
impulses, but because they have no impulse that is not good.

" How then can the two truths be expressed, the one, the
truth concerning the Lord, as being the type of Israel, tempted
in the land of thirst ; the other, the truth about that which
satisfies the righteous and spiritual thirst of the soul?

" First, in the first of the Lord's signs, it is shewn that the
Lord superseded the purifications of the Law, and the water-
pots of the Jews, by the new wine of the Gospel. He did not
neglect the former. He filled up the water-pots from the
water of the well. But the water in them is not said to have
become wine. Then He caused that same water or else
perhaps the water direct from the well to be brought to the
table of the Bridegroom's Feast. And now, in the presence
of the Bridegroom, it became wine 1 .

" Secondly, it is shewn that although the Lord felt thirst
after the flesh, He was not really ' tempted ' by thirst after
the flesh. Meeting a woman of Samaria, at noon 2 , and when
He was 'tired out' with travel, He said 'Give me to drink.'
At once, she refused. Yet Jesus, in His thirst and weariness,
converted her to belief. Afterwards He converted the Samaritan
village. But meantime, to the disciples who had come bringing
Him food, He said that He had food of which they knew not,

I now think that Origen is right. This explanation of e'/xos suits the
preceding f'poii/ : " I passionately-desire to die ; my Passionate Desire is
crucified [and I am crucified with Him in anticipation] ; there is no
longer in me the fire that clings to matter...." This is abrupt, but not
(I think; "fatal " dislocation. If Christ is called Eros, Desire, the name
at once calls up to Greeks the familiar "bite" of Desire, and helps us to
understand the obscure type of the Brazen Serpent. See Son 3397 and
3397^, on Onsen's prayer " May the divine word bite us ! May it burn
up our KMil I I", and on Philo's definition of the business of the Serpent,
'I empenux e, M to bite, wound, and destroy passion."

Jolt. r/V. 2281-3.

- Jn iv. 6 " (l |,,,ut the sixth hour," comp. Ps. xci. 6 (LXX) "the mid-
day demon."

1 68

THE TEMPTATION

namely, the doing of the will of the Father. Might He not
then have said to the woman of Samaria ' I have water to
drink that ye know not of? He did say this to her afterwards,
in effect teaching her the doctrine of the living water. But
at the beginning He said, ' Give me to drink,' making the
thirst of the flesh subordinate to the thirst to do the Father's
will by converting the souls of the Samaritans.

" Thirdly, in the end of all the temptations, when He was
uttering His last words on the Cross, 'Jesus, knowing that
all things were now finished, that the scriptures might be
accomplished, saith, / thirst! Now here Mark and Matthew
say that Jesus cried aloud a saying from the Psalms ' Eli, Eli
(that is, my God, my God) why hast thou forsaken me?'
Luke omits this, partly, perhaps, because, if it were taken by
itself, and not as the first verse of a Psalm beginning with
sorrow and ending with joy, it might be misunderstood as
though the Son believed that He had been ' forsaken ' by the
Father in some manner not consonant with divine justice or
righteousness 1 .

" Yet, if it may be said that the face of the Father is hidden
from those who sin, then it may be also said that He who
placed Himself with sinners in order to feel the burdens
that they feel, and to take them upon Himself might perhaps
also be constrained, for the time, to see that which sinners
see ; so that He saw the Father, for the moment, as if for-
saking Him, and all the more earnestly desired to enter into
His presence and to rest in His bosom as a babe on the
mother's breast. And this is expressed by the Psalmist in
the words that address God calling Him * Eli ' and saying,
" O God(Elohim), Eli (i.e. my God) art thou... my soul thirsteth
for thee, my flesh longeth for thee, in a land of drought and
faintness where no water is-.' This was the temptation, or

1 See Mk xv. 34, Mt. xxvii. 46, quoting the first words of Ps. xxii.,
which ends with ib. 21 31 "thou hast answered me. ..he hath done it."

2 Ps. Ixiii. i. Targ. has "O God, my strength art thou."

169

THE TEMPTATION

the chief part of it, that befell Israel in the wilderness. Only
the thirst of Israel was after the flesh. But the thirst of Jesus
though it was also bodily thirst was thirst after the Spirit,
thirsting for the presence of the God of heaven at the moment
of passing out of the wilderness of this world.

" But as to this thirst the Three differ from one another in
the following matter :

Mk xv. 36 Mt. xxvii. 48 Lk. xxiii. 36

And one ran, and And... one of them And the soldiers

filling a sponge full ran and took a sponge, also mocked him,...

of vinegar. . gave him and filled it with vine- offering him vinegar,
to drink. gar... and gave him
to drink.

" Here Luke is right in saying that those who offered
the 'vinegar' were 'the soldiers.' It was indeed the ordinary
drink of soldiers, so that they had brought it to the place
where they were on guard. But whereas Luke places this act
some time before the Lord's last words and regards it as an
act of mockery, Mark appears to be right in placing it later
on, perhaps as an offering of kindness. To Luke it may have
seemed that kindness could not be intended because it was
a fulfilment of the Psalmist's words, and the Psalm speaks of
' g a U ' given ' for meat,' and then adds ' In my thirst they gave
me vinegar to drink 1 .' Luke does not quote this from the
Psalms, nor does he mention the word ' scripture ' here ; nor
does Mark or Matthew; but certainly 'Scripture' was thereby
' fulfilled,' and the words of the Psalm certainly imply
mockery.

" Yet it does not seem that the vinegar was in this last

moment offered in mockery, even if it was offered thus before.

In the Three Gospels it is said that, when Jesus cried out for

the List time, the centurion said ' Truly this man was God's

or, righteous-.' If the centurion expressed what the other

Ixix. 21.
- Mk xv. 39, Mt. \\vii. 54 (om. "man"), Lk. xxiii. 47. Somewhat

170

THE TEMPTATION

soldiers felt, it would seem that at that time their hearts
had been turned toward the Lord. And when did they begin
to be turned? If the vinegar was offered in answer to His
own request (for ' I thirst ' was truly a request) and this,
too, when they were on the point of calling Him ' Son of God '
or ' righteous,' then it would seem that already they had begun
to be friendly. They may have mocked before, but they could
not well be mocking now.

" But some may say as perhaps Luke said ' If the
vinegar was not offered in mockery, then there was no
fulfilment of Scripture,' and they may ask ' Does it not seem
needful that the Scripture should have been hereby fulfilled ? '
It does. And this is shewn expressly, in the words, ' Jesus,
knowing that all things were now finished, that the scripture
migJit be accomplished, saith, I thirst 1 ' But it is not to
be supposed that the Lord's purpose, in saying, '/ thirst?
was merely this that the Roman soldiers, like machines,
should be moved to fulfil a prophecy about ' vinegar,' and
that afterwards His disciples should go about the world,
saying, 'See, Jesus is the Lord, because He fulfilled a number
of prophecies, ending with a prophecy about vinegar!

" Assuredly we are not to suppose this. Much rather we
are to suppose that along with the fulfilment of the letter of
the prophecy, there was a fulfilment, and that an unexpected
one, in the Spirit. Of somewhat the same kind was the
fulfilment of the words ' They shall look unto him whom they
pierced 2 .' One of the soldiers pierced the Lord's side with

similarly (Jn i. 49 51) when Nathanael called Jesus "Son of God," Jesus,
in reply, spoke of Himself as "Son of Man." But in the Synoptic pas-
sages the same speaker is recorded as speaking differently.

1 Jn xix. 2%. See Joh. Gr. 2115 "Our conclusion is, then, that
according to Johannine grammar the ii/a clause depends on rereAeo-rai ;
but, according to Johannine suggestion and intention, the tva clause is to
be repeated so as to depend on Xe'yei."

2 Jn xix. 37, quoting Zech. xii. 10, "unto (ft?)," Heb. "unto me" with
v.r. "unto him." LXX has irpbs ^e....

171

THE TEMPTATION

his spear and straightway there came out blood and water.
The man by no means did this out of mere cruelty and still
less to fulfil prophecy. He did it, in the way of a soldier's
duty, to make sure that the Lord Jesus had died on the
Cross. Yet from this act, which some would call a matter of
chance, there came forth what the Prophet Zechariah calls a
fountain for sin and uncleanness in Israel 1 , so that the Gentile
world being cleansed in this blood and water might 'look
unto him whom they pierced.'

" Let us go back to the saying of Jesus to the Samaritan
woman. To her He said nearly the same thing as to the
Roman soldiers, namely, ' Give me to drink.' By those words
He led the way to the conversion of Samaria and prepared
the Samaritans to receive from Him the gift of the living
water. And so here, when He said ' I thirst,' the words were
so shaped as to mean, in effect, ' Give me to drink, and I will
give you to drink.' And so it came to pass. For straightway
He gave them the fountain of blood and water.

" I do not deny that the words * I thirst ' are far from
seeming superhuman or divine. The Greeks might say that
they do not seem worthy even of one whom they would call
4 a hero.' But the tradition is that He uttered them ' in order
that the Scripture might be fulfilled.' Does this mean merely
that He might fulfil that single passage in the Scripture
which spoke of ' vinegar ' ? Does it not rather mean that the
whole of Scripture regards the Father in heaven as continually
saying to each son of man on earth ' My son, give me thine
heart 2 ,' so that He Himself, the Giver of all good, the Eternal
Love, may be said to be, in some sense, thirsting for our love,
to gain which He sent His Son to live and to die for men,
i cssing the divine thirst upon the Cross ?
1 Regarded in this light, the saying ' I thirst,' followed by
4 It is finished/ is not unworthy to be the last utterance of the

1 /cch. xiii. i. 2 Prov. xxiii. 26.

172

THE TEMPTATION

Son of God, incarnate as the Son of Man. Nor does it seem
the less worthy because it condescends (so to speak) to
thoughts of unspiritual souls. To the Roman soldiers,
' thirst for the presence of God ' would have been an unintel-
ligible form of words ; but bodily thirst was a thing that they
could understand and compassionate. ' This mad Nazoraean
whom we have been mocking,' they might say, ' is after all,
not so much up in the air that he cannot feel what we feel.
He thirsts, like one of us ; let us do something for him.'

"If the Lord Jesus succeeded thus in converting mockery
into pity, it was a victory not unworthy of Him. In some
copies of Luke's Gospel, the Lord is said to have added, con-
cerning the Roman soldiers, " Father, forgive them, for they
know not what they do 1 .' To those who consider the meaning
of ' forgiveness,' and how it depends upon a change of heart,
it may seem that the Lord Jesus, by turning the hearts of the
soldiers from mockery to compassion, prepared the way for the
forgiveness of their sins by crying ' I thirst,' no less than if
He had said ' I pray for these men that they may be
forgiven '. "

7. ^And the angels began-to-minister (or, werc-
ministering) unto Jiiui "

Luke altogether omits this. And there is a slight dif-
ference between Mark and Matthew. Matthew omits the
article before " angels " and adds " come " in the past tense, to
"minister" in the imperfect tense :

Mk i. 13 Mt. iv. ii

And the angels began-to- And behold, angels came-near

minister (or, were ministering) and began-to-minister unto him 2 ,
unto him.

1 Lk. xxiii. 34. Placed by W. H. in double brackets.

2 Mt. iv. 1 1 Trpoo-fjXQov <al SITJKOVOW shews that Matthew distinguishes
the past " came " from the imperfect " began-to-minister." It also makes
"were ministering" an impossible rendering. Perhaps Matthew desired

173

THE TEMPTATION

This ministration of angels to the Son of Man occurring
at the outset of His public work on earth, recalls the words
" But when he again bringeth-in the Firstborn into the world,
he saith, * And let all the angels of God worship him 1 .' " But
what are these " angels of God " ? There is some doubt
whether the quotation is from the Psalms " Worship him all
ye gods (LXX His (i.e. God's) angels)" or from a very corrupt
LXX version of Deuteronomy " Rejoice, O ye nations, [with]
his people"; but in either case the Greek "angels of God"
might mean ''gods of the nations" so that the summons is
addressed to " false gods " to worship the true one 2 . Hence it
is possible that Mark here might mean, or might be regarded
by Luke as possibly meaning, that angels of evil, being
subdued by Christ, came over to His side, as it were, and
served Him. Clement of Alexandria has preserved an old
tradition about Mark's angels to the following obscure effect :
" Having overcome these [i.e. the beasts] and their ruler, He
is now ' ministered to ' by angels, as being now a manifest
King. For he that has overcome angels in the flesh is naturally
now served by angels*"

to remove the Marcan ambiguity as regards " ministering." But why
does Matthew omit "the"? See below, n. 3. "The angels" would
naturally mean " the angels of God." "Angels " might mean " evil angels."

1 Heb. i. 6.

2 Ps. xcvii. 7, " Elohim," Targ. " the nations that serve idols," Syr.
"his angels" ; Deut. xxxii. 43 (LXX) "(i) Rejoice, ye heavens, with him ;
and (2) let the sons of God worship him ; (3) rejoice, ye nations, with his
people ; and (4) let all the angels of God find-strength in him."

Comp. Jer. Aboda Zara iv. 7 " Enfin, dit R. Nahman au nom de
R. Mena, un jour 1'idole viendra s'agenouiller devant 1'Eternel, puis
n-aUra de la terre, selon les mots (Ps. xcvii. 7) tous les faux dieux se
nrnmt devant Lui."

in. Alex. 988, Excerpt. Theod. Ixxxv. i. In such a context, it seems

probable- that Hi. Ixxxvi. 3, which classes the "angels" in i Pet. i. 12

("an re to look into") with (Mt. xxv. 11) the "foolish virgins,"

KM take "angels" as "the holy angels." Who are the angels that

'. i come"? Are they the "wild-beasts," regarded as "angels of

Satan"?

174

THE TEMPTATION

To what occasion does the Epistle to the Hebrews refer
the summons to the " angels " to " worship " ? The words
" \vhen he again bringeth-in the Firstborn into the world "
are ambiguous, and make the answer doubtful 1 . Some might
regard the Marcan " angels " as having recognised Christ at
His Baptism and as immediately following Him into the
wilderness where they began to " minister " to Him. Ac-
cepting that as one of the occasions, we may say that angels
might minister to Christ at His Birth, Baptism, Resurrection,
Ascension, and Second Advent. The same ambiguity attaches
itself to the words " appeared to angels " in a Pastoral Epistle :
" He who was manifested in the flesh, was justified in the
Spirit, appeared to angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was received up in glory 2 ."
Perhaps the least unsatisfactory explanation of this brief and
early creed would be that " was preached among the nations "
is a corruption for " was preached among the Gentiles in
Sheol 3 ." In that case, " appeared to angels" might refer to
Christ's Resurrection, which might be presumed by some to
have been witnessed by " angels " before they announced it

1 Ambiguity is created by " again " and " Firstborn." " Again " may
mean (i) "on the other hand," or (2) "back again"; "Firstborn" may
mean, not Jesus born at Bethlehem, but Jesus (Rom. i. 4) "defined"
as Firstborn " by the resurrection of the dead." See Chrysostom's
comment.

2 i Tim. iii. 16. The explanation of Chrysostom is not satisfactory.
He appears to quote without acknowledgment (if it is a quotation) a
passage about the "mystery" of "angels seeing Christ along with us"
from Clem. Alex, (see Clem. Alex. Fragm. 7th book of Hypotyposeis,
ed. Stahlin, vol. iii. p. 200). Stahlin does not refer to Chrysostom. The
text of Clement is perhaps corrupt.

3 Against this, among several objections, is this, that we should have
expected, not "was preached? but, as in i Pet. iii. 19, "He preached? If
"was received up in glory" could mean (as has been suggested by a
friend) " was lifted up in glory among the Churches of the Gentiles," the
order would be explicable. But that meaning does not seem to me
probable.

175

THE TEMPTATION

to the women. Then followed belief " in the world " (earth
above Sheol) and then that " receiving up in glory " which we
call the Ascension.

8. Matthew's version, and Luke's omission, of the

" ministering" of the " angels "

Between Mark and Matthew, as has been pointed out above,
there is probably a difference as to the time of the ministration.
But Mark differs also from Matthew and Luke in that he
makes no mention of any departure of Satan or of any end of
the temptation :

Mk i. 13 (probably) Mt. iv. n (probably) Lk. iv. 13

And the angels Then the devil And having corn-
were [all the while] leaveth him 1 , and pleted every tempta-
ministering unto him. behold, angels ap- tion, the devil de-
proached, and began- parted from him 1
to-minister unto him. until a season.

If we may introduce Luke as thinking aloud, his probable
reasons for amending Matthew might be expressed thus :
' It is not seemly to describe the devil as ' letting go ' or
' dismissing ' the Lord Jesus, which Matthew's word might
mean. Moreover, since it sometimes means ' sending away
for ever 2 ' it might convey a wrong meaning, for the Lord
was tempted afterwards shortly before He suffered. It will
therefore be better to say that the devil ' departed,' or was
' caused to depart,' from the Lord Jesus, using the language
*f Paul who * besought the Lord thrice ' that ' an angel of
Satan' might 'depart' from him 3 . That 'angel of Satan'

1 " Lra\< -th," (tyirjaiv, might mean "leaves alone" or "dismisses."
I )eparted," u7TfrTi/, might mean " withdrew " from something opposite in
nature as in Lk. xiii. 27, Ps. vi. 8 ("depart from me, all ye workers of
iniquity"). Com p. 2 Cor. xii. 8 "I besought the Lord thrice that it
[/.,. the ,-m--l of Satan, above mentioned] might depart from me." The
latter is the more appropriate word here.

when applied to the divorce of wives, and in some other cases.
:I 2 Cor. xii. 8.

176

THE TEMPTATION

did not ' depart ' from the Apostle. But on this occasion
Satan * departed ' from the Lord Jesus, because the Lord
had fulfilled the whole of the temptation appointed for the
time. And this can be made plain by adding ' having com-
pleted [according to the will of God] 1 every temptation.'

"Also" Luke might say "'until a season ' will prepare
my readers for the temptation before the Passion. At that
time, Mark and Matthew agree that He said ' Pray that ye
enter not into temptation.' But I add a tradition that He
said to the chief priests 'This is your hour, and the [appointed]
power 2 of darkness ' ; and some traditions say that, during the
temptation before the Passion, ' There appeared unto him an
angel from heaven strengthening him 3 .' Whether this be so
or not it seems to me that Mark is wrong in saying here that
' the angels were ministering to him,' namely, supplying the

" having completely-finished." The word occurs, in the
Gospels, only here and Mk xiii. 4 (of the divine completion of all things
predicted) and Lk. iv. 2 (of the divinely ordained "forty days" of temp-
tation). Elsewhere in N.T. (thrice) it refers to a sacred number of days
(Acts xxi. 27) or to God's accomplishments (Rom. ix. 28, Heb. viii. 8,
quotations). And so here, " having completely-finished [according to the
will of God]."

2 Lk. xxii. 53 "[appointed] power," cov<n'a. The word mostly means
"authority," or "lawful power." Here it means the temporary and
apparent reign of Satan, permitted (so far as outward acts go) for the
fulfilment of God's will. Comp. Jn xiv. 30 "the prince of the world
cometh," where the "coming" is regarded not only as future but also
as permitted by the Father.

3 Lk. xxii. 43 tvurxvatv avrov. The word occurs in N.T. elsewhere
only in Acts ix. 19 " and having taken food he received- strength (eWo^i^)."
In LXX it is freq., and is once used with "angels," namely, Deut. xxxii.
43 " let all the angels of God (?) strengthen (or, find strength in} htm (avT<o
v.r. avrovs-)," on which see p. 174, n. 2. Steph. Thes. gives no instance
(exc. Theophr. fr. i. 65 (error for 63), " this, in each thing, is strong (rovr
fvurxvttv ocaoro))") of fvurxvat with dative. But see the corrupt Hos. x. u.

The rare use of cVur^v in N.T., and its occurrence with ayyeXos in
(i) a certainly corrupt version of Deut. xxxii. 43 and (2) a possibly corrupt
version of Lk. xxii. 43, suggest that the latter (2) was derived from the
former (i).

A. B.

177

THE TEMPTATION

Lord with food during the forty days. For, if so, how could
He have fasted ? Mark, it is true, is silent about the fasting.
But Moses fasted or rather, to be exact, he ate nothing on
Mount Horeb, and Elijah on the way to it, and both for
' forty days.' So that Mark seems to have omitted the
fasting through error. Or perhaps he thought that * fasting '
implies ' afflicting one's soul,' and that Jesus did not thus
'fast' And that is true; so that 'ate nothing' would be
more exact than 'fasted 1 .' But perhaps he omitted it only
through extreme brevity, assuming that his readers would
take it for granted. And for the same reasons he may have
omitted all mention of the departure of Satan which as
I have said was only for a time."

9- John, on this " ministering " of the " angels "

On the special point in question, namely, the difference
between Mark who says that the angels were ministering to
Jesus and Luke who says, in effect, that the angels did
not minister now but, perhaps, at a later " season " John
appears to intervene by placing, almost immediately after the
baptism of Jesus, and as His first utterance to the disciples
collectively, that sentence which we have already frequently
quoted and must frequently quote hereafter, being a key-
sentence in the Johannine Gospel, " Ye shall see the heaven
opened [for ever], and the angels of God ascending and
descending on the Son of Man 2 ." Also, as regards the
objection raised above against Mark, " The angels could not
have been ministering to Jesus during the forty days in the
wilderness, for, if so, He would not have fasted," John in-
directly suggests an answer elsewhere by saying, in effect,
that Jesus did not "fast." He must have had food all the
while. For He was doing the will of the Father, and He

1 See $ 4 above.

- Jn i. 51, on which see Son 313340, 3374 foil.

THE TEMPTATION

Himself said to the disciples, when they offered Him food,
' ; I have meat to eat that ye know not of,... my meat is to do
the will of him that sent me 1 ."

As to the first of these utterances we have been led to the
conclusion that the angels ascending are the aspirations and
prayers of men, and the angels descending are the blessings
of God sent down as answers. Somewhat similarly Philo
having in view (as John has) the " ascending and descending
angels " on the " ladder " in Jacob's dream, calls the " angels "
the " words" sent down to be the physicians to the souls of
men 2 . But in Philo the Word itself, the Logos, is the name
given to the Sphere, or Place, in which the logoi or " words "
have their motion. In the Gospel, the " angels " ascend and
descend, not upon a " ladder," nor in a " place," but upon a
Person, the Son of Man, that is to say the incarnate Word a
conception alien from Philo's thought.

In the second of these utterances (" My meat is to do the
will of him that sent me ") John seems to be correcting a
defect in Luke, who does not shew, so clearly as Matthew
does, the meaning of Christ's doctrine concerning bread. For
in Luke's story of the Temptation Jesus says to Satan " It is
written that man shall not live on bread alone " not adding
what man does live on. But Matthew adds " but upon every
word that proceedeth out of the mouth of GodV And again,
in the Lord's Prayer, Luke places the prayer for " bread "
after " Thy kingdom come " without any intervening clause ;
but Matthew inserts " Tky will be done, as in heaven, so upon
earth" thereby suggesting that there is some connection
between the "giving" of "bread" by God from heaven to
man, and the "doing" of God's "will" by man on earth for

1 Jn iv. 32, 34-

1 "Physicians (larpfvovcri)," Philo i. 631. Cornp. ib. i. 122, God gives
food from Himself but " healing" through " angels " and " words (logoi}"
And note that " Raphael" means " God's Healer."

'' Ml. iv. 4, Lk. iv. 4, quoting Deut. viii. 3.

179 12 2

THE TEMPTATION

God. And this John expresses in the words " My meat is to
do the will of him that sent me."

Thus far concerning John's treatment of the tradition in
Mark (omitted by Matthew and Luke) about the ministering
of angels to Christ after His baptism, and about the manner
in which John regards angels and their ministering. But as
we have touched on other passages in the Gospels and the
Epistles where angels are mentioned in connection with Jesus,
it will be well here to note, at this stage, the two instances
where John elsewhere mentions angels or refers to. them.

10. "An angel hath spoken to him'' in John

The Johannine instance of " angel " just discussed occurs
in a saying of Jesus. Putting aside as an interpolated
though almost necessary explanation of the text the words
about " the angel of the Lord " who " went down at certain
seasons into the pool " of Bethesda 1 , we may say that the only
other Johannine instances are two, one where some of "the
multitude " say that " an angel hath spoken " to Jesus, and
another where Mary Magdalene " beholdeth two angels in
white " in the tomb of Jesus 2 . For the present we deal with
the " angel " that is said to have " spoken."

It is not called an " angel " by the Evangelist, but a voice,
" There came therefore a voice out of heaven." And Jesus
Himself confirms this language by immediately saying to the
multitude "This voice hath not come for my sake but for your
sakes." The larger part of the people seem to have believed
that it was neither a voice nor an angel : " The multitude
therefore that stood by and heard it, said that it had thundered;
others said, An angel hath spoken to him." The voice is
uttered in answer to the Son's prayer, "Father, glorify thy

K.V. mar^. of Jn v. 23, giving the interpolation in full, and,
as altci native names, Bethsaida, and Bethzatha.
2 Jn xii. 29, xx. 12.

180

THE TEMPTATION

name ! " It is uttered in the first person, " I have both
glorified it and will glorify it again." Presumably these words
were heard by the Disciple whom Jesus loved (in whose name
the Gospel is written) and by other Disciples, but not by the
multitude. The multitude heard a kol, that is, in Hebrew,
" voice." But kol also means " thunder," and especially
miraculous thunder. Bath Kol, Daughter of Voice, was a
recognised term, in the first century, for a miraculous "voice
from heaven," a kind of substitute for that " word of the
Lord" which came to Prophets in old days. This then is
what "the multitude" thought they heard; and some of
them called it "thunder," others the voice of an "angel 1 ."

These varieties of expression bring us face to face
with questions about Jewish beliefs in the first century
concerning angels, and about John's exact attitude toward
them questions important for several reasons. They bear
on the evidence for Christ's Resurrection, which all the
Evangelists connect in some way with angels, though Luke
calls them " men (viri)*" They also bear on modern thought
and modern practice among Christians. May we or may we
not regard the holy angel Michael, for example, as, in some
sense, a Person ? If so, may we look to him as in any sense
a mediator, or a transmitter of our prayers, and as deserving
of our worship, or adoration, in some form lower altogether
than that due to God, but still a real form 3 ?

Apart from the book of Daniel, which mentions Michael
and Gabriel, the Hebrew Scripture appears to accept no
personal angels. Resh Lakish said that the names of angels,
such as Michael, Raphael, and Gabriel, were brought back by

1 See " Bath Kol, or Voices from Heaven in Jewish Tradition," in
From Letter 72585.

2 Lk. xxiv. 4, see below, p. 191.

3 See Jer. Berach. ix. i (Schwab p. 156) "Rabbi Judan...said that, if
evil comes on men, they must not invoke Michael or Gabriel, but God
who will grant the prayer, as it is written (Joel ii. 32)...."

181

THE TEMPTATION

Israel from Babylon 1 . The Scripture frequently mentions
what is called by modern Hebraists " the theophanic angel 2 ."
But no "proper name "'is either given, or suggested, to that.
And there is very little to suggest that this or that angel in
Scripture has individuality or a special character.

In Genesis, for example, " three men " are described as
appearing to Abraham. They are addressed by him as " my
lord." Afterwards they are described as " the men " and it is
ominously said that they " looked toward Sodom." But a
little later we read " the two angels came to Sodom 3 ." In the
whole of this mysterious story, no names are mentioned in
Scripture. But Jewish commentators say that Michael,
Gabriel, and Raphael are signified. They also explain,
somewhat obscurely, why these celestial beings are called
" men " to Abraham but " angels " to Lot. Abraham is of
nobler nature than Lot. To the former therefore come
the Three, including the central Figure who represents the
Shechinah and who deigns His presence ; and the Three, as
"men," hold converse with the man, Abraham 4 . To Lot
come only two, and these not as " men " to a man, but as
angels of wrath to the dwellers in a sinful city. Apparently
the change from " three men " to " two angels " is to be
explained as follows. The central " man" if he were named,
would be called Michael ; Michael represents the Shechinah,
bringing the promise to Abraham. When the whole of the

1 Gen. r. on Gen. xviii. i (Wii. p. 225), xix. I (Wii. p. 237) on both of
which see Rashi.

2 Gesen. 521 b, giving as the first instances (i) Gen. xxi. 17 " the angel
of Elohim," (2) ib. xvi. 7, 9, 10, u "the angel of Jehovah."

3 Gen. xviii. i foil. " And the Lord appeared unto him. ..and he lifted
up his eyes. ..and lo, three men stood over against him. ..and he said My
lord," ib. 16 " And the men rose up from thence and looked toward Sodom :
and Abraham went with them. ..And the Lord said...," ib. 33 "And
//// /.<>f </ went his way, as soon as he had finished communing with
Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place, (xix. i) And the two
angels came to Sodom at even...."

4 See Gen. r., Rashi, and Philo on Gen. xviii. i foil, and xix. i foil.

182

THE TEMPTATION

mission to Abraham has been discharged (including the
disclosure of the doom of Sodom which elicits Abraham's
intercession) Michael, that is, the Shechinah, disappears from
the Sacred Triad (" and tJie Lord went /its way "). Then " the
two angels" passing on to their several tasks, Raphael to
rescue Lot, Gabriel to smite the City of Sin, "came to
Sodom " in the fatal "even." That appears to be the view
taken by Jewish tradition.

The Midrash on " the two angels " says " The doctrine is,
One angel cannot perform two missions, and two angels
cannot perform one mission." But why not ? The doctrine
would be explicable if an " angel " were nothing more than a
movement of material creation, adapted to a special occasion
and then passing away, as when the Lord " maketh winds his
angels [and] a flaming fire his ministers 1 ." But the angels
sent to Abraham and to Lot appear to be of a higher order.
This is expressly stated by the two Jerusalem Targums which
while quoting the Rabbinical doctrine about one angel for
one mission describe these three angels, severally, as " minis-
tering angels" and "high angds-" It is a reasonable inference

1 Ps. civ. 4 where R.V. marg. has "his angels winds." TehilL ad loc.
and other treatises state, as R. Jochanan's view, that the message-bringing
angels were made of wind, and the ministering angels were made of fire.
In the former case it is suggested that "one sent," or "apostle/' would be
a more exact word than "angel" to represent the meaning. Ps. civ. 4 is
referred to very frequently in the Midrash, e.g. on Gen. iii. 24, where it is
said that the "turnings" of the "sword" implied that they became now
men, now women, now winds, now angels. Exod. r. on Exod. xii. i 2
(Wii. p. 107) says that the angels [of fire] renew themselves daily by going
back into the fire-stream whence they issued. The thought of personal
angels, with names, such as Michael, Gabriel &c., does not belong to
O.T. (apart from Daniel).

2 On Gen. xviii. i, Targ. Jer. I " Behold three angels in the resemblance
of men were standing before him ; [angels] who had been sent from the
necessity of three things ; because it is not possible for a ministering
angel to be sent for more than one purpose at a time " ; Jer. 1 1 "The three
were sent for three things, because it is not possible that one of the high
angels should be sent for more things than one."

183

THE TEMPTATION

from these facts, and from the language of Philo about angels,
that in the first century, among orthodox Jews themselves,
apart from the views of Sadducces, there would be consider-
able differences of usage, even where there was no definite
difference of dogma.

For example, some Jews, accepting Daniel's Michael,
might draw the line there. Michael, they might say, meant
" Who is like God ? " That is to say, " There is none like
God 1 ." Such a name was uniquely fit for the collective
champion-name of Israel, the champion of Monotheism. The
Johannine Revelation, accepting this name and no other,
abounds in mentions of angels in various contexts. The
seven churches have seven "angels." The "seven stars" in
the right hand of the Living One are these seven angels.
There is an angel for each trumpet and for each phial of
woe, besides warlike angels of all kinds, each for its special
errand, conforming to the Jewish canon " One angel, one
mission." But not one of these angels is named. One of
them indeed is worshipped, at least incipiently, but the
incipient attempt is immediately checked, and the Seer is
twice told, " See thou do it not. I am a fellow-servant with
thee and with thy brethren that hold the testimony of Jesus ;
worship God 2 ."

Passing to the Gospels, we find that Luke alone mentions

1 See Son 3385 , on "Michael," quoting Numb. r. (on Numb. ii. 31,
Wii. p. 20) which explains the origin of the name Mi-cha-el, by combining
Exod. xv. ii and Deut. xxxiii. 26, and also quoting Rashi, on Exod. xxxiii.
14 "My presence (lit. face} shall go [with thee\? as saying " Juxta Targum
ejus [erit explicatio] non mittam amplius angelum, ego ipse ibo" But it
might have been added that "Targum" means "The Targum of Onkelos,"
which has "My Shechinah shall go." The Jerusalem Targum has
"wrath" instead of "presence" and interprets "go" as "go away":
"Await until the (lit.) expression of the countenance of my wrath shall
have gone away, and afterwards I will give thee rest" (and sim. in ib. 15
" If thy wrath go not from us"). This illustrates the remarkable diversity
of Jewish language about "angels" and about their equivalents.

- Rev. xix. 10, rep. xxii. 89.

184

THE TEMPTATION

an angel by name, and the name is not Michael but Gabriel.
To exclude Gabriel from a narrative of angelic visitation
would of course have been illogical for any orthodox
Christian writer in the first century, since Christians accepted
Daniel as Scripture, and Daniel mentioned Gabriel. No
Christian could censure Luke, or the author of the traditions
followed by Luke, for representing the promise of the birth,
first of John the Baptist, and then of Jesus, as having been
made, severally, to Zacharias and to Mary, by Gabriel 1 . And
" Gabriel " may have seemed more fit than " Michael," since
the latter, in Daniel (as well as in Revelation) was associated
with warfare, while Gabriel was the Enlightener and the
Bearer of Promise 2 .

Yet many first-century Christians might feel that it was
unwise to encourage in the Church traditions that seemed
lightly to introduce, according to the precedent in Daniel, a
named and personal angel, where " the angel of the Lord," or
" the angel of the Lord Jesus," or " the Spirit of Jesus," or " the
Lord Jesus," seemed likely to be nearer to the truth. The
multiplicity of angels in the book of Enoch and early
Jewish apocrypha, and the language about them used by
Paul, Peter, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, shew that the
tendency condemned above by R. Judan 3 to "invoke
Michael and Gabriel," might easily include Uriel, the Light
of God, and a multitude of other divine attributes converted
into persons.

These details may seem out of place in a treatise on the
Fourfold Gospel. And so they would be, if we were dis-
cussing merely the words of the Four Gospels. But we are
also comparing their thoughts, their tendencies, and (what we
may call) their anti-tendencies. And through these details we

1 Lk. i. 19, 26.

2 Dan. viii. 16, ix. 21. Jerome says that the man that says to Gabriel
" Make this man understand " is called Michael by the Jews (Son 3374 c).

3 See above, p. 181, n. 3.

185

THE TEMPTATION

may perceive an " anti-tendency," on the subject of angels, in
the doctrine of the Fourth Gospel at its outset. It teaches us
two definitely distinct truths, in the promise of Jesus (recently
and frequently quoted above) that we shall see the angels of
God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man 1 . One
truth is that the motion of the angels depends on the Son of
Man. The other truth is that the angels ascend as well as
descend, and apparently ascend before they descend. They
are the higher thoughts and wishes of the human soul, drawn
up from earth to heaven by the Spirit of the Son of Man as
clouds of aspiration and prayer, and coming down from
heaven to earth by the same Spirit transmuted into showers
of blessing.

In the Johannine narrative of the Voice from Heaven, it
appears at first sight as though the Son of Man Himself
were aspiring or praying on His own account. But looking
more closely we see it is not on His own account. We are on
the point of beholding a great crisis or judgment a judgment
of "this world 2 ." The Pharisees themselves have just said
about Jesus, "The world is gone after him 3 ." Jesus says,
" Now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Between
these two utterances we are to imagine the Gentile " world,"
represented by " certain Greeks " timidly and gradually, and,
as it were through intercessors drawing near to the Inter-
cessor Himself 4 . The Intercessor recognises the condition
that attends His intercession : " The hour is come that the
Son of Man should be glorified." And " to be glorified "
means to die that His death may bring forth the fruit of
life for others : " Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth

1 Jn i. 51.

: ( oinp. Jn xii. 31 " Now is \h& judgment of this world, now shall the
prim c of this world be cast out."

' s Jn xii. 19.

* Jn xii. 21 2 "...they came to Philip. ..saying, Sir, we would see
[ems; I'hilip cometh and telleth Andrew ; Andrew cometh, and Philip,
and they tell Jesus."

186

THE TEMPTATION

and die, it abideth by itself, alone ; but if it die, it beareth
much fruit 1 ."

1 Jn xii. 23 4 "fruit." This is not the place to discuss the extent to
which the Johannine narrative at this point may be regarded as historical.
That must be deferred till we come to Mark-Matthew's miracle, and
Luke s parable, of the Fig-tree. But it may be said here that the word
"fruit" suggests a clue to the interpretation of all the four Gospels.
Christ's thoughts were bent on the Vine or Fig-tree of Israel. "The Lord
shewed me," says Jeremiah (xxiv. i) "and behold, two baskets of figs, set
before the temple of the Lord." One of these contained good figs, and
represented those who were to be redeemed of Israel. But Amos, who
saw a similar vision of (Am. viii. i foil.) "summer fruit," discerned
nothing except that " the end is come."

Jesus was at this time coming to the Fig-tree of Israel to seek fruit
from the tree. Or, as the parable of the Vineyard (Mk xii. i foil, Mt.
xxi. 33 foil., Lk. xx. 9 foil.) puts it, He was the heir, seeking its fruits from
the rebellious Vinedressers. The Vineyard (say the Synoptists) was to be
taken from its present vinedressers and to be "given to others." According
to John, this future giving to others was as it were enacted by Christ's
reception of (Jn xii. 20 foil.) "Greeks." Jesus first recognised them as the
promise of the "fruit" that was to spring from the "dying" of "the grain
of wheat " ; then He heard a Voice from heaven proclaiming that God
would "glorify" His "name" both in the dying and in the bearing
of fruit.

Those who urge that the narrative of the Fourth Gospel is "not
historical" must surely admit that it is closer to history than the Mark-
Matthew parallel narrative of the Withering of the Fig-tree. Perhaps
Luke is right in saying that the Coming of the Lord to seek fruit from
the Fig-tree was one of Christ's parables. But on the other hand Luke
may have softened down into a mere parable a vision of Jesus, imparted
by Him to His disciples. If Paul (Acts xxii. 17 21), while he prayed in
the temple, "fell into a trance," and "saw" the Lord bidding him "go far
hence unto the Gentiles," why should not Jesus have had a vision, and
uttered a prayer, in such circumstances as to make bystanders regard
Him, in various ways, as receiving an answer from above, like the Jewish
Bath Kol a common phenomenon in the belief of Jews of the first
century? At all events John appears to be very far from spinning
a fiction of his own. He may possibly be recording a vision of the
beloved Disciple. But the facts suggest that he is recording a vision
seen by Jesus, upon which Mark has based a portentous miracle omitted
(or paraphrased) by Luke. The conception of a Prophet's vision of the
Harvest may be illustrated by Jn iv. 35 " Lift up your eyes and look on
the fields" (see/^. Gr. 2230 (ii) (iii)) interpreted spiritually.

187

THE TEMPTATION

It is in the moment of this balancing of these two visions
the vision of "death " for Himself and the vision of " fruit"
for others that there comes upon the Lord Jesus " a trouble "
of the " soul," and a thought-cloud, which just rises up, only to
be dispelled by the Spirit : " What shall I say ? Father, save
me from this hour ? [Nay] but for this cause came I, unto this
hour " and then the prayer, " Father, glorify thy name."
And as His prayer goes up, the answer comes down " I have
both glorified it and will glorify it again 1 ." By telling us that
the multitude thought, some that this voice was " thunder,"
others that it was the voice of an "angel," the Evangelist
suggests to us the conclusion that the theory of an " angel "
was not much more spiritual or adequate than the theory of
"thunder." It was the Father Himself who spoke. In the
case of other pious sons of man, the disciples whom the Lord
called His "little ones," it might be adequately said that
their prayers went up and the answers came down as angels
on the Son of Man. But it could not be adequately said
concerning the prayer of the Son of Man Himself. No
" voice of an angel " could reply to Him. No " angel " could
strengthen Him. To suppose such a thing was a popular
delusion.

But it may be urged that Matthew himself represents
Jesus as at all events contemplating the possibility of being
strengthened by angels, in the words : " Or thinkest thou that
I am not able to beseech my Father, and he will place by my
side at this moment more than twelve legions of angels how
then could the scriptures be fulfilled... 2 ?" This passage,
though peculiar to Matthew, will come before us again in the
discussion of the Fourfold Gospel on Christ's arrest. But here
we may note that Matthew's own context, and the parallels in
the other three Gospels, prove that we have here a case of
Joh;mnine intervention. For in this passage a saying of

Jn xii. 278. 2 Mt> xxvi 53 _

1 88

THE TEMPTATION

Christ about "fulfilment" has been (i) obscurely expressed
by Mark, (2) repeated in two versions the first of which is
given above, the second in the note below by Matthew,
(3) omitted by Luke, (4) repeated in quite a different context
by John 1 .

In due course it will be shewn that Matthew's first version
given above was probably one of two attempts to explain
some obscure sentence containing the words " took " and " but
on the other hand that it might be fulfilled!' It regarded the
thought as being as follows, " Ye took me not before, [and ye
should not take me now, thanks to my Fattier s legions of angels,
were it not tJiat I knew my hour to have arrircd\ but [/ ask for
no legions and I surrender myself} that the scriptures might be
fulfilled." Thus, reserving " ye took me not " for the second
utterance (" in that hour Jesus said ") Matthew enlarged, in

1 Compare :
.Mkxiv. 49
I was daily
with you... and ye
took me not. But

Alt. xxvi. 55 6

I sat daily...
and ye took me
not. But (8c)

(aXXa) [ ] that all this is come
the scriptures to pass that the
might be

ful-

filled.

scriptures of the
prophets might
be fulfilled.

Lk. xxii. 53 Jn xviii. 8 9

I was daily Suffer these

with you ... ye to depart that

stretched not there might be

forth your hands fulfilled the word

against me. But that he spake,
(aXXa) this is your
hour, and the
power of dark-

Those whom
thou hast given
me I lost not
ness. one of them.

John apparently interpreted the aXXa in Mark as implying a changed
condition of things (Joh. Gr. 2111 2), and his paraphrastic expansion
indicates that he had some thought of this kind:

" Jesus said ' Ye took me not in times past, but now .' Then He broke
off. But He completed His sentence by what He did. He meant ' But
now the time has come that I should complete my sacrifice for my dis-
ciples.' And He did complete it by going forward to meet the soldiers in
order that He might fulfil the scriptures, because His hour was come, and
in order that He might begin the saving of the world by saving His dis-
ciples."

John probably took the Marcan " that... might be fulfilled" as a
comment of the Evangelist, regarding Jesus Himself as acting, but not as
mentioning " fulfilment."

189

THE TEMPTATION

the first utterance, on the "twelve legions of angels 1 ." It is
doubtful whether John would have accepted these words about
angels as Christ's, but if he did, he would probably have said
with Origen that He uttered them " on a level with the
notions of Peter," who was desirous of helping Him with the
sword, " For the angels have more need of the help of the
Only-begotten Son of God than He has of theirs 2 ."

Concluding this investigation into the second Johannine
mention of "angel," we find that the Evangelist consistently,
though indirectly, subordinates the thought of angelic minis-
tration, and leads his readers to be on their guard against it as
a popular but sometimes erroneous method of expression
always erroneous if it gave to angels any individuality that
would separate them from the Person of the Son of Man.

II. "Angels" at the tomb of Jesus, in John

We now pass to the third and most difficult of the Johan-
nine mentions of angels, the one connected with Christ's
Resurrection. By "difficult," we do not refer to the fact that
the Johannine narrative is difficult to reconcile with that of

1 Comp. Jn xviii. 36 " If my kingdom were from this world, my servants
would fight. 33

The use of d\\d in Mark and Luke indicates that they took all the
words to be Christ's. But Matthew's use of Se, in his second version
and also his use of ytyov* (Joh. Gr. 2478 a) shews that he took the clause
about "fulfilment," in his second version, to be evangelistic comment. In
his first version, Matthew shews that the words about fulfilment are
Christ's by making them interrogative (" How then could the scriptures
be fulfilled?"). An explanatory gloss attached to the obscure words
" But on the other hand, in order that the scriptures might be fulfilled,"
might run thus, in Hebrew or Greek : " Now what He meant was for
I ir had Peter in His mind Thinkest thou, O Peter, that I cannot pray
to the Father for twelve legions of angels instead of thy single sword?
I Jut on the other hand [I must not, for, /// did] How could the scriptures
/> t ' jHljillcdt" This gloss, with a little smoothing, appears to have become
part of Matthew's text. On " meant? lit. "said," see Indices to Son and
Light.

- < >iu;rn on Mt. xxvi. 53 ad loc.

190

THE TEMPTATION

Mark (about "a young man... in a white robe") and that of
Matthew (about " an angel ") and that of Luke (about " two
men 1 "). Those difficulties which must be reserved till we deal
with them in their order extend to much that the angels say
and do, but not (so far, at all events, as concerns Mark and
Matthew) to the utterance of the word RISEN 2 . On the
other hand the angels in John neither say " He is risen " nor
make any announcement of the Resurrection. They make no
statement at all. They simply ask a question " Woman, why
weepest thou 3 ? " We are tempted to say, " They are practi-
cally mutes." Surely this is a difficulty in the Fourth Gospel
even when taken by itself, apart from the Three.

It may be asserted that the angels meant " Woman, weep
not," and that they assumed that Mary would understand the
inference " He is not dead, but is risen 4 ." But Mary does not
understand it. She does not say, " 1 do not believe it." She
replies in such a way as to shew that it had not even entered
into her mind : " Because they have taken away my Lord and
I know not where they have laid him." Such an assertion is
also inconsistent with what follows, where Jesus, unrecognised,
repeats " Woman, why weepest thou ? Whom seekest thou 8 ? "

1 Mk xvi. 5, Mt. xxviii. 2 foil., Lk. xxiv. 4. On "men" and "angels"
interchanged in Genesis, see above, pp. 182 3.

2 Mk xvi. 6 rj-yepdr], OVK e<TTiv J6e, Mt. xxviii. 6 OVK eVr> code, rj-ytpdrj
ya^..., Lk. xxiv. 6 [[OL/K eorti/ toSf, tiXXa fjyepffri]]. The bracketed words in
Luke are now known to be retained by SS. John, if he thought Luke had
omitted the Marcan "risen," was bound (by the Rule of Johannine Inter-
vention) to insert something corresponding to it. But he has not done
so. The first Johannine announcement of the Resurrection is not like Lk.
xxiv. 34 "The Lord is risen indeed and appeared unto Simon." It is (Jn
xx. 1 8) " I have seen the Lord" The facts slightly favour the conclusion
that John accepted the ancient Lucan tradition as a genuine part of Luke.

; Jn xx. 13.

4 Comp. Mk v. 39 " Why make ye much ado and weep?" Lk. viii. 52
" Weep not." Both add " she is not dead but sleepeth."

6 The risen Saviour utters, as almost His first words, a question very
much like His first utterance to His first converts (Jn i. 38) " What seek
ve?" See Introductory Volume, p. 142 foil.

191

THE TEMPTATION

For Mary's reply, " Tell me where thou hast laid him," shews
that she is still in total darkness. What, then, is the use of
it all this repeated questioning, following the continued
weeping? It seems intended to draw out from Mary the
most passionate expression of her utter hopelessness and
despair. In contrast with the unnamed disciple, who, along
with Peter, has gone into the empty tomb and has seen " the
linen cloths " and " the napkin," and has " believed," Mary
shews not a vestige of belief or hope. She is absorbed in the
thought of Christ's dead body, and of the outrage that might
be done to " him," the dead helpless creature whom " they
have taken away," but who is still " Lord " to her : " Tell me
where thou hast laid him and I will take him away 1 ."

These angels also raise this further question, " Why did
not the two disciples see them on entering the tomb just
before ? Were they there, but invisible ? Or did they come
down in the interval between the departure of the disciples
" unto their own home " and the " looking " of Mary " into the
tomb 2 ? " Lastly, after Mary has answered the question of
the angels, why does she, without cause specified, turn her
back upon them : " When she had thus said, she turned
herself back and beholdeth Jesus standing ? "

As regards this last point, the explanation of Chrysostom
is, that immediately after Mary's despairing answer to the
angels, Jesus suddenly appears behind Mary's back. The
angels recognise Him with visible amazement, and Mary,
turning suddenly round to see what causes it, sees Jesus but
does not recognise Him. Presumably, the angels now dis-
appear, having done their work. At all events they are not
mentioned again.

1 Jn xx. 13 15 "they have taken away my

2 Jn xx. 10 12 "So the disciples went away again unto their own
home. lint Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping : so, as
six- w<-pt, she stooped and looked into the tomb ; and she beholdeth
two ;mgcls in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where
the body of Jesus had lain."

192

THE TEMPTATION

This explanation, as we have seen above (p. 175, n. 2),
probably goes back to Clement of Alexandria, and Chrysostom
may not have done justice to it. To us, though it must neces-
sarily seem farfetched, it will be of use if it protects us from
assuming that the Fourth Evangelist is indulging in self-willed
fiction, deviating in a wild and purposeless fashion from the
Synoptists. According to this ancient view, the angels may be
said to see the risen Saviour along with Mary, not to announce
His rising to Mary. And their presence in the tomb to Mary's
eyes, but not to the eyes of the disciples who had previously
entered, may be explained, on Johannine principles, by that
law which regulates the ascent and descent of angels on the
Son of Man. Prayers are angels. But tears, too, are angels.
Most of all, perhaps, are they angels when they express an
aspiration that is loving as well as passionate, even when it is
no more than " O, that it might have been !" As the hopeless
tears of Mary the sister of Lazarus brought tears from the
eyes of Jesus and prepared the way for the raising of Lazarus
from the dead, so the hopeless tears of Mary Magdalene
expressing by their visible fall the invisible ascent of her
passionate love, brought down to aid her weakness a revelation
of angels through whom came the revelation of her Lord
Himself 1 . The beloved Disciple did not need this. He
" believed " without it. But would the world have believed
without it ?

To this question the Fourth Evangelist appears to give an
indirect reply in the negative, "No, it would not have believed."

1 What are we to suppose as to the attitude of Peter, and the other
disciple (who " believed "), to Mary? Did they attempt to console her
and to help her to believe ? When they turned away, leaving her at the
sepulchre, did their hearts sorrow for her, and perhaps send up prayers
for her? If they did, did John see any connection between the heart-
prayers going up and the angels coming down ? To many the thought of
such a connection will seem ridiculous. But to John (i. 51) such
"ascending" and "descending" might seem no more ridiculous than
the law of gravitation seems to us.

A. B. 193 13

THE TEMPTATION

He confirms the ancient tradition that " when Jesus was risen
early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary
Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven devils 1 ." He
did not " appear first " to the beloved Disciple. The Disciple
" came " first to the Tomb. But Peter " entered " first. The
Disciple was the first to " believe." But Mary was the first to
" see." It was so ordained. The words of Mary to the dis-
ciples, "I have seen the Lord," prepared them also for "seeing,"
and their " seeing " prepared the way for the fulfilment of the
saying " Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have
believed*" The part played by angels in bringing about
this consummation was quite subordinated to divinely human
influences. No Michael, Gabriel, or Raphael intervened.
Heart spoke to heart the appeal of the human heart of
loving Sorrow bringing down the response from the divine
heart of loving Pity.

When we come, in due course, to the narrative of the
Resurrection, an attempt will be made to compare the Johannine
with the Synoptic details of the angelic manifestations at the
tomb. In the present section we have been merely examining
the attitude of the Fourth Gospel toward angels in the narrative
of the Resurrection, with the view of comparing it with the
attitude of the same Gospel toward angels elsewhere. The
conclusion arrived at is, that here, as elsewhere, it subordinates
angels so completely to the Son of Man as to leave them very
little trace of a separate and personal nature.

12. " Temptation" implied in Jo/in

The Johannine conception of "temptation," so far as it

could be applied to Christ, may be in the first place illustrated

itively, by reference to the first of the three Temptations

mentioned by Matthew and Luke to turn stones into bread.

Matthew says that, before this temptation came, Jesus had

1 Mk [xvi. 9]. ' J Jn xx. 29.

194

THE TEMPTATION

" fasted forty days and forty nights." Luke, avoiding the word
" fasting," says that (like Moses on Mount Sinai) 1 Jesus " did
eat nothing in those days." Both agree that " afterward," or
" when they [i.e. the days] were completed," " he hungered."
Then came Satan saying in effect, "If thou art Son of God,
satisfy thy hunger by turning stones to bread."

John practically, though indirectly, denies this. He knew
that Moses did not " fast," but, as Philo says 2 , was supplied
with food by God during the forty days and nights on Mount
Sinai or Horeb. He knew also that Elijah did not " fast,"
but was similarly strengthened by divine food during his
journey of forty days and nights to the same mountain. And
therefore he tells us elsewhere that Jesus could not " fast."
He puts it dramatically. The disciples, he says, brought
Jesus food that they had " bought." But Jesus had already
the food that Isaiah declares to be without price. His food,
the food of the Son, was " to do the will " of the Father 3 . To
say to Jesus "Satisfy thine own hunger" would have been to
put Him below the level of Moses and Elijah. That this was
the temptation addressed to Him we may safely deny.

It is not so safe to affirm. But we may be sure that the
temptation was to do something for others, not for Himself.
It may have been to bring men nearer to God in some way
that was not in accordance with God's will to attempt,
perhaps, to coerce them into believing in the Father by means
of signs and wonders wrought by the Son. " Hear now, ye
rebels," said Moses and Aaron to their brethren, "shall we
bring you forth water out of this rock ? " They brought it.
But the Lord reproved them : " Ye believed not in me, to
sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel 4 ." Perhaps

1 Exod. xxxiv. 28. 2 See Philo ii. 146.

3 Jn iv. 8 "his disciples were gone away into the city to buy food,"
tb. 31 " Rabbi, eat," ib. 32 " I have meat to eat that ye know not," ib. 34
" my meat is to do the will of him that sent me."

4 Numb. xx. 10 12.

195 13 2

THE TEMPTATION

Jesus, in His vision, was tempted to repeat the error of
Moses to do for men by coercion the divine good that God
Himself will not and cannot do for them without their co-
operant aid. That, at least, is an intelligible temptation
that might appeal even to one greater than Moses.

But it may be said " Jesus did, in effect, perform this very
miracle for the Five Thousand." That miracle, when discussed
hereafter, will be shewn to be something different from the
creation of bread out of stone. In some respects, though on
a much larger scale, it is like the miracle of the widow's oil
and flour wrought by Elijah. In the Old Testament, the
widow gives; God multiplies. Somewhat similarly in the
New, Jesus says to the Twelve "Give ye them to eat 1 ." They
give all that they have. God multiplies for the multitude,
and returns to the Twelve, twelve basketsful to the Twelve.
But that (John would probably say) was bread of a peculiar
kind. It was not "bought." True, Jesus mentioned the
word " buy." But that was only in gentle irony to Philip :
" Whence are we to buy bread that kind of bread which the
Twelve went to buy for me near Sychar 2 , and which I would
not eat ? " The bread in that " sign " meant the bread " with-
out money and without price," the bread that no money can
" buy," the bread that man gives to man when he " draws out
his soul to the hungry 3 " in pity and compassion, following, at
a distance, in the footsteps of the Son of Man. After the
sign, Jesus reproached some of those who had partaken of the
food with following Him in the belief that the sign implied
the power of the Messiah to give them " loaves and fishes " at
will. Reproving their error, He told them that the moral of it

1 Mk vi. 37, Mt. xiv. 16, Lk. ix. 13. In the Feeding of the Four
Thousand this clause is omitted, but Jesus says (Mk viii. 2, Mt. xv. 32)
'' I have compassion on the multitude...."

1 Jn iv. 8 (iyo/xirraxrti/. On the triple use of this word in John, and on
tin- Jewish associations with it, see Son 3445 a b.
I . Iviii. 10.

196

THE TEMPTATION

was that they were to " work," presumably in acts of kindness
to their brethren like the Father's acts of kindness to His
children for "the food that abideth unto eternal life 1 ."

Passing to the temptation of the pinnacle ("cast thyself
down ") we perceive that it might represent in a vision such
an appeal as might present itself to Jesus when He cleansed the
Temple, and on other occasions when He imperilled His life
before His "hour" had come. The state of the Temple was
what a prophet might describe as a " reproach " to the living
God. The Psalmist said "The zeal of thine house hath
eaten me up, and the reproaches of them that reproach thee
are fallen upon me 2 ." Paul expressly connects the last part of
this passage with Christ's conduct. ll We that are strong," he
says, "ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to

please ourselves Christ also pleased not himself, but as it is

written, 'The reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen
upon me\" John, in his account of the cleansing of the Temple,
does not indeed say that Jesus used the Psalmist's words, but
he says, in connection with it, that His disciples called to
mind a part of the Psalmist's utterance : " They remembered
that it was written ' The zeal of thine house shall eat me up '."
It was a noble temptation for a Son of God to rush into
battle, taking up arms against an overwhelming avalanche of
"reproach" directed against His Father, and attempting to
destroy it by coercion, although it was not the Father's will
that it should be destroyed in that way or at that time 8 .

1 Jn. vi. 26 7.

2 Ps. Ixix. 9, of which Jn ii. 17 quotes the first half, and Rom. xv. i 3
the second. Whenever Israel was humiliated or desolated by idolaters so
that their conquerors could say, " Where is now thy God ? " the nation
was said to have become " a reproach" Comp. Ps. Ixxix. 4 " We are
become a reproach to our neighbours," ib. 12 " render to our neighbours...
their reproach wherewith they have reproached thee, O Lord," a psalm
which begins with lamentation over the " temple " as " defiled." But the
Temple, defiled by its priests, was a still greater "reproach" than when
defiled by conquerors.

3 Comp. Jn vii. 3 5 " His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart

197

THE TEMPTATION

Applying the same altruistic interpretation to the tempta-
tion to bow down to Satan for the sake of receiving " all the
kingdoms of the earth," we may possibly be right in finding
some allusion to it in the statement, peculiar to John, that
after the Feeding of the Five Thousand, Jesus withdrew into
the mountain, because He perceived that the multitude desired
44 to come and take him by force to make him king 1 ." Not
for His own sake, but for the sake of the uplifting of the
ensign of righteousness, and the worship of the one true God,
there might present itself (so some might think) a temptation
to conquer the kings of the earth by becoming one of them,
conforming to the ways of "the ruler of this (or, the) world 2 ."

But we must go far away from Matthew's and Luke's
Temptations in the wilderness if we wish to understand what
John regarded as the main source of trial and trouble to Jesus.
It has been touched on in the Introductory Volume, where
the threefold mention of Christ's "trouble" was dealt with.
But it appears also in His sense of the mystery of evil an

hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may behold thy works
which thou doest. For no man doeth anything in secret, and himself
seeketh to be known openly. If thou doest these things, manifest thyself
to the world. For even his brethren did not believe on him." These
words, following ib. vii. i " he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews
sought to kill him," present, in a very acute form, the temptation to face
peril before the time. Jesus replies " My time is not yet come."

1 Jn vi. 15.

2 John alone combines p^<oi/ and KOO-^OS-, xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11
probably with allusion to the Jewish title adopted into Hebrew as
Cosmocrator (on which s. Levy, as also on " Samael," and on the Heb-
raized Archon). The Johannine feeling against the kings of the earth (as
compared with the Good Shepherd) may come before us again when we
consider Mk x. 42 tipxtiv, with gen. unique in N.T. (according to
M milton's Concordance) except Rom. xv. 12 quoting Is. xi. 10 (but prob.
we should add Rev. i. 5 o upx<av TU>V /3a<nAecoi> rrjs yijs, for 6 a/j^toi/, if noun,
\\ould Ix- subordinate to o /^ao-iXeuy). It is doubtful whether John would

regarded the appeal of earthly royalty or dominion as constituting
any kind of temptation to Jesus. He despises it in the spirit of Epictetus,
as well as in consistency with Synoptic doctrine about (Mk x. 42) "sup-
posed rill-

198

THE TEMPTATION

evil that must not be constrained to be good and in His
consciousness of a terrible responsibility for what He repeatedly
calls, in prayer to the Father, " all that thou hast given to me."
He means the disciples, the little nucleus of the Church.
Once, with other waverers, they, too, shew signs of wavering,
and He exclaims " Do ye, too, desire to depart ? " When
Peter protests fidelity He replies, emphasizing His own
responsibility, " Was it not I 1 that chose you, the Twelve ? And
one of you is a devil." Neither here, nor afterwards, is Jesus
recorded as having made any direct attempt except perhaps
by the gift of the bread and wine, given that it might either
cure or kill to divert Judas from his treachery. And the
treachery was (it is implied) the bitterest of His three
"troubles." It troubled Him " in the Spirit-."

Christ's sense of His powerlessness to coerce makes the
long Johannine account of His last discourse with the disciples,
and His last prayer to the Father, much more intelligible,
and much more suggestive of the nature of His final trial or
(what the Synoptists would call) "temptation." His very
Resurrection so far as we read it in the Fourth Gospel, and
so far as it could help the Disciples from whom He was about
to be parted depended, not on Himself alone, but on His
disciples too, and on their co-operation. He could not compel
them to see Him, even when He had risen, unless they loved
Him.

Mary does not see Him until she weeps. When she sees
Him she does not recognise Him until He calls her by her
name. Afterwards, on the shore of Gennesaret, the fishermen
Disciples do not recognise Him until the beloved Disciple
says " It is the Lord." Before this, Judas not Iscariot has

1 Jn vi. 70 OVK ey<o...g(\(gd/jiT)v. The insertion of cyw differentiates
this from the ordinary " Did-I-not," where e'yo> is omitted, as in Gen. xxix.
25, Numb. xxii. 37, i K. ii. 42, xxii. 18, 2 K. iv. 28, 2 Chr. xviii. 17. Jesus
takes the responsibility upon Himself with emphasis.

2 See Introduction, pp. 161 2.

199

THE TEMPTATION

asked, perplexed, " Lord, what is come to pass that thou wilt
manifest thyself unto us and not unto the world ? " and the
answer prefixes the unalterable condition "If a man love me 1 ."

The other Judas, Judas Iscariot, loves darkness rather than
light, so that he shrinks back repelled from the Light of the
world. He may be said to be harmed by it yes, even
" destroyed," for it is worth noting that the same Greek word
means both " I have lost " and " I have destroyed " ; and the
Evangelist seems determined to bring before us, in its most
perplexing aspect, the insoluble problem of God's responsibility
for " destroying " a soul. It comes before us as follows.

In order to save the Eleven Apostles from the Roman
soldiers Jesus is represented as saying " Let these go their
way." It is added that He said this " that the word might be
fulfilled which he spake, ' Of those whom thou hast given me
/ have lost (lit. destroyed} not one 2 ." This seems to point
back to Christ's prayer to the Father, for those whom He
calls " those whom thou hast given me " ; concerning whom
He says " I guarded them... and not one of them was destroyed
save-only the son of destruction, that the scripture might be
fulfilled 3 ." Do these two passages hint at a distinction between
" He was destroyed" and " I destroyed him " ? Are we to infer
the meaning " He destroyed himself, Jesus did not destroy
him " ? Origen seems to say that there is such a distinction
awl inference 4 . But it is very doubtful. More probably the

1 Jn xiv. 23. 2 Jn xviii. 9 " I have lost," an-ooXeo-a.

3 Jn xvii. 12 ov8f\s e avr&v aTrtoXtro et /-IT; 6 vibs TTJS aTrtaXeiW, a/a r)

< 'oiiini. Rom. ii. 8 (Lomm. vi. 1034), where, among passages

about "the lost," Origen quotes Lk. xv. 8 10 "drachma quae perierat"

(thus avoiding "perdidit" or "perdidi") and Mt. xv. 24 "oves perditas,"

on which he notes "'perditas,' non 'quas perdiderat\" He also says "In

Minibus nusquaiu Dcus aliquem dicitur perdidisse... Et cum ipse

Hominus di< it, (Jn xvii. 12) Omnes,' inquit, * quos dedisti mihi, servavi,

i Hits ex Us periit } non dixit * nullitm ex Us perdidi'" This is a

strange Matrment in view of Jn xviii. 9 "neminem ex his perdidi? The

en nowhere quotes.

200

THE TEMPTATION

Evangelist means that Judas was never " given " to Jesus.
He never belonged to that band of whom Jesus said, after
the Feeding of the Five Thousand, " This is the will of him
that sent me, that of all that which he hath given me I should
lose (lit. destroy) nothing..}-!' This view is confirmed by the
statement which follows soon afterwards that Jesus " knew
from the beginning... who it was that should betray him," and
that He "spake of Judas" when He said "Was it not I that
chose you, the twelve, and one of you is a devil 2 ?"

Why, then, did Jesus "choose" Judas? The Evangelist
seems to suggest as the answer that it was an instance of
what we should call " an error of judgment " on the part of
the incarnate Son, permitted by the Father. For this " error "
the Son takes the sole responsibility (" Was it not I ? "). It
turned out to be a part of the foreordained Redemption. But
it was a part, and may well have been the heaviest part, of the
burdens that Jesus took, or brought, upon Himself, in bearing
the sins and carrying the iniquities of mankind. And the
heaviest part of this heavy burden is, that it suggests a
thought to be suppressed as soon as suggested of an error
of some kind in the Father Himself.

The quotations given above may help to teach us something
of the nature of Christ's deepest "temptation." It was perhaps
the strain of bearing up against the superincumbent pressure of
a world that seemed bent on self-destruction. God "loved the
world " and gave His Son that " everyone that believed in him
might not be destroyed." The Son was not sent to judge the
world ; He came to save it 3 . Yet " the ruler of the world "
if the world was represented by Judas "the son of destruction"
seemed able to snatch the world victoriously out of His
hands, "the wolf" prevailing over "the good shepherd 4 ."

1 Jn vi. 39. 2 Jn vi. 64, 70, 71. 3 Jn iii. 16 17.

4 See From Letter 960 quoting Acts of John 6 where "another like
Jesus," a Tempter, comes down and says to Him, "Jesus, those whom

201

THE TEMPTATION

" This is the judgment," says the Evangelist, " that the light
hath come into the world and men loved the darkness rather
than the light because their deeds were evil 1 ."

When a great Reformer recognises the apparent rottenness
of that which he is attempting to reform, what is he tempted
to do ? Moses, when Israel went wrong, was " exceedingly
terrified " not for his own sake but for Israel's and broke
the Tables of the Law 2 . Elijah, finding his reformation by
the sword a failure, complained against Israel as if he were
the only faithful Israelite left, and received a rebuke and a
successor 3 . The last thoughts of Jesus on the night before
the Crucifixion, as represented by the Fourth Gospel at much
greater length than by the Three, reveal Him as not yielding
to the temptations of blind optimism or faithless pessimism,
but as feeling at once the weakness and the strength that
awaited His disciples.

Their weakness He seems to bear as His own, with a
passionate tension of affectionate anticipation like that of an
anxious mother. But their strength, too, he realises, the
underlying and conquering strength of the love with which
without what this world calls constraint He has constrained
them to love Him. So confident is He in the strength of this
love that the prayer for the preservation of the disciples passes
away at its close into an utterance of exultation, because
He will be ever in the Disciples and the Disciples in Him,

thou hast chosen do still not believe in thee." On Isaiah xxv. 7 (" the
covering... the veil") the Targum gives personifications : "And there shall
be cast down in that mountain the countenance of the ruler who is ruler
over all the peoples and the countenance of the king that reigns over all
the kingdoms?

1 Jn iii. 19.

- Sec Light 3731 on the correct explanation of Heb. xii. 21.

:: i K. xix. 10 18. The elemental forces through which Elijah is
rcbul.- 'lied by the Targum angels. Moses on Mount Horeb is

ri-prrsi-ntrd by some traditions as being terrified by angels of wrath. See
Notes, Son, and Light (Indices "Angels").

202

THE TEMPTATION

through their knowledge of the name of Him who is the
Eternal Love : " I made known unto them thy name, and will
make it known ; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may
be in them, and I in them 1 ."

1 Jn xvii. 26.

203

CHAPTER VI

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE 1

THIS Chapter will cover comparatively little Synoptic, but
much Johannine ground. It will endeavour to shew that if the
Fourth Gospel is right, the Three have omitted altogether the
first of two visits to Galilee, and have given a wrong impression
about the second. In the second visit, Jesus journeyed to
Galilee from Judaea, where He had been preaching. Mark
has omitted all mention of any preaching in Judaea. Luke, in
the correct text of his Gospel (which however our Revised
Version has given only in the margin), just mentions it, but
does no more. John, on the other hand, gives full details of
Christ's acts and sayings in Judaea, while John the Baptist
was still free, thus giving an entirely different impression of
that second visit to Galilee which took place just before the
Baptist's arrest, and which would naturally be regarded by
readers of Mark as synchronizing with the beginning of
Christ's public career.

I. Mark's account

All the Synoptists describe a journey into Galilee im-
mediately after their descriptions of the Temptation. And,
if Mark inserting his customary "and straightway," which

Mk i. 14 K(ii jieru TO irapaftodfjvai TOV 'laxivrjv rf\6fv 6 'lijarovs fls
ri,i> \\i\t\aiav (where many but inferior authorities read &l for <ai and
R.V. has "now"), Mt. iv. 12 fiKova-as Se on 'Ia>dvr]s TrapeSo^, dvexwprjo-fv
fiy ri)v \\t\t\uiuv, Lk. iv. 14 /cm VTrtOTpf^ev 6 'irjo-oCs ev TTJ 8vvdp,ei TOV
tit T t)i> TuXiXatW.

204

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

occurs no less than eleven times in his first chapter had
written "And the angels were ministering to him. And
straightway Jesus came into Galilee preaching," we might
then have safely inferred that he regarded the journey as
following the Temptation, if not quite immediately, at all
events after no long interval. But, instead of " and straight-
way," Mark has, "And after John had been delivered up '."

This leaves us free to suppose that an interval, and even a
considerable interval, elapsed between the end of the Tempta-
tion and the beginning of the journey, during which interval
John was delivered up. Mark may mean that Jesus remained
silent till John's arrest. That event leaving John's place
vacant and his work unfinished might seem to demand that
his successor should not delay. Or Mark may mean that, after
John had been delivered up, Jesus who had been hitherto
preaching the gospel and baptizing in Judaea or beyond
Jordan (perhaps in company with John) now for the first
time brought the gospel into Galilee. By " Mark " we
designate the text of Mark's Gospel. The writer of the text,
the person whom we call Mark, may have had neither of
these two meanings. He may have simply noted down the
tradition that came to him, and may have formed no opinion
about the things that the text omitted, or the interval that the
text, at this point, seemed to imply.

In any case, Mark leaves us in doubt as to the length of
the interval if there was an interval. Mark also leaves us in
doubt, not only as to when and where Jesus began His public
work, and whence He came into Galilee, but even as to the
motive of His coming. Did He come to escape from Antipas
who had arrested John ? That would be strange, since Antipas
was Tetrarch of Galilee. Did He come in order to fulfil
prophecy about " Galilee of the nations " ? Or did some
special need of the gospel in Galilee cause Jesus to begin
His preaching in that province ? All these questions Mark
leaves unanswered.

205

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

2. Matthew's account

As to one of these doubtful points in Mark, the motive of
Christ's journey, Matthew indirectly supplies an answer. He
does not say, with Mark, " After John had been delivered up,"
but "Having heard fa& John had been delivered up 1 ." Matthew
also substitutes " withdrew " for Mark's " came." " Withdraw,"
a rare word in LXX and mostly implying fear or flight, and
never used by Luke, is used once by Mark to describe Christ
as withdrawing from the plots of the Herodians ; and Matthew
uses it not only there but also in many other passages,
probably to illustrate a prophecy (which he alone quotes) about
the Messiah's retiring disposition 2 . In the present passage
Matthew adds "And, giving up his abode in Nazareth, he
came and dwelt in Capernaum which is by the sea in the
borders of Zebulun and Naphtali." The reason for adding
these geographical details appears immediately in a quotation,
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the
prophet, saying, The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali,
[by the] way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations ;
the people that sat in darkness saw a great light... 3 ." In
other words Matthew desires to shew that Christ's coming
to Galilee, and to this particular city of Galilee, when He

1 Mt. iv. 12 aKoixras Se.... That implies '"'because John had been
delivered up." See 2 K. ix. 13 "(lit.} and (but R.V. then) they hasted,''
I. XX "and hearing it they hasted," Esth. iv. 4 "and the queen was...
grieved," LXX "and hearing it... she was troubled" (comp. Gen. xxxix. 18).
In Josh. ix. u, where Heb. and R.V. have "and? A.V. has "wherefore,"
and LXX "and having heard it? The paraphrases of A.V. and LXX
proceed from a desire to shew that the Heb. means, not merely sequence
of facts, but also consequence of purpose arising from the influence of a
fact upon a person. So here, Matthew means that Christ's action was
taken, not merely "after" the Baptist's arrest, but also after it reached
UK ears so that it could influence His action.

-' Mk iii. 7 av^^^v is parall. to Mt. xii. 15 "withdrew from thence,"
which is followed by (xil 19) a prophecy from Is.xlii. 13 ("...neither shall
ic hear his voice in the streets").

3 Mt. iv. 14 16 quoting Is. ix. 12.

206

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

"began to preach 1 " the gospel, exactly fulfilled the prophecy
of Isaiah. Nazareth was in " Galilee," but not " by the sea."
Capernaum was both.

The parallel Mark does not mention this prophecy. But
that may be explained by the fact that Mark often merely
alludes to prophecy where Matthew quotes it 2 . And Mark
here besides the preceding mention (" came into Galilee ")
almost immediately afterwards describes Jesus as calling the
fishermen to be apostles while passing along "fy the sea of
Galilee*" and then as "coming into Capernaum 4 ."

3. Lukes account

Luke, after saying that " the devil departed " from Jesus
" until a season," proceeds, " And Jesus turned back in the
power of the Spirit to Galilee. And a fame went out con-
cerning him throughout the whole of the region round about.
And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all. And
he came to Nazareth . . . *." He does not here mention any arrival
at Capernaum. Yet Jesus, in His discourse at Nazareth,
which here follows, says, "Doubtless ye will say unto me...
' Whatsoever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here,
in thine own country '." This implies that Jesus had been
first at Capernaum, and long enough to allow the fame of
His doings there to penetrate to Nazareth.

Why then does Luke omit all mention of this visit to
Capernaum ? And why does he, after recording Christ's words
about what had been " done at Capernaum" go on to speak
about it as though he had never mentioned it before, saying

1 Mt. iv. 17 "From that time Jesus began to preach" (not in the
parallel Luke, but comp. Mk i. 14).

2 See Son 3518^.

3 "Galilee" is mentioned in this context twice by Mark (i. 14 16),
thrice in the parallel Matthew (iv. 12, 15, 18), once in the parallel Luke
(iv. 14). Lk. v. i "lake of Gennesaret" is parallel to Mk-Mt. "sea of
Galilee."

1 Mki. 1 6, 21. 5 Lk. iv. 1416.

207

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

that Jesus, after escaping from those who would have killed
Him in Nazareth, "came down to Capernaum, a city of
Galilee' '? It looks as. though Luke were combining, out
of their right order, two traditions that would have been
consistent in their right order. It will be seen, later on, that
Luke, in describing this visit to Nazareth, as the scene of
Christ's first proclamation of the gospel, not only places very
early a visit that in many details closely resembles a visit
placed by Mark and Matthew very much later, but also
introduces an attempt on Christ's life made by the inhabitants
of Nazareth who, a few minutes before, wondered at the
words of grace that had fallen from His mouth.

Here we must note that confusion might arise from the
use of an ambiguous word, a favourite one with Luke, meaning
" the country-round-about." In Greek it is Perichoros ; but it
is also Hebraized as Perichoron in the sense of neighbourhood 1 .
In Corrections, it has been shewn that the term, though meaning
" the circle " round any town as centre, was used especially to
mean the circle of the Jordan round Jericho, and the " circle "
round Jerusalem 2 . In the first passage where Luke uses it
("John came into all [the] Perichoros of Jordan") Mark says that
"the Chord (i.e. country) of Judaea, and all the Jerusalemites,"
came to John 3 . In Luke's second instance (now under con-
sideration) there is no Marcan parallel. In his third, "fame
went out concerning him into every place of the Perichoros','
the parallel Mark has " the report of him came out everywhere
into the whole of the Perichoros of Galilee*" In Luke's next

1 Levy iv. 96 quoting j. Schebi. ix. 38 </ "von Beth Choron bis zum
Mccre ist eine Stadt, ein Gebiet (Perichoron)^ But Schwab ii. 416 trans-
lates this "' I )e Beth-Horon jusqu'a la mer, est-il dit, on ne compte qu'une
province,' tout le reste y est compris a litre de voisinage Trfpi^opov (sic)."
He adds a note, " L'ed. d'Amsterdam ayant divisd ce mot en deux, les
ommentatcurs se sont fourvoyds pour lui donner un sens."

2 Corrections 335 a. It occurs in the Gospels, Mk (i), Mt. (2), Lk. (5),
Jn to). It is not Aramaic i/.ed. 3 Mk i. 5, Lk. iii. 3.

1 Mk i. 28, Lk. iv. 37. " Every place of the Perichoros" seems to

208

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

instance (the miracle at Nain, peculiar to Luke) the words
"in the whole of Judaea and in all the Perichoros" might
mean either " in the whole of Judaea and especially the circle
round Jerusalem" or " in the whole of Judaea, and also in the
circle of the Jordan 1 "

To these facts we must add the following parallels :

Mk i. 39

And he went in-
to their synagogues
(///.) into (but R.V.
throughout) the whole
of Galilee preaching
and casting out devils.

Lk. iv. 44
And he was preach-
ing in (//'/. into) the
synagogues of Ju-
daea*.

Mt. iv. 23
And he went a-
bout in the whole of
Galilee^ teaching in
their synagogues and
preaching the gospel
of the kingdom, and
healing all manner of
disease... among the
people.

Obviously scribes and editors of Luke must have been
under a strong temptation to conform Luke to Mark (and
Matthew) by altering the Lucan "Judaea" into "Galilee."
Yet all the most ancient MSS read "Judaea," and so does
the recently discovered Syro-Sinaitic version.

The Arabic Diatessaron, it is true, like all the Versions
except the Syro-Sinaitic, has, in its present text, " Galilee"
But the context favours the view that the reading was originally
"Judaea" For the Diatessaron tears this verse out of its
Lucan text, placing it much earlier than the preceding Lucan

apply better to the circle round a great City like Jerusalem than to that
round Capernaum.

1 Lk. vii. 17. Lk. viii. 37 "all the multitude of the Perichoros of the
Gerasenes" needs no comment. Matthew's second instance (xiv. 35)
"they sent into the whole of that Perichoros'" is parall. to Mk vi. 55 "the
whole of that Chora (country)."

2 R.V. retains the reading of A.V. "Galilee" in its text, but adds
"very many ancient authorities read Judaea." These authorities are
now strengthened by the addition of SS. W. H., which once (1881) gave
"Galilee" in the margin, now gives "Judaea" without alternative.

A. B.

209

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

words (" I must preach of the kingdom of God in other cities
also ; for because of this gospel was I sent 1 "), and connecting
it with a passage of John thus: "(John) And this is the
second sign that Jesus did when he returned from Judaea
to Galilee. (Luke) And he was preaching (? Now he had been
preaching) in the synagogues of Galilee (? Judaea}" As there
is no pluperfect in Hebrew 2 , the rendering "he had been
preaching" for "he was preaching" is a very small alteration,
and it would suit a parenthetic construction ; while "Judaea,"
for "Galilee," would exactly suit the preceding mention of
"Judaea." According to this view, the meaning of the Har-
monist would be, in effect : " He returned (as John tells us)
from Judaea to Galilee. And here it may be well to insert
(what Luke says) that he had been preaching in the synagogues
of Judaea."

It may be urged that Luke uses "Judaea" here to mean
Palestine. He does this when he calls Herod " king of
Judaea," and perhaps elsewhere 3 . But that is unlikely here in
view of the parallel " Galilee " in Mark and Matthew. More
probably the original tradition here contained an ambiguous
word like Perichoros, which Luke being influenced by the
preceding context (" to the other cities I must needs preach ")
as if it implied a missionary journey over a wide area

1 Lk. iv. 44 is in Diatess. vi. 35, Lk. iv. 43 is in Diatess. vii. 6.

2 See Joh. Gr. 2480. Lk. iv. 44 rjv KTjpvo-o-w (not eKTjpvo-afv) might
very well mean "he had been preaching" In N.T. the Greek pluperfect
is extremely rare except with a few verbs such as d/du/u.

3 Lk. i. 5 " Herod king of Judaea." In Lk. vii. 17, SS has " in all the
land of Judaea and in all the country round about them," possibly
meaning "all Palestine and all the adjacent countries." The Onomastica
Smra regularly uses "Judaea" in this sense, calling Saul (ib. p. 121)

Jiidaeae" (perhaps because "king of Israel" would imply "king of
the ten tribes"). In I Flsdr. v. 7, 'louSm'a is parall. to Ezr. ii. I x^P a
i K.V. M provim e") ami iii i Ksdr. v. 8 "Jerusalem and the. rest of Judaea"
is parall. to K/r. ii. i "Jerusalem and Judah? Strabo (749, ri0fp.v...
."I'toi fit) appears to imply that there were different ways of classifying
"Judaea."

210

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

interpreted as meaning, or including, the Perichoros in the
South, far away from Capernaum, where Jesus then was 1 .

Even if Luke had meant " Palestine," his meaning would
have included Judaea. We are therefore justified in concluding
that these Lucan divergences from Mark indicate, 1st, that
Luke believed Judaea to have been influenced by Christ's
early preaching in ways not mentioned by Mark, 2nd, that
a source of confusion might be found in the Hebraized Greek
word Perichoros. And, since the word is Hebrew and not
Aramaic, there results the inference that Luke may be
borrowing the passages in which the word is used, partly or
wholly, from a Hebrew Gospel. All this gives weight to the
slight Lucan indications that things had been going on in
Judaea, at the beginning of the gospel, concerning which
Mark is silent. In other words, Luke hints at that which
John, as we shall see in the next section, emphasizes and
amplifies.

4. Johns account of a first visit to Galilee

According to John, there were two early visits to Galilee
one, made by Jesus before the Baptist's arrest, and another
some time afterwards, perhaps about the time of the arrest but
certainly not in consequence of it. He leaves it open to us to
suppose that these two may have been confused.

1 For a similar reason, instead of Mk i. 38 r ray c
Luke (iv. 43) has rals trepais noXfcnv, and, for Mark's els TOVTO yap e^f/
Luke has 6Yt eVl TOVTO aTreo-raArji/. Mark's words might imply that Jesus
"came-out [of the house]" for a short mission. Luke describes the
Mission of Christ's life ("I was sent"). The Marcan efj\6ov might be
interpreted Messianically. See Mt. ii. 6 (quoting Mic. v. 2), also Numb.
xxiv. 7 (LXX), and Is. xi. I, xlii. 13 &c. Comp. Jn viii. 42 eyo> yap CK TOV
6dw ff)\6ov /cal J^KCO. We shall return to the doctrine of "coming-forth"
when we discuss Mk i. 38 in its order. The first O.T. " coming-forth "
describes (Gen. ii. 10) the River which (Philo i. 250, 690) waters the world
" with four virtues."

211 14 2

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

As to the first visit, he uses an expression that invites
careful study, as indeed does the whole context, for it is one
of the most remarkable among many remarkable instances of
the Johannine method of teaching by allusions. We are told
that the journey took place " on the morrow " after the call of
Peter, which had been preceded by the call of Andrew : " On
the morrow it was his desire (or, he resolved) to go forth
into Galilee, and he findeth Philip ; and Jesus saith unto him,
'Follow me 1 '." This leads us to ask, Why mention this
desire (or resolve} as though to deny that He did it by
constraint? And how came Jesus to "find" Philip? Was it
by accident or as the result of search? And why is Philip
the only one of the apostles in the Fourth Gospel whom
Jesus is described as calling with the words "Follow me"?
The other Gospels describe other apostles as being thus called.
The Fourth Gospel does not deny that ; but it omits that, and
inserts this the special calling of Philip to "follow." Why
is this ?

Towards answering these questions the Evangelist leads us
a little way by adding, in effect, "Now I ought perhaps to have
told you that Philip was domiciled at Bethsaida, though born
a native of the city of Andrew and Peter 2 ." "The city of Andrew
and Peter" was not Bethsaida but Capernaum. This is proved
by the mention of "the house of Simon and Andrew" in
Mark, and by similar expressions in Matthew and Luke,
where the contexts assume that Capernaum was their home 3 .

1 Jn i. 43. On j0e\rj<rcv, see/0/*. Gr. 2471 a foil.

2 Jn i. 44. On Se parenthetic, s. Joh. Gr. 2631 foil. On OTTO and eVc, s.
Joh. Gr. 228990. The former implies domicile ; the latter, extraction.

3 Mk i. 29 "into the house of Simon and Andrew" (sim. Mt. viii. 14,
Lk. iv. 38, but omitting "Andrew"). Westcott (on Jn i. 44) says "The
Synoptists mention that Simon and Andrew had a house at Capernaum."
It would have been well to add (i) that all the Synoptists call it "the
hn\t " ; (2) that they nowhere mention any other house of Andrew or

.<! (3; that John, by speaking of"///* city of Andrew and Peter,"
implies that only one "city" (i.e. Capernaum) could claim to be so called.

212

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

Bethsaida was, in effect, a newly constructed Greek city into
which its founder Philip the Tetrarch brought a large number
of inhabitants, calling it Julias after the name of the Emperor's
daughter 1 . Into this Greek city Philip passed (perhaps with
others taking the Tetrarch's name) but not forgotten (it would
seem) by his old neighbours Andrew and Peter. Clement of
Alexandria assumes that Philip was living among " the dead "
when he describes a perversion of "the saying of the Lord,
who says to Philip, Leave the dead to bury their own dead,
but follow thou me 2 ." Origen assumes that Philip was in some
sense " lost," when Jesus went forth to rescue him : " And on
the fourth day having resolved to go-forth to Galilee, He that
* came-forth to seek that which is lost ' fitidcth Philip, and saith
unto him Follow me 3 ."

It would seem then that Philip is regarded as being in
a position somewhat like that of Abraham when the word of
the Lord said unto him, " Get thee out of thy country, and
from thy kindred and thy father's house." Abraham's family
was tainted with idolatry and he was to go forth from it.
But tradition represents him as pleading that he could not
leave his father, Terah, in his old age, and nevertheless, as
receiving the command to go forth. And somewhat the same
thing here would seem to apply to Philip 4 . His father (who

1 Joseph. Ant. xviii. 2. i.

2 Clem. Alex. 522, Mt. viii. 22, comp. Lk. ix. 60.

3 Origen Comm. Joann. vi. 30 0e\rjcras ef\6flv $ TTJV raXiXaiav 6
ef;f\da>v r)rri<rai TO a7roXo>A6s tVpUTKtl 4>iXi7T7roi/.... Comp. Lk. xix. IO
il\d(v...r)Tr)o-ai Ka\ aSxrai TO uTroXcoXor. Politically, Bethsaida, being just
inside the tetrarchy of Philip, would not be a part of the Tetrarchy of
Galilee and Peraea. But that would hardly prevent Evangelists writing
with Isaiah's prophecy in their minds about " Galilee of the Gentiles "-
from regarding Bethsaida as belonging to the Galilaean "people that sat
in darkness."

4 See Gen. r. on Gen. xii. i (Wu. p. 175) and Rashi. It was supposed,
either (i) that Terah actually died, or (2) that his death (Gen. xi. 32) is
mentioned out of its chronological place, and that he is to be regarded
as dead, before Abraham " goes forth."

213

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

perhaps had brought him from Capernaum to Bethsaida) was
spiritually " dead," and Philip was not to wait on in the city
of death in order to " bury the dead."

This view will help to explain the above-mentioned use of
the word "desire" or "resolve" in connection with the first
journey into Galilee. But there are other reasons also. Mark
had described Jesus as being " driven forth " by " the Spirit"
immediately after His baptism. Luke softens this into " He
turned back, full of the Holy Spirit, from the Jordan." Later
on, Luke says, "He turned back in the power of the Spirit into
Galilee." But even in this softened form these expressions
suggest that in both cases Jesus was under a constraining
influence somewhat like that which is said to have lifted up
Ezekiel in his visions. At all events there is nothing of
" desire " or " resolve " in the Lucan view. But the Johannine
view emphasizes, in an unusual way, the "desire" of Jesus to
take this journey. John also gives us a reason, or rather leads
us to supply the reason, as though we were bound to supply
it, if we had any sense at all of what Jesus really was.

It is as though John said : " I have told my readers that
Jesus was the Lamb of God that takes away sins. I have
told them of the effect that His personal presence produced
on Andrew and his companion ; I have led them to feel what
it must have been on Simon to whom He promised the name
of Cephas. Now I am about to describe Him as taking
a journey and as 'desiring' to take it. Is it necessary to say
what the Saviour's 'desire' was? Is it necessary to protest
against the notion that He journeyed into Galilee because the
Spirit drove Him thither, or because He was to fulfil a prophecy
of Isaiah about Galilee? His 'desire? of course, was to do
the Father's will by saving the souls of men. And He, being
who knew and loved the souls of men, knew, through
Andrew, the soul of Philip, once Andrew's companion and
incnd in Capernaum, but now in Bethsaida and surrounded
by temptations arising both from his family and from the

214

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

neighbourhood. Like Abraham, Philip was in danger of
death, if he remained where he was ; but, like Abraham, he
had abundant capacity for life, if he but heard the voice of
the Son of the living God, saying, ' Come forth from thy
kindred and from thy father's house and follow me'."

5- Johris account of a second visit to Galilee

The second Johannine visit to Galilee is introduced as
follows : " When therefore the Lord understood that the
Pharisees had heard [the report] that ' Jesus is making more
disciples and is baptizing more [than] John 1 ' and yet Jesus
himself was not baptizing, but [only] his disciples [were baptiz-
ing in his name] he left Judaea and departed again to Galilee."
Probably the text is corrupt. We have seen above, that
whereas Mark wrote "after John was delivered up," Matthew
expanded this into " when Jesus heard that John was delivered
up." The same motive has perhaps affected early editors of
the Fourth Gospel's text. But in any case what the Kvangelist
says here makes it almost certain that (in his opinion) Jesus
did not take this journey because He had heard of John's

1 Jn iv. i. The text indicates corruption. See Hort's note, to which
add that e has " convenit " for yva>, and that Origen (Comm. Joann. xiii. 39,
Lornm. ii. 73 ^ l( * r< -* fyvcvKevai TOVS 3>api(raiovs on 'irjcrovs frXcJOPUf fjLddrjras
71-oiei <a\ /3a7TTi'ei [fj] 'looui/i/ij?) indicates how variations may have arisen.
The original may have simply said as ovv Zyvaxrav ol Qapicraioi. But it
may have been argued that it was not the knowledge of the Pharisees,
but the Lord's hearing of this, that prompted His action. See above
(p. 206, n. i) as to the frequent insertion of "hearing" in the LXX to
express thoughts of this kind.

If 77 is to be omitted after /3a7rr/ei the meaning must be "Jesus is
making more disciples [than ever] and John is baptizing them," but this
does not agree with what follows. Curet. Syr. has "Now when Jesus
knew that the Pharisees heard that his disciples were many, and [that] he
was baptizing more than John not that Jesus [himself] was baptizing,
but his disciples." SS has " Now when our Lord knew that the Pharisees
heard... of (? om.) many disciples " ; and instead of "not that... baptizing,"
it has "because not only was our Lord baptizing."

215

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

arrest. And this is made more certain by what he says a little
before, speaking of Jesus as baptizing, at the same time as
John, in Judaea "for John had not yet been cast into prison "-
and describing the apparent jealousy of some of John's
disciples at the popularity of Jesus 1 .

The Diatessaron places John's arrest immediately after
Christ's leaving Judaea 2 . This probably accords with the
Johannine view. For the Prophet's words uttered a little
before the account of Christ's departure " He [i.e. Jesus]
must increase, but I must decrease," seem to be intended as
a kind of farewell to public life. If John was arrested a few
days after these words, Christ's enemies might say, "Jesus
fled immediately afterwards to escape the same fate." All
the more necessary it might seem to shew that there was no
such motive for Christ's journey. John was " not yet" arrested.

6. What happened in the Synoptic visit to Galilee f

According to Mark, Jesus " came into Galilee preaching
the gospel of God... 3 ." Deferring the consideration of the
following words describing the " gospel," we pass to the parallel
Matthew, which says " He withdrew to Galilee, and having
given up his home at Nazareth, he came and took up his
abode in Capernaum by the sea... that it might be fulfilled
(Is. ix. i 2)... From that time began Jesus to preach and to
say 4 ." Luke says "And Jesus turned back in the power of the
Spirit to Galilee, and a fame went out over the whole of the
country round about concerning him, and he began-to-teach

1 Jn iii. 22 6.

2 Diatess. 6. It combines Jn iv. 3^ with Lk. iii. 1920, "And [so]
/!, I, ft Judaea. And Herod the governor. . .shut up John in prison." The
actual journey through Samaria and the Dialogue with the Samaritan
woman an,- placed by the Diatessaron very much later ( 21) "And
while he was passing through the land of Samaria," omitting the
inconvenient \}\\ iv. 4) ?fo t .

3 Mk ' 14- 4 Mt. iv. 1217.

216

TOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

in their synagogues... 1 ." Luke does not say, as Mark and
Matthew do, what Jesus taught. But he adds what was
the effect of His teaching, "He began to teach in their
synagogues, being glorified by all." This is somewhat dis-
appointing. When the Son of God is recorded as coming
down to earth to be the Saviour of the world, and to preach
the Good Tidings of man's redemption, the reader naturally
awaits with interest the first word of that Good Tidings.
About most teachers, especially teachers of new truth, we
should say that to be "glorified by all" was a very bad sign,
indicating that they were teaching, not what was true, but
what was pleasant to the multitude.

Not improbably the original was ambiguous and led to
various inferences. The Greek "fame" on the one occasion
where it occurs in canonical LXX is, in Hebrew, literally,
"hearing 2 ." The Hebrew word occurs in Isaiah, "Lord, who
hath believed our report!" which is taken both by Paul and
by John as meaning " our preaching" although Rashi and Ibn
Ezra seem to take it as meaning " that which we have heard
[and which we have seen fulfilled^" Also the verb " report "
(literally "cause to be heard "), when it occurs in Isaiah " How
beautiful... are the feet of him that bringeth-tidings, that re-
porteth peace" is misrendered as a noun by LXX "that
bringeth-tidings of the report of peace*" This shews how,
owing to verbal ambiguities, evangelists might differ at this
point as to the question whether a "gospel" or a "fame" was
contemplated.

1 Lk. iv. 14 15. As Luke here uses f'&'dao-icei/, and iv. 31 rjv
8iSa<r*:a>i>, and xi. i cftiSagev, it is best to distinguish the first by ren-
dering it " began-to-teach." The parall. Mt. iv. 17 has rjp^aro
The word for "fame" in Lk. iv. 14 is ^M- 2 Prov. xv. 30, LXX

3 Is. liii. i (R.V. txt "our report? marg. "or, that which we have
heard? Gesen. 1035 a "the report that reached us"} quoted in Jn xii. 38,
Rom. x. 16 as LXX rfj ciKofi j^eoi/. Luke never uses this ambiguous word
except in vii. i els r<W d<oas rov XaoO, where there can be no ambiguity.

4 Is. lii. 7.

217

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

But, further, Luke (as we shall presently see) does not
apparently believe that the time has come to say anything
about the details of Christ's "gospel." These he reserves for
the visit to Nazareth, which he introduces in the next verse>
his intention being to shew that all through Galilee Jesus was
" glorified," but in Nazareth He was rejected and assaulted :
" And he began-to-teach in their synagogues [i.e. the syna-
gogues of Galilee] being glorified by all. And he came to
Nazareth...."

It is natural to compare this with the juxtaposition of
events in Matthew : " He withdrew into Galilee, and giving
up his home in Nazareth he came and took up his abode in
Capernaum." It looks as though Luke, accepting this account
of Christ's changes of residence, said to himself, "Yes, but
this needs explanation. Why did He leave His home at
Nazareth ? Because, when He carried the gospel thither, His
life was threatened. And why did He take up His abode in
Capernaum ? Because He was glorified there on account of
His mighty works, so that His fellow-townsmen at Nazareth
were described by Jesus Himself as disposed to say, ' What-
soever we have heard done at Capernaum, do also here in
thine own country '." So Luke infers that he must insert at
this point that visit of Jesus to Nazareth, and these sayings
of Jesus about a " prophet " being " without honour in his own
country," which Mark and Matthew (and probably John as
we shall see) place much later.

Whatever be the reasons, this at least is the fact, that,
whereas Mark and Matthew connect Christ's visit to Galilee
with His preaching of the "gospel" Luke connects it merely
with a course of "teaching" resulting in a "glorification" of
the Teacher. He does not mention the preaching of the

cl till a special visit to Nazareth, where the preaching is
ted.

218

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

7. What happened in the first Johannine visit to Galilee ?

According to John, what happened in Galilee must be
divided into four parts, 1st, the call of Philip, presumably
taking place in Bethsaida, the city in which Philip was then
residing, 2nd, the conversion of Nathanael, and the promise
that the disciples should see the heaven opened and the angels
of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man, 3rd, the
sign at Cana, 4th, the going down to Capernaum as to which
it is added " They abode there not many days. And the
passover of the Jews was at hand." No mention is made of
Nazareth as being visited first before the " going down " to
Capernaum. We are prepared, of course, for finding no
mention of "gospel." Hut there is also no fulfilment of
prophecy except Philip's enthusiastic declaration that Jesus
fulfils "the law and the prophets" damped for the moment
by Nathanael's brief objection to " Nazareth " as a Messiah 's
birth-place. There is no " preaching," no " teaching," no sug-
gestion of publicity or " fame." The nearest approach to
publicity is the Supper at Cana. The only "glory" is from
the " sign " of the New Wine. And that only affects the
small band of "his disciples," who "believed on him 1 ." His
brethren are mentioned as going down to Capernaum with
Him. But they are not said to have "believed"; and, later
on, it is expressly said that they did not believe 2 .

Deferring to a future section the consideration of what
may be said to be implied in all this, of such a nature as to
correspond to a " gospel," we may note the verbal agreement
between John and Luke as to Capernaum. Matthew had
said that Jesus " came and took up his abode at Capernaum
which is by the sea," in order that the prophecy might be
fulfilled concerning " Galilee of the Gentiles " and " the way

1 Christ's "disciples" are mentioned for the first time in Jn ii. 2 " But
there had been bidden also Jesus and his disciples to the wedding."

2 Jn vii. 5.

219

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

of the sea " ; Luke, who would not have agreed that Capernaum
was " by the sea 1 " simply says, without quoting any prophecy,
that when Christ's life had been attempted at Nazareth, He
" came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee"

Luke's words derive additional importance from the fact
that Marcion practically made them the beginning of his
gospel, which was, in fact, Luke with excisions. Marcion
arranged it thus : " In the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius, he came down to the Galilaean city of Capernaum 2 ."
To do this, meant, in effect, to begin the gospel with an act
of exorcism 3 , and to represent Jesus as appealing to men in
the character of an Exorcist and a Healer possessing miracu-
lous powers. Capernaum was notoriously the principal scene
of these " mighty works 4 ." These considerations may help to
explain the brief addition to Luke made by John as follows :
" After this he went down to Capernaum, he and his mother
and the brethren [of Jesus], and his disciples, and there they
remained not many days^T The intention seems to be to
subordinate what we may call " the gospel of Capernaum," or,

1 On Luke's avoidance of "sea" applied to the Lake of Gennesaret,
see>/&. Voc. 1811 </.

2 Lk. iii. i and iv. 31 quoted by Tertullian Adv. Marc. iv. 7.

3 Mk i. 21 8, Lk. iv. 31 7.

4 Lk. iv. 23 "the things that we have heard done at Capernaum," and
comp. Mt. xi. 23. In Jn iv. 46, the nobleman to whom it is said "except
ye see signs and wonders ye will not believe," is described as having his
son sick " at Capernaum."

5 Jn ii. 12. This is John's first mention of Christ's "brethren."
Origen comments on the fact that, though not present at Cana, they are
described, immediately after the story of Cana, as coming down with
Jesus and His mother and His disciples to Capernaum. Chrysostom
must be supposed to have believed (impossible though the supposition
may appear; that Christ's brethren were present at Cana. For he twice
iiiiM|uou-s Jn ii. i "Now the mother of Jesus was also there and his
brethren? Also, he adds, "As therefore they invited her and the
brethren [of Jesus], so they invited Jesus too," i.e. doing Him no special
honour. 1 have found no trace of any such reading in any other
authority.

220

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

at all events, to correct the impression that at this early period
Jesus, as Matthew says, " took up his abode at Capernaum."

But there appears also an intention to describe Jesus as
at this time separating Himself (like Abraham) from His
" kindred," in order to go forth on the journeying prescribed
by God. It is done, like most things in the Fourth Gospel,
not by statement but by suggestion. At the Wedding in
Cana, " the mother of Jesus " is said to have been " there "; and
Jesus and His " disciples " were " bidden." But His " brethren "
are neither " there " nor " bidden." The sign at Cana was a
success so far as the disciples were concerned, "and his
disciples believed on him." But a contrast between " disciples "
and " brethren " is suggested, at all events interrogatively, in
the continuous text, which runs thus : " And his disciples
believed on him. After this he went down to Capernaum, he
and Jiis mother and \his\ brethren and his disciples" Where
have the " brethren " been all this time ? Are we to suppose
that they had " believed " before the sign at Cana ? That
would be, even at this point, almost impossible. And it is
made quite impossible by what follows later on, " For even
his brethren did not believe on him 1 ."

These last words about Christ's brethren (" did not believe
on him ") referring to a later period, contrast with what is
said about Christ's disciples now (" believed on him ") and
suggest a further answer to the question " What happened in
this visit ? " It was the introduction of a new power into the
world, the power of " faith " or " belief " not " belief " in
general, but that particular kind of belief which had Jesus for

1 Jn vii. 5. In the Synoptists, the only instance of Christ's "mother"
and "brethren" mentioned together (Mk iii. 31 foil., Mt. xii. 46 foil.,
Lk. viii. 19 foil.) is in the narrative of their attempt to reach Jesus in the
midst of His disciples, when Jesus says (Mk iii. 35) "Whosoever shall do
the will of God, the same is my brother and sister and mother." But
comp. Mk vi. 3, Mt. xiii. 55 6 (no parall. in Lk.) where Christ's "mother,''
"brothers," and "sisters" are mentioned as a cause, or excuse, for dis-
belief in Him.

221

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

its object. The Evangelist has already told us that the
Baptist's testimony was ordained " that all might believe " ;
that to them who believe in the incarnate Word there has
been given "authority to become children of God"; and
Jesus Himself has gently taught Nathanael that belief in
Him must be based on something greater than admiration
for what might be called Christ's powers of "second sight 1 ."
But no statement has yet been made that any disciple has
"believed." Now the statement is made, and with such an
addition as to signify that the right kind of belief has been at
last attained : " This did Jesus [as the] beginning of his signs
in Cana of Galilee, and he manifested his glory and his
disciples believed on him 2 ."

This is very different from the notion of " belief " or " faith "
that we might derive from many passages of the Synoptic
Gospels, and, in particular, at this stage of the Gospel, from
Luke. In the Synoptists, faith a word that John never uses
in its noun form 3 seems mostly to represent faith in Christ's
physical power of healing 4 ; and Luke represents the call of
Peter as having been preceded by a miraculous draught of
fishes 5 . In the Johannine narrative before us, Christ's re-
corded words are few and brief; and there are no acts of
healing. But it is implied that His converse with the first
disciples was prolonged and intimate. And they in their turn
brought to Him their brothers or close friends. A Person
rises up, and around Him other persons shape themselves into
a Church or Temple. It is a drama, or a picture, not a lecture,
discourse, or even prophecy. Greeks might liken the opening

1 Jn i. 7, 12, 51. - Jn ii. 11. 3 See/^. Voc. 1467.

1 < <>inp. Mt. ix. 28 " Believe ye that I am able to do this?" Doubtless
this "belief" in Christ's being "able" (which is not mentioned in the
parallel narratives of Mk x, Mt. xx, Lk. xviii) was of great importance
for the purpose of the special act of healing. But it was only one inferior
Ctol u In lief" in Christ Himself.
Lk. v. 4 foil.

222

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

of the Johannine Gospel to Orpheus drawing stocks and stones
after him, or to Amphion calling into their places with the
spell of his lyre the stones that were to build up a great city.

This is certainly poetry, but it is also historical fact in this
respect that the belief described by John is nearer than the
belief of the crowds that are described by Mark as pressing
round Christ's door at Capernaum to that new, revolutionary,
and divine belief, which Christ actually desired to produce
and by which Christ's religion, wherever it has been successful,
has achieved success. We shall presently find that Mark,
alone among the Synoptists, has placed the precept to
" believe " however briefly at the outset of Christ's preach-
ing. Matthew and Luke have omitted it. John is historically
correct in giving to such belief a prominence, from the
beginning, if not in Christ's actual words, yet certainly in the
atmosphere of His words and actions.

The Johannine " belief " was a personal trust in Christ as
the infinitely lovable Lamb of God, as the Saviour whose
very words were life 1 , as one whose presence was as the very
bosom of God. The Love of this Man, the Blood of this
Lamb, the Spirit of this Son of God, John desires us to
realise as having flowed into the souls of the disciples at Cana
not in its perfection, but in a kind of foretaste, through
the affectionate and well-meaning intervention of the Lord's
mother when the new wine of the gospel was poured out for
them, and when Jesus " manifested his glory and his disciples
believed on him." How different, this this " glory " of grace
and truth manifested to this little knot of six, six among many
guests at a bridegroom's table from the glory of a popular
" teacher," which Luke's readers might suppose to be meant,
as having been attained by Jesus in Galilee, when "he taught
in their synagogues, being glorified by all 2 "!

1 Comp. Jn vi. 68 " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast [the] words
of eternal life."

- Lk. iv. 15. This is before the act of the Forgiveness of Sins

223

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

These considerations lead us to the conclusion that John
no less than Matthew, though he does not quote Isaiah as
Matthew does discerns. in this visit of Jesus to Galilee a ful-
filment of Isaiah's promise about the region " beyond Jordan,"
" Galilee of the nations," " the people that walked in darkness,'"
" upon them hath the light shined." " Bethany beyond Jordan "
is expressly mentioned as the place where John's baptizing
came to pass, and, with it, the Epiphany or manifestation of
Christ as the Light of the World by the descent of the Holy
Spirit. " Galilee " is also mentioned as the place to which
Jesus " desired to go forth," before He " found " and appa-
rently in order to " find " and save the soul of Philip,
who (as we have seen above) is regarded as "walking in
darkness " among the mingled races that inhabited the idol-
worshipping city of Bethsaida. Thus, in answer to the question,
" What was done in this visit?" we may say "the Light of the
World came to lighten the darkness of the nations in accor-
dance with the gospel, or good tidings, proclaimed by Isaiah."

In connection with this prophecy of Isaiah about Galilee
and the Light, Jerome first quotes Matthew's version as
representing the Hebrew rather than the LXX. Then he
says " And John the Evangelist relates that Jesus, with His
disciples, in Cana of Galilee, being invited to a wedding,
wrought His first sign there by turning water into wine :
'This did Jesus [as the] beginning of [His] signs in Cana of
Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed
on Him.' Whence also, in the LXX, it is said, Drink this
first, do [it] quickly 1 , because 'the land of Zebulon ' and 'the
land of Naphtali' saw Christ's first miracles, so that [that
land] first drank the draught of faith, which [land] had also

(Lk. v. 206). Mark (ii. 12) raises the standard of "glorifying," by
usin^ it only once in the whole of his Gospel, and then in connection
with the Korgivrness of Sins (although faith-healing also plays a
prominent part in the narrative).

Is. IX. I (LXX) ToCro rrp(t)Tov Trie, ra^v iroifi,

224

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

first seen the Lord doing signs." Apparently Jerome means
that the version of the LXX (which modern students would
call an extraordinary error) was ordained to give a meaning
different from the Hebrew, but conveying a truth of its own,
and this, a prophecy of the first of Christ's miracles, the
conversion of water into wine in Cana of Galilee.

It is unlikely that this error of the LXX has more than
a very slight bearing if any bearing on the origination of
the Johannine narrative ; but it may have partially contributed
to its prominence, and to the position given to it at the outset
of the Gospel in connection with Galilee and the Jordan. Its
origination might be explained from Hebrew and Jewish
traditions, about the " wine " of the Law, taken up by Jesus
and developed by Him in doctrine about the " new wine " of
the Gospel. Among parallelisms between the Giving of the
Wine at Cana and the Giving of the Law at Sinai, there is
one that should have been given in a previous treatise and
may be conveniently placed here 1 .

It relates to the threefold repetition of " on the morrow,"
followed by " on the third day 2 ." From this readers are left
to infer that, if " the third " means " the third " from the last
mentioned " morrow," we are being prepared for a sixth day.
Origen repeatedly assumes and mentions " six " in reference
to what he calls the "economy" at Cana 3 .

Now in the account of the Creation in Genesis there is
nothing of this kind. The days are there enumerated, each
in turn, from the first to the sixth, without any special
mention of " the third day." But the account of the Giving
of the Law in Exodus says " Be ready against the third day " ;

1 It should have been inserted in Son 3583 (ix) b, or 3583 (xii)^, where
it has been pointed out that the sign at Cana corresponds in some respects
to the giving of the Law at Sinai, as well as to the six days of the Creation.

2 Jn i. 29, 35, 43, ii. i.

3 E.g. Comm. Joann. x. 2 (Lomm. i. 277) /^ra ras- e roC ore (? leg. !
eore) fftairTicrOr) J7/ze'pay, TTJ CKTTJ yfvop.fvr]s rfjs Kara rov eV Kai/a rrjs FaXtXaiay
ydfiov olKovop.ias (comp. ib. 6, Lornm. i. 288).

A. B. 225 15

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

and, about this, an ancient tradition says, " That is the sixth
day 1 ." The meaning is " the sixth day from the beginning of
the month which was the beginning of the life of Israel as a
free nation released from the bondage of Egypt 2 ."

Summing up our conclusions as to the first Johannine
visit to Galilee, we may say that it presents Christ to us as
the irresistible Lamb of God and the beloved Bridegroom of
Israel, destined to bring about the Wedding between divine
and human nature. All at present breathes peace. There
are but faint suggestions of an impending cloud in the words
"What have I to do with thee?" and "Mine hour is not yet
come," and in the mention unexpected, and, as it were,
casual of Christ's " brethren " as being distinct from His
" disciples." John does not contradict expressly anything in
the Synoptists, but he gives us a very different view, more
poetic, more emotional, and more personal.

Truer, in a superficial or matter-of-fact sense, it is not.
We are forced to believe that Christ's early popularity was
largely due to those inferior powers which everyone could
understand at once, acts of instantaneous healing and exorcism
such as Mark has described at great length, and such as
(doubtless) occurred in great numbers where crowd rivalled
crowd in " belief " of a certain kind. But if we admit that
the " belief " that Jesus desired to inspire and ultimately did
inspire was of a different kind, and was the real foundation
and rock on which He built His church, then we shall probably

1 Mechilta on Exod. xix. 11 (Wii. p. 199).

2 See Exod. xix. i 16 where Targ. Jer. I supplies numbers for the
days as italicised in the following passage : "(i) On that day, the first
of the month, came they to the desert... (3) And Moses on the second day
went up to the top of the mountain... (9) And the Lord said to Moses on
the third day, I will reveal myself [wrongly punctuated by Walton and
Etheridge]...(io) And the Lord said to Moses on the fourth day.. .(11)
for on the third day the Lord will reveal himself... (i 6) And it came to pass
on the third day, the sixth of the month"

226

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

admit that the poetic account of the first visit to Galilee in
the Fourth Gospel gives us an insight not given by the
Synoptic Gospels into the causes of Christ's success.

8. What happened in the second Johannine visit to Galilee ?

The second journey to Galilee is said to have been broken
by a stay of two days in Samaria, where " many " believed in
Jesus because of the testimony of the Samaritan woman, and
" many more because of his [own] word." The narrative
proceeds, with a paradoxical use of "for" which arrests
attention : " After the two days he went forth from thence
into Galilee ; for Jesus himself testified that a prophet in his
own country hath no honour. When therefore he came to
Galilee the Galilaeans received him, having seen all things as
many as he had done in Jerusalem at the feast ; for they, too,
had gone to the feast 1 ."

Various attempts have been made to explain the "for"
that thus introduces the reason why Jesus went into Galilee.
But it does not become really intelligible unless we recognise
that Jesus is deliberately passing from places where He has
" honour " to places where He has not " honour." The Evan-
gelist is repeating and emphasizing the reason given above,
namely, that Jesus was regarded by many in Judaea as out-
stripping the Baptist in popularity, and that He did not
desire this kind of reputation. He therefore departed from
Judaea to Galilee. On His way, the Samaritans welcome
Him and believe in Him, and He remains with them "two
days." But He will remain no longer. He passes on, " after
the two days," to Galilee, because there He would be " in his

1 Jn iv. 435. On the Johannine ovv ("when therefore (ovv) he
came") see Joh. Voc. and Joh. Gr. (Indices, ovv\ and especially 2198
200 and 26315. The A.V. and the R.V. differ greatly, e.g. vi. 1314
A.V. "Therefore... then," R.V. " So... therefore." A.V. has "so 55 where
R.V. has "therefore" in iv. 46, vi. 19; R.V. has "so" where A.V. has
"therefore" in vi. 13. In all these passages the Greek has ovv.

227 152

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

own country," that is, in the place where He had lived
with His family from a child 1 , and where, proverbially, "a
prophet hath no honour." John goes on to say, not without
a touch of irony, that " therefore " that is, in accordance with
this proverb the Galilaeans received Jesus, not because of
their experience of Him at home in Galilee but because of their
experience of Him away from home in Jerusalem, "having seen
all the things as many as he had done in Jerusalem 2 ." "All
the things " apparently means works of healing mentioned
above, concerning which Nicodemus had previously said " No
one can do these signs, which thou art [daily] doing, except
God be with him 3 ."

What had happened among Christ's kindred and neighbours
at Nazareth that had called forth this "testifying" of Jesus
concerning "the prophet in his own country"? John has
recorded nothing. Perhaps however John assumes an un-
recorded visit to Nazareth between the miracle at Cana
where Christ's brethren were absent, and the going down
to Capernaum where they were present. In that interval,
Jesus may have been so contumeliously and roughly treated
at Nazareth that the whole family went down with Him
thence to Capernaum. Luke relates such a visit to Nazareth
before his mention of the going down to Capernaum. But
Luke's narrative includes an attempt on Christ's life not
mentioned by Mark or Matthew and probably based on some
misunderstanding 4 .

1 This, and not " the place of his birth," is the meaning of iraTpis in
LXX and N.T. In canon. LXX, iraTpis, without var. r., occurs only
6 times 5 times for Heb. (Gesen. 409 &) "kindred," "birth," or "offspring,"
and once for Heb. "land of kindred" (Jer. xlvi. 16). Neither its Greek
nor its Hebrew associations would favour the application of the word to
the place where a child was born in transit ii.

- Jn iv. 45.

3 Jn iii. 2, comp. ii. 23 " many believed on his name, beholding his
signs, which he was [daily] doing."

1 See Hurkitt ii. 130 giving quotations of Lk. iv. 29 "when they threw
him from the hill he flew in the air," and comp. SS, which has " so that

228

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

Returning to the question " What happened during this
second visit to Galilee?" we find, on the surface, a disappointing
answer. For, if this second Johannine visit coincided with
the first Mark-Matthew visit, placed by Mark and Matthew
immediately after the Baptist's arrest, we ought to find it the
beginning (practically) of the gospel in Galilee ; there ought
to be a great multitude of miracles of healing ; Jesus, instead
of being slighted and neglected, ought to be pestered with
popularity. We appear, at first sight, to find nothing of all
this in John.

Looking more closely, however, we shall find indeed traces
of "all this," but we shall also find that John seems to think
" all this " of very little importance, as being mostly fitful
excitement or merely belief in faith-healing signifying very
little. The Galilaeans " received " Jesus 1 . Yes, but it was
because of what they had seen at Jerusalem. John seems to
say to us, " Why should I repeat over again what Mark and
Matthew have more than sufficiently reported, that the gospel
of faith-healing at Capernaum was outwardly successful ? It is
better to make things even by emphasizing the Gospel of
Cana which, though it was not set forth with any mighty

they might hang him." But these are comparatively unimportant details.
It is more important to note the parallelism between Lk iv. 30 "but he,
passing through (dic\6o*v 8u\) the midst of them, went his way," and
Jn viii. 59 "but Jesus was hidden and came forth from the temple," and
ib. x. 39 "he came forth out of their hand." It is possible that traditions
about what happened to Jesus "in his Father's house" (see the first use
of "father's house" in Gen. xii. i) may have been interpreted as meaning
(i) at Nazareth in the house of Joseph, (2) in Jerusalem in the house of
God. See Joh. Gr. 2543 on the " hiding " of Christ, probably regarded
as supernatural.

1 Jn iv. 45 fSeai/ro, "gave him a [hospitable] reception," the only
Johannine use of the word, not so strong as eAa/%i>, and also weakened
by the context ("having seen all things as many as he did in Jerusalem").
Contrast Jn i. 12 " as many as received him [into themselves] (e\a/3oi/), to
them gave he authority to become God's children." On edegavro see
Joh. Voc. 1721 f t and note Luke's use of 80^77, as " reception " or " enter-
tainment," and -rravdoxdov, "inn."

229

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

work or sign that was known to the world was indeed
a mighty work or sign to the Disciples 1 . Matthew and

1 Comp. Jn ii. n "This beginning of his signs did Jesus. ..and mani-
fested his glory ; and his disciples believed on him." This indicates that
there was a "manifestation " to the disciples of (ib.) "this beginning of his
signs." Yet it is said above, "When the ruler of the feast tasted... and
knew not whence it was... but the attendants knew those who had drawn
the water..." This seems to imply that at that moment at all events
no one knew of the " sign " except " the attendants." And the " sign " is
not said to have been divulged afterwards to the disciples, or to the
master of the feast, or to the guests. If it had been, should we not have
expected the Evangelist to add " and all that were there, both the disciples
and the guests, believed on him " ? Yet, if it was not divulged to the
disciples, why is it expressly said that now " they believed on him " ?
Surely something must have occurred to make them "believe." If so,
what was it? Is there some latent confusion between literal and meta-
phorical tradition, which may be illustrated from Prov. ix. 2 4 " She
[i.e. Wisdom] hath mingled her wine... she hath sent forth her maidens,"
that is, to call " the simple " to the Feast ?

The answer must be deferred till we come to Mark's story of the Feast
in the House of the Publican, and doctrine about the "Calling" of
Sinners, and the Children of the Bride-chamber, and the New Wine
(Mk ii. 1422). At the close of it, Luke has (v. 39) "the old [wine] is
good:'' John here seems to add an apparently contradictory, but perhaps
complementary, tradition, " the new wine is good" Both the Synoptic
and the Johannine narrative must be studied in the light of the above-
quoted poetic description of Wisdom "mingling" her "wine" for the
"simple."

The Fourth Gospel suggests that the Logos gave two gifts of wine ;
one, rudimentary and preliminary, the "water" being kept distinct from
the u wine " ; the other, complete and final, in which the " wine " is
revealed as the "blood" of the Word, and the "water" and the "blood"
are "mingled." In Proverbs, Wisdom sends forth her (Heb.) "youthful
[attendants]" (Heb. fern., but LXX masc., SovXovy) to call the guests.
These "youths" whom we may call "little-children," for TrcuSm is a
frequent rendering of the masc. Heb. noun may have been confused
with the Johannine "attendants." If so, the original meaning may have
been that the disciples, or attendants, who preached the Gospel of
Wisdom those whom Jerome (on Prov. ix. 2 foil.) calls " praedicatores
infirmos ac despicabiles," the "little ones" whom the rulers of the Jews
despised these "knew" the Good Wine, and "knew whence it was," but
the rest did not. Confusion of this kind may have been facilitated by the
fact that the Hebrew word for "attendants" is often confused with

230

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

Luke have said that, when Jesus entered into Capernaum,
a centurion humbly besought Him to speak the word of
healing for son or servant 1 , and to heal him from a distance
because he, the centurion, was not worthy that the Lord
should come to his house; they add that Jesus marvelled
at the centurion's faith, as being beyond any that He had
' found in Israel.' But did this mean that the centurion's
belief was beyond that of the Lord's own disciples, such belief
as I have recorded in the narrative of Cana ? It was not so.
But He meant that the man's faith, and his reverence for
Christ, surpassed that of the multitudes of Jews in Capernaum."
If this is John's view, we may regard the Johannine
sign of the healing of the nobleman's son as in some sense a
complement and balance to the miracle of the healing of the
centurion's son, as though John said, " To balance the narrative
of the Centurion, I will set clown another concerning a Noble-
man. He, too, had a son sick at Capernaum. When he
heard that Jesus was at Cana, he came and begged Him to
come down to heal the child. But Jesus said speaking in
rebuke of all the citizens of Capernaum ' Except ye see signs
and wonders, ye will in no wise believe.' The man replied,
Sir, come clown, ere my child die,' and Jesus said, 'Go thy
way, thy son liveth.' And the man 'believed the word that

Hebrew words that resemble a form of "know" and is once actually
confused with yvcaarroi (Nehem. v. 10).

The "mingling" of water with " wine" is explained by Jerome as the
" mingling" of the human with the divine in the Incarnation : " Divinitatis
suae arcana capere non valentibus, assumptae humanitatis sacramenta
patefecit...in vino mixto conjuncta in unam Christi personam Deitatis et
humanitatis ejus natura exprimitur...vel certe in pane, corporis ipsius, in
vino mixto, sanguinis Sacrosancti Mysterium, quo in altari (mensa
videlicet ejus) satiamur, ostenditur." I have not found anything like this
in the six or more passages where Origen quotes Prov. ix. 2 3.

1 Mt. viii. 6 6 irais p>v, " my boy," is ambiguous. The parall. Lk. vii. 2
SoCXos is not. But "my boy" is abrupt if it means "my servant" as if
the centurion had only one servant. Luke avoids this by " a servant who
was very-dear (fWi/xo?) to him."

231

JOURNEYING INTO GALILEE

He spake,' and returned without repeating further the prayer
' Come down 1 .' This is the only sign that shall be recorded in
the account of this second journey to Galilee. Not that there
were not others. But they were unimportant as compared
with this. For this Nobleman was lifted up above the belief
of those in Capernaum, who ' would not believe, except they
saw signs and wonders.' The belief that sprang from this
sign seems to me to be a continuance, or resumption, in
Galilee, of the belief that sprang from the sign at Cana ; and
it was performed near Cana. Therefore I call it the second
after the return to Galilee: 'This is again the second sign
done by Jesus after coming from Judaea into Galilee'."

1 Jn iv. 47 9 ^pd>ra Iva Ka.Taj3f}...Kvpif, KardjSqdi... invites comparison
with Mt. viii. 7 Xe'yet avru, 'Eyob eXdnv 0pa7Tvo-(o avrov, and with Lk. vii. 3
6peor&>]> avrov onus l\0a>v 8ia<rwcrT). It will be observed that in Luke, the
elders say to Jesus, in effect, " come thyself," though Matthew represents
Jesus as saying " I will come myself."

The original of Matthew -Luke was perhaps "The centurion sent/'
followed by "And he {i.e. the centurion] spake [i.e. through the mes-
sengers] that he [i.e. Jesus] should come and heal." The latter was
understood wrongly by Matthew, as meaning "And he [i.e. Jesus] said,
himself, that he would come and heal." Luke understood it correctly
and amplified it for clearness, stating who the messengers were and what
they said.

232

CHAPTER VII

JESUS BEGINNING TO "PREACH"

THIS Chapter will cover less textual ground and more
evangelic thought than is covered by any of the preceding
Chapters, because it deals with the first utterance of the
Gospel of Peace, and therefore with " peace " as conceived by
Jews and as introduced by them to Gentiles. It will be shewn
that " peace," or Salem, meaning also " perfection," " complete-
ness," and implying the building up of parts into a perfect
unity, conveyed to Jews a whole world of spiritual thoughts
not patent to Gentiles. Of this we catch glimpses in the name
"Salem" itself; and in Melchizedek, the King of Salem, or
Peace ; and in Jerusalem, supposed to mean the Vision of
Peace ; and especially perhaps in Solomon. That king, in
himself, does not stand high, either historically or spiritually ;
but his name meant the Completer or Perfecter, and early
Jewish Christians would regard him as the type though
a faint and unworthy type of a Second Son of David, who
was to be the Prince of Peace indeed, and to build up the
spiritual Temple of which it might be said in truth, " The
Lord is there 1 ."

Not without interest, though subordinate to these deeper
considerations of spiritual thought, will be some textual con-
siderations as to the several attitudes of the Synoptists toward
the conception of peace. " The peace of God," being connected
by Isaiah with the publishing of the gospel or good-tidings,

1 Ezek. xlviii. 35.
233

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

might have been expected to receive a prominent position at
the outset of all the Christian Gospels. Yet this is not the
case. Among other questions, we shall ask and even if we
cannot fully ascertain we shall hope to derive profit from asking
and attempting to ascertain why Mark and the Johannine
Epistle never mention " peace " in the sense that we are con-
sidering ; why Luke places it early in the introduction to his
Gospel but not at the end ; and why the Johannine Gospel,
omitting it at the outset, inserts it at the end as a kind of
legacy to be bequeathed to Christ's disciples when He departs
from them, along with the gift of the Spirit which He breathes
into them from Himself.

i. Christ's first words in Mark and Matthew

According to Mark, the first words uttered by Jesus in
His preaching were "The [appointed] time is accomplished
(or, fulfilled) and the kingdom of God hath drawn near ; repent
ye and believe in the gospel (or, good-tidings)," preceded by
a statement that in these words He was "preaching (or,
heralding) the gospel (or, good-tidings) of God 1 ."

Neither in Hebrew nor in Greek is the noun "good-tidings"
used in O.T. about " good-tidings " sent from God. But the
verb " tell-good-tidings " is repeatedly thus used by Isaiah,
meaning "tell the good tidings of the salvation of God 2 ."
This prepares us to believe that Mark regarded Jesus as
referring to Isaiah's first use of the verb : " O thou that tellest-
good-tidings to Zion, get thee up into the mountain...." This
is all the more probable because Mark has just been repre-
senting the Baptist as quoting from the same chapter some

1 Mk i. 14 15 (W. H.) Krjpvo-o-(ov TO evayyeXiov TOV Geov [KOL Xe'ycoi/] on
n*7rXr//ja)rai o Km/joy.... SS omits "and saying." It is probably an
interpolation.

2 Gesen. 142 a, Is. xl. 9 (bis\ xli. 27, lii. 7 (lns\ Nahum i. 15. All
these except Is. xli. 27 have

234

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

preceding words, " The voice of one that crieth, In the
wilderness prepare ye a way... 1 ."

Accordingly, we find that what is practically the Marcan
<l [appointed] time," and the Marcan " accomplished (or, ful-
filled)," are both in Isaiah's context, connected thus : u Speak
ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her
appointed-tiTiie-of-servicc is accomplished ; that her iniquity is
pardoned...." This agrees with Mark in effect, so far as the
*' accomplishment " of the " time [of service] " is concerned,
except for the difference between " the " and u her-'' It should
be added that the word used by Mark for "accomplish" is the
same that Aquila regularly uses to represent the Hebrew word
in Isaiah 3 . Also, whereas Mark adds that it is the good tidings
" of God" this, too, is implied in Isaiah ("Comfort ye, comfort
ye my people, saif/i your God*").

Yet in spite of all this evidence, patent to modern students
comparing Mark with Isaiah, it is doubtful whether ordinary
Gentile converts to Christianity in the first century would

1 Mk i. 3, Is. xl. 3.

2 Is. xl. 2, R.V. text "warfare," marg. "time of service." See Gesen.
839^. Rashi gives (i) the Targum's interpretation ("a populo trans-
migratio," but Walton " populo transmigrationis [ejus]) " ; (2) "fore-
ordained ti ')nc (as in Job vii. i)." Comp. Dan. x. i R.V. "warfare" where
Rashi has (as A.V.) "time-appointed" concerning the period of trial in store
for Israel. Rashi would give the same meaning to the word in Dan. viii.
12 (R.V. and A.V. "host"} i.e. he would take it as meaning, not a number
of men collected for service, but a time appointed for trial and trouble,
like the service of war. Gesen. 839 a limits the meaning "hard service
of troubled life" to Job vii. i, xiv. 14, Is. xl. 2, Dan. x. i. Ibn Ezra, on
Is. xl. 2, mentions the explanation "host" but prefers "appointed time"
This suits the parallelism of the context.

3 rtX7poa>. It happens that here LXX has e7r\r)crdr) (besides para-
phrasing " period of [hard] service " as raTrttVaxris). This Heb. word for
"fill" is also used in Jer. xxv. 12, xxix. 10 about the "accomplishing"
of the "seventy years" of the captivity (Gesen. 570).

4 In writing to Gentiles this was a useful qualification. It is most
freq. in the early Pauline epistles (Rom. i. i, xv. 16, 2 Cor. xi. 7,
i Thess. ii. 2, 8, 9) comp. i Pet. iv. 17, and Rev. xiv. 6 euayyAtoz/ ma>j/toi/.

235

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

perceive the allusion to the " fulfilment " of the " appointed-
time." And to some it may have seemed inconsistent with
passages in the Gospels in which Jesus says "ye know not
when the appointed-lime is," or, " ye know not the day nor the
/uwr 1 " Moreover, if we are to say "the appointed time of
hard service has now been fulfilled" ought we not to add "and
the appointed time of consolation has now begun"'? But Mark
says merely "the kingdom of God hath drawn near (not,
begun)"

Then follow precepts. These are not strictly parts of the
" gospel," since imperatives are distinct from affirmatives.
But they are consequences of the gospel. The first is "repent."
The second is " believe in the gospel." Concerning "repenting,"
we have always to remember that the Hebrew word often
conveys the thought of turning to the Lord God from false
gods, and to the light from darkness. It is therefore not unfit
to receive prominence in a new atmosphere of joy, since it
means " Turn unto the Lord who hath graciously turned
toward you."

Still, the precept " Believe in the gospel," coming at the
end of the words assigned to Christ by Mark, does not seem
equal, in the strength of its appeal and spiritual power, to
corresponding precepts that might be derived from the context
in Isaiah, which says, in effect : " Why sayest thou, O Jacob,
that thy way is hid from the Lord ? He giveth power to the
faint. Hope ye upon the Lord and He shall renew your
strength 2 ." To Jews, who knew what Isaiah's "good-tidings "
or " gospel " meant and who could see in it the promise of
the return of the ransomed from the captivity of Babylon, of

1 Mk xiii. 33, Mt. xxv. 13, comp. Lk. xii. 40. In Lk. xxi. 8, false
prophets or deceivers are introduced as saying " the appointed-time hath
drawn near."

2 Comp. Is. xl. 2731. On "repentance," see Son 3564 a, quoting
Luther's saying "There is no true repentance that does not begin from
the love of righteousness and of God."

236

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

any Babylon, political or spiritual, that might be at any time
oppressing Israel the precept " Believe in the gospel " would
make a strong appeal. But on the ears of a Greek, ignorant
of the prophets, the words would fall so abruptly, and with
such a vernacular suggestion of believing in unexpectedness
and good luck, that it is almost surprising that the clause has
been allowed to remain in Mark unaltered, coming suddenly
on the reader as the end and climax of Christ's earliest
utterance 1 .

Christ's first words, in Matthew 2 , are a reproduction of
a portion of those in Mark, only in a different order. Matthew
omits " The time is accomplished " and " believe in the gospel."
He puts the precept " repent " before the announcement of
" the kingdom." Also, as usual, he alters " kingdom of God "
into "kingdom of the heavens." The result is that the
" preaching " of Jesus is represented as simply reproducing
in identical words and order the " preaching " of John the
Baptist when he came "preaching in the wilderness of Judaea,
saying, Repent, for tJie kingdom of the heavens hath drawn
near*" Moreover Matthew refrains, at this point, from
following Mark by making any mention of " gospel " in his
own person.

Why does Matthew thus apparently condense the already
brief and obscure text of Mark ? Was he dissatisfied with it
as a representation of Christ's words ? He does not describe
Jesus as " preaching the gospel " till later on, " And Jesus
went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and
preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of
disease and all manner of sickness among the people 4 ." Nor

1 The Diatessaron alters the order thus, "Repent ye and believe in
the gospel. The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of heaven hath come
near."

2 That is to say, the first words in Christ's public teaching (Mt. iv. 17).

3 Mt. iii. 2, rep. iv. 17.

4 Mt. iv. 23, parall. to Mk i. 39 "and he went into their synagogues
throughout all Galilee preaching and casting out devils," Lk. iv. 44 " and

237

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

does he mention the word "gospel" as used by Jesus till
much later 1 . Does Matthew mean that " the preaching of
the gospel," in the strict sense of the term, did not begin till
the signs of the gospel appeared in acts of exorcism and
healing ? This might naturally be a popular view : " The
' good tidings ' of Isaiah," people might say, " included acts
of healing 2 . John the Baptist's 'preaching' did not. But
Christ's preaching did, after a short time. Then the latter
became l the preaching of the gospel'" Some thought of
this kind may have influenced the authors of the traditions
followed by Matthew 3 .

2. Christ's first ivords in Ltike

It was not likely that Luke would accept from Matthew
a version of Christ's first public utterance which described
Him as repeating verbatim the preaching of John the Baptist.

he was preaching in the synagogues of Judaea" (see p. 209 foil., above).
" Kingdom " and " preach-the-gospel " occur in an immediately preceding
saying of Christ (Lk. iv. 43) " I must preach-the-gospel-of the kingdom of
God." This Matthew omits. But what Luke represents Jesus as saying
He must do, Matthew represents Him as actually doing.

1 Mt.'xxiv. 14, xxvi. 13.

2 It is true that the words "preach good tidings," do not perhaps occur
in Isaiah in connection with healing. There may however be an instance
in Is. Ixi. i " preach good tidings... the opening [of the prison] to them that
are bound " where, instead of " the opening [of the prison]," R.V. marg.
has " the opening \pfthe eyes} " ; and the LXX, for " them that are bound,"
has "the blind? and, for "the opening," has "the opening- of -the-eyes
(avd$\ftyiv}." But the substance of the "good tidings," namely, the
Return of the Captives, is described long before ; and that is definitely
connected with the healing of the "blind? "deaf? "lame? and "dutnt"
(Is. xxxv. i foil.) "The wilderness... shall be glad. ..the eyes of the blind
shall be opened...."

'' It seems strange that the Synoptists do not contrast John the
I'rracher and Baptizer, who (Jn x. 41) "worked no sign," with Jesus the
Healer, who (Acts x. 378) "after the baptism that John preached...
went-about benefiting and healing all that were oppressed by the devil."

238

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

This might be all the more objectionable to Luke because he
seems to have, so to speak, cleared out of the way all details
about the Baptist, in order to prepare the way for an un-
interrupted account of the acts and deeds of Christ. He has
described in detail the Baptist's birth, appearance, doctrine
and his imprisonment, too, though out of chronological order
before describing his baptism of Jesus. His object is now
to represent Jesus as introducing at last that new and great
dispensation for which John came to prepare the way. John
is the last of the prophets. Jesus is the Son. To represent
the Son as opening His mission by repeating the same sentence
as the Prophet might well seem strange. Jerome excuses it
by saying that the Son repeats as a son what the Prophet
proclaimed as a prophet. But the excuse is more ingenious
than convincing.

On the other hand, how could Luke reproduce Mark's
words " TJie appointed-time is accomplished" when he has just
written " Having completed every temptation the devil de-
parted from him //;//// a)i appointed-time""* Luke also had
to face the difficulty at least a difficulty for him in the
noun " evangel." This he never uses. But Mark uses it
here twice in a single sentence.

A remedy, however, was open to a well-educated Greek,
familiar, as Luke was, with the LXX, and aware that Mark
was obscurely alluding to the "good-tidings" in Isaiah. The
remedy was to quote instead of alluding. We can imagine
Luke asking, " Why did not Mark make his meaning clear by
this obvious method ? In Isaiah, ' Uli-good- tidings' is repeated
in such a context as to give no offence, even to an educated
Greek. Then Mark's readers would have understood the
correspondence between the Old and the New Covenant or
Testament. Isaiah prophesied the 'good-tidings' of the
return of Israel from the captivity of Babylon ; Jesus, the
Anointed of the Lord, was anointed to proclaim the ' good-
tidings ' of a return from the Captivity of the spiritual

239

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Babylon. This is what Mark really meant. But he has not
said it."

If that was Luke's view, he might naturally give at full
length some prophecy about the " good-tidings " in Isaiah
to which, as he conceived, Jesus was referring. Writing
in his own person as an evangelist, Luke has already done
this above, with reference to the prophecy concerning "the
voice of one crying." There he not only made the meaning
of the prophecy clear by quoting it fully, but also made it
clear that the prophecy was not uttered by the Baptist but
merely quoted by himself, Luke, evangelistically. In the
present instance, Luke appears to have followed some tradition
which alleged that Jesus, besides alluding to Isaiah, did
actually quote from Isaiah. He may well have found what
seemed to him sufficient evidence to shew that Jesus actually
read from Isaiah a passage that adequately and briefly de-
scribed Isaiah's " gospel " and the Messiah as being anointed
to " preach " it.

Such a passage Luke alleges to have been read by Jesus
(who afterwards applied it to Himself) in the course of His
Galilaean teaching when He came to Nazareth, the place where
He had been brought up, and when, according to His custom
on the sabbath day, He entered into the synagogue : " The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to
publish-the-gospel to the poor ; he hath sent me to proclaim
release to captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set
at liberty them that are oppressed (lit. bruised), to proclaim
the acceptable year of the Lord 1 ." Luke also brings in Mark's
word, " accomplished (or, fulfilled)," as part of Christ's com-
ment on Isaiah ; in the course of which He applies it, not to
any " appointed-time," but to this " scripture " about the

1 Lk. iv. 1 8, quoting Is. Ixi. I 2. But "to set at liberty them that
are oppressed (///. bruised)" is in Is. Iviii. 6, not in Is. Ixi. i, where the
clause following "anointed... meek (or, poor)" is "he hath sent me to
bind up the broken-hearted." See Son 3584 a.

240

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Anointed one, who was to " proclaim " such great things :
" He began to say unto them, To-day hath this scripture been
fulfilled in your ears."

3- Objections to the Lucan account of Christ's first words

Mark and Matthew have not recorded any early visit of
Jesus to Nazareth, nor have they related any attempt on
Christ's life at Nazareth at any time. They have indeed
recorded a visit, later on, to what they call " his own country,"
presumably meaning Nazareth ; and their account of it re-
sembles the account in Luke in two points. First, the Nazar-
enes say " Is not this the carpenter, or the carpenter's son, or
Joseph's son?" as though this were inconsistent with His
claims; secondly, Jesus observes, in reply, "A prophet is not
without honour save in his own country " or " No prophet is
acceptable in his own country."

But the sequel in Mark and Matthew exhibits nothing
similar to the attempt at murder described in Luke, but
merely says that Jesus " was not able there to do a single
mighty work," or " did not do there many mighty works be-
cause of their unbelief 1 ." There is no allusion in either Mark
or Matthew to any pre-existing unbelief; and indeed Mark
adds that He " marvelled " at their present unbelief. How
could He " marvel," if, a short time ago, they had attempted
to murder Him? It will be shewn hereafter that, besides
these considerations, others also make it very difficult to
believe that Mark and Matthew knew anything of the
Nazarene outbreak described by Luke, and much more easy
to believe that Luke's story is based on misunderstanding.

Further, if we look closely into the words of Isaiah sup-
posed to have been read and applied by Jesus to Himself, we

1 Mk vi. i 6, Mt. xiii. 53 8, Lk. iv. 16 30. Mark adds that Jesus
healed a few infirm people and that He "marvelled because of their
unbelief."

A. B. 241 l6

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

shall find that they represent a Person coming almost entirely
as a Herald, Preacher, or Proclaimer, not as a Doer of deeds
of healing or saving, nor as an actual Saviour 1 . But heralding
is rather the part of John the Baptist than the part of Jesus.
It is as the Shepherd or Healer of Israel that Jesus should be
represented. No doubt it would be a mistake on the other
side, and it is a mistake from which Mark is not perhaps free,
to lay so much stress on Christ's acts of exorcism and healing
as to throw His spiritual healing into the shade. But it seems
also a mistake to lay so much stress on " the wonder " caused
by Christ's teaching and by what Luke here calls " the words
of grace which proceeded out of his mouth," and then to add
that, almost in the moment when " all wondered " at these
"words of grace," they asked " Is not this Joseph's son?"
and promptly proceeded to attempt to take His life. Luke
does not seem to have ascertained all the circumstances of
Christ's home. Where Mark tells us that Christ's " house-
hold," or " people at home," sought to restrain Him, saying
that He was "beside himself," the parallel Luke differs and is
probably less accurate 2 . John, in due course, states distinctly
that the brothers of Jesus themselves "did not believe" in Him*.
If Luke had known what can hardly be doubted to have
been a fact, for who would have invented it as a fiction ?
that the Lord's own brethren did not believe, we might suppose
that he would hardly have accepted a narrative which holds
up Christ's neighbours in Nazareth to censure for not believing
at so early a date, and even accuses them of an attempt to
murder Him.

1 The only clause that expresses doing^ as distinct from proclaiming,
is, in Luke, "to set at liberty them that are bruised." But that is not in
Isaiah Ixi. i (see above, p. 240, n. i). In Isaiah Ixi. i the only clause
that expresses doing is " to bind up the broken-hearted."

2 Mk iii. 21, Mt. xii. 23, Lk. xi. 1416. This must be discussed
later on.

3 Jn vii. 5.

242

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Another objection to the Lucan narrative, from the Johan-
nine point of view, is the obscurity of the concluding words
left unexplained in the lesson from Isaiah : " to proclaim
the acceptable year of the Lord'' What was the " year " ? Did
it mean a literal " year " or not ? We might have supposed
that " year of acceptance " would be understood to be not
literal, any more than " day of salvation " ; but, as a fact, the
Valentinians took it in a literal sense, and, though bitterly
attacked for it by Irenaeus, were abetted in this view by
Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian 1 . So early a belief
may very well have induced the author of the Fourth Gospel
to emphasize a contradiction of a chronology that was based
on the supposition that the period of the Lord's public work
was no more than one " year of acceptance."

4. John on " appointed-time "

The Marcan word " appointed-time," omitted here by
Luke, a word fairly frequent in the Synoptists and capable of
various meanings, is used by John in only one passage, but
there thrice, perhaps with a play on the Hebrew word meaning
both " appointed-time " and "feast " : " Jesus therefore saith
unto them, My appointed-time is not yet come, but your
appointed-time is always ready;... Go ye up unto the feast
[i.e. appointed-time], I go not up [yet] unto this feast [i.e.
appointed-time'] because my appointed-time hath not yet been

1 Clem. Alex. 407, Tertull. Adv. Jud. 8, Iren. ii. 22. i 5. Origen
on Lk. iv. 19 takes the words spiritually, but says, "Juxta simplicem
intelligentiam aiunt uno anno Salvatorem in Judaea evangelium prae-
dicasse, et hoc esse, quod dicitur ' praedicare annum Domini acceptum,
et diem retributionis,' nisi forte quiddam sacramenti in praedicatione
anni Domini divinus sermo significat." On Mt. xxvi. 2, after saying that
the hour, the day, the month of the Crucifixion were defined, he adds
"Ego autem puto etiam annum, de quo Propheta dicebat 'praedicare
annum Domini acceptum et diem salutis'." "Retributio" and "salus"
represent Heb. "vengeance," LXX dvranodoa-is.

243 16 2

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

accomplished^" Having regard to the fact that the Greek
" appointed-time " and the Greek "feast" in the LXX, are each
represented about thirty times by one and the same Hebrew
word, we may, without over-subtlety, regard these words as
conveying a caution against imputing to Jesus definite doctrines
about "times" and "seasons" of men, when His mind was
set on the times and seasons of God. As in Philo, so here,
" appointed-time " means God's appointed time bringing forth
" the three fruits " of the spiritual Israel 2 .

But this is not all. Besides this exceptional use of a
Synoptic term, later on, John also at the outset expresses the
same thought in his own language, using "hour" instead of
" appointed-time" At Cana, during the feast, when Christ's
mother says to Him "They have no wine," Jesus replies,
" Woman, what have I to do with thee ? Mine hour is not yet
corned As later from His brethren, so here, even from His
mother, Jesus detaches Himself, when the thought of His
" hour " places itself in apparent and momentary opposition to
her suggestion. This saying stands up in plain opposition to
any interpretation of the Marcan words in question that would
make them mean "The appointed time for triumph is fulfilled."
Before that could come, Israel must be able to say, " My
warfare is accomplished? Christ's reply to His mother perhaps
implies a thought of that kind, "My warfare is not yet
accomplished', the wine of the Cross is not yet ready."

1 Jn vii. 68. See Son 3414 (ii) cd. In canon. LXX (Tromm.),
"appointed-time " = (30) <aip6s, (31) eopr^. It is not probable that the

appointed-time was regarded by John as "accomplished" even when
Jesus cried "It is finished," or when He said "Receive the Holy Spirit."
More probably it will not be "accomplished" (Light 3999 (iii) 15) till the
final outpouring of the Spirit.

2 Philo calls them Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, by which he means
faith, joy, and spiritual insight. Christians might call them faith, hope,
and love. See Philo i. 277 and 455 quoted in Light 3781 >z, and add his
remarkable comment on man's making "time" into a false god, in oppo-
sition to the true God (Quaest. Gen. on Gen. vi. 13, where the Heb. "end
of all flesh " has been rendered by LXX " appointed-tune of every man ").

244

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

5. John on "kingdom" "repentance" and "gospel"

" Kingdom " which, along with " appointed-time," is
prominent in Mark's account of Christ's first words John
does not mention in the whole of his Gospel except negatively
first, to shew that the Kingdom of God can not be entered
except under certain conditions, secondly, in the trial before
Pilate, to shew that Christ's Kingdom is not " from this world 1 ."

In both cases, Jesus is represented as contending against
an ingrained misconception of what " kingdom " means. To
Xicodemus Jesus says that none can "see," or "enter into,"
the Kingdom of God except by being " born from above."
But Nicodemus has not mentioned either " kingdom of God,"
or " kingdom." He has merely said " We know that thou art
a teacher come from God ; for no man can do these signs that
thou art doing except God be with him." Jesus says, in
effect, " How do you know that I am * come from God ' and
that God is ' with ' me ? Is it not because you think of God
as the Great King in heaven, who does what He likes, and
who sends His servants with power to do what they like,
overruling the limits of mortal action, by what you call 'signs'?
But God is not such a king. God is the Father in heaven,
and you must be born from heaven if you are to ' see ' what
you call His ' kingdom '."

A similar thought, a negative one, pervades the second
passage. And there, too, it is to be noted that " king " comes
unexpectedly and abruptly from Pilate's mouth, no mention of
the title having been made by Christ's accusers. " If this man,"
they say to Pilate, " were not an evil-doer, we should not have
delivered him up unto thee." "Judge him yourselves," he replies.
" No," they say, " it is a capital offence, and we have no power
to inflict death." Then, for the first time questioning Jesus,
Pilate says "Thou art [I think] the King of the Jews?" Jesus

1 Jn iii. 35, xviii. 36.
245

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

replies, in effect, " Is this your thought or theirs ? " Pilate
avoids, or perhaps evades, this question : " Am I a Jew ? Am
I to be supposed to understand all your Jewish bickerings?
What hast thou done?" Then comes the reply of Jesus "My
kingdom is not from this world," with an explanation of its
non-worldly nature.

Even those who are unable to believe that this dialogue is
history must admit that it admirably represents what Pilate
must have said if he said anything, and also that it is admirably
adapted to supplement Synoptic and oriental expressions
about " the Kingdom " and to shew that, in essence, the
doctrine of Jesus about the true King was not unlike the
doctrine of the best Greek philosophy.

As to the Marcan precepts, " repent," and " believe in the
gospel," it has been pointed out that John never uses either the
word " repent " or the word " gospel." Instead of " repent "
he uses expressions that denote a new condition or attitude of
the soul toward the light, or toward the truth, or toward the
Father or the Son. Instead of " the gospel " he speaks of
"the name of the Son" or "the Son." All "belief" is to be
based on the Son.

This last fact would also suffice to explain why John could
not accept as adequate the words placed by Luke in Christ's
reading at Nazareth, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he anointed me to publish-good-tidings to the poor."
It was not \o publish a gospel of peace, but to be a gospel of
e that Jesus came. Also what He was He was not only
to " the poor," but to all the sons of man. To give such a pro-
minence to " the poor," without regard to the question whether
the meaning was "poor in spirit" or "poor in possessions 1 ,"
would be, in the special circumstances of the Christian Church,
a misleading course, especially as the Hebrew adjective was

1 Comp. Mt. v. 3 "poor in spirit," Lk. vi. 20 "poor," on which see
Son 3242 (iv) a c.

246

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

not adequately expressed by the Greek word meaning "poor 1 ."
Not improbably John regarded the " publishing of the good
tidings" of peace to "the poor" as referring to the inclusion of
the Gentiles. He would certainly have said as the Epistle
to the Ephesians says, " For he \i.e. Christ] is our peace, who
made both [Jews and Gentiles\ one and brake down the middle
wall of partition [between them] 2 ."

6. Christ's first words in John

So much for John's negative attitude to the Synoptists in
their accounts of Christ's first words. We have now a some-
what harder task before us. For, in attempting to answer
the question positively " What were Christ's first words that
is, His first public utterance in John?" we find ourselves
obliged to ask "What are we to define as 'public?' How
many disciples must be present to constitute a 'teaching'?
Are two enough, according to Christ's saying about 'two or
three gathered together ' ? If they are, then Christ's first words"
are those addressed to two disciples of John the Baptist :
' John was standing, and two of his disciples. And he looked
stedfastly on Jesus as he was walking-about and saith, Behold,
the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speaking

1 In Is. Ixi. i R.V. has txt "meek? marg. "poor."

2 Eph. ii. 14, comp. Mic. v. 5 " And this \tnaii\shall be [our] peace ',"
that is, the man from (Mic. v. 2) " Bethlehem Ephrathah." After Zech. ix. 9,
"riding upon an ass," comes ix. 10 "he shall speak peace unto the
nations"; and after the "riding upon an ass" in Jn xii. 14 comes the
saying of the Greeks (xii. 21) "We would see Jesus."

3 That is to say, those regarded as Christ's "first words" by John. It
may be asked, " What is the use of knowing this ? If we did know it, we
should not be knowing history. It would be merely Johannine fiction,
or we will concede so much selection." The answer is, that the
Johannine author is a man of such spiritual insight not to speak of the
possibility that he had special information as to some facts that we might
reasonably attach value even to his " fiction " (if it were fiction, which it
is not), and much more to his dramatic " selection," as throwing light on
the words and deeds of the historical Jesus.

247

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

and followed Jesus. But Jesus turned, and, having beheld
them following, he saith unto them What seek ye 1 ?'" This
was the Teacher's first lesson.

Nothing can well seem simpler than this. Yet it is a
simplicity often ignored, or forgotten by clever people, who
wish to teach too quickly, and try to fill a pupil's mind without
first making him feel that it needs filling. In old days, says
the Scripture, " a certain man " found Joseph " wandering in
the field " and said " What seekest thou ?" The Targum says
the " man " was " Gabriel." Philo says it was " the convicting
conscience 2 ." Not improbably John is alluding to that ancient
Hebrew story and to the Jewish traditions illustrating the
first Biblical instance of that most searching question " What
seekest thou?" But in any case, even if there were no such
allusion, this selection of the first saying of Jesus so flat and
disappointing to minds that cannot recognise any beauty in
the slow and unobtrusive methods of Nature would claim
attention as giving us a clue to the whole of the Johannine
representation of Christ's method of teaching. He came to
make us little children. And He began to teach us (as Nature
teaches little children) by putting questions to us that we
cannot fully answer. He knows that we cannot answer ; but
He puts them to us in order that we may put them to our-
selves, and then, failing to obtain the full answer from ourselves,
obtain it from Him. The first saying, then, is not " teaching "
at all. It is merely a question that every one must answer for
himself and yet cannot answer by himself.

The second saying is, " Come, and ye shall see 3 ." It is in
answer to the question " Rabbi, where abidest thou?" And
this saying, again, is mystical. It is from the lips of the Son,

1 J n i- 35 8. Note also the first utterance of the risen Saviour (Jn
xx. 15) "Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou?" See

j). 191, n . 5.
- I'hilo i. 1956 on Gen. xxxvii. 15. See Son 3380, comp. 3620.

; J"i. 39.

248

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

who is always, even when on earth, " in the bosom of God."
By " coming " to Jesus, the two disciples were to " see " what
even the Son could not put into human words the glory as
of the Only begotten Son of God. After many years of
waiting, the Son had seen the Spirit of Sonship descending
on Him, and felt it abiding in Him, sending Him forth to the
world that He might begin at once to open men's eyes at least
so far as this, that they, too, should " see " something of what
the Son " saw," the vision of the Fatherhood of God. Here,
then, is something more than a question. It is a promise of
" seeing." And it might be said to imply mystically a promise
that they should " see " God's Fatherhood by entering into the
Circle of His Family, the Spirit of His Household, so that they
would become God's children. But still there is nothing that
can be called in the ordinary sense of the word " doctrine."

The next saying is, to Peter, "Thou art Simon, son of
John, thou shalt be called Cephas 1 ." Here, again, there is
a promise, preceded by something of the nature of a warning :
" Thou shalt attain hereafter to be called * rock,' but thou art
not ' rock ' as yet. Thou art simply Simon, son of John."
This takes us another step towards the doctrine of the
heavenly birth since Peter was to be made akin to Him
whom the Scriptures repeatedly speak of as the Rock of
Israel, or the Rock of Salvation. At the same time this brief
narrative reveals Jesus as having power not only to attract
men for by what means, if not by some special power, had
He attracted the two disciples ? but also to discern in man
both character and promise, and to call out or generate
strength in one who was at present weak in comparison
with his potential and future self.

The next saying is " Follow me 2 ." It is addressed to
a convert named Philip, without a word of introduction, thus,
" On the morrow he resolved (lit, desired) to go into Galilee,

1 Jn i. 42. 2 Jn i. 43.

249

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

and he findeth Philip." Not till afterwards comes the hinted
explanation (" now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of
Andrew and Peter ") that Jesus knew Philip through talk with
Andrew, and "resolved" to "find" this lost soul 1 . Why did
not the Evangelist put this explanation before the " finding " ?
It seems to be because he wishes to lead his readers on to see
for themselves continuously without an excess of didactic
interruption on his part how marvellously powerful is the
personality of this " finder " of the souls of men, and how He
not only has in Himself the Spirit that "finds" souls, but
also can impart it to others by a kind of divine infection.
Accordingly the next verse says, " Philip findeth Nathanael,
and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in
the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son
of Joseph 2 ." The "finding" in the second sentence is curiously
and we may almost say ironically introduced. Philip has
not really "found" the Messiah. The Messiah has "found"
him.

There is also something of irony but a great deal more of
feeling that is far from irony, in the assignment of these
particular words to Philip. By him, Jesus is assumed to be
" the son of Joseph." For others (later on) as also in Luke,
this is a stumbling-block 3 . But it is not so to Philip. Again,
for Philip, Jesus is "of Nazareth" (not "of Bethlehem").
That, in the very next sentence, is alleged by Philip's own
friend as an obstacle to Messianic claims. Philip does not
it his implied argument by again appealing to "the law
and the prophets." Having himself "seen," he invites
Xathanael to do the same, "Come and see? Brief though

1 See above, pp. 212, 213, 224. 2 Jn i. 45.

3 Jesus is nowhere else called "the son of Joseph" except in Lk. iv. 22
and Jn vi. 42. In these two passages the term is uttered in disparagement
by unbelievers. Here (Jn i. 45) it is uttered by an enthusiastic believer
seeking to make a convert. Comp. Lk. iii. 23 "the son (as was supposed}
of Joseph."

250

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

the dialogue is and unhistorical as it may be it contains
what even a sceptical historian might admit to be the secret
of the success of the Church of Christ. The Church did not
really base itself on " the law and the prophets " except so far
as these were interpreted and personified by One superior to
any Lawgiver and to any Prophet. And Philip's faith was
really based on the personality of that divine Saviour who had
come to Galilee to find and save him ; as a shepherd might
find a lost sheep, which he knows out of the whole of his flock,
and can call by its separate name. Jesus, the Good Shepherd,
had, as it were, called Philip by his name, and Philip at once
" knew his voice." Or, to use the language of Isaiah, we may
say that the Messiah had the power of " speaking to the heart
of Jerusalem 1 /' and that Philip had "the heart" that enabled
him, or compelled him, to respond to the appeal.

7. The Dialogue icith Natliatiacl

Next comes Christ's dialogue with Xathanael. The context
is noteworthy as containing the first instance of the making of
a convert who has raised objections. In Nathanael faith is
called out by Christ's supernatural and sympathetic knowledge
(" when thou wast under the fig-tree I saw thee "). Yet here
again, as in the case of Philip, the faith is too great to be
explained on intellectual grounds. If Nathanael had been
moved by nothing but Christ's power of " second sight," we
can conceive that He would have gone so far as to say " Sir,
I perceive that thou art a prophet," as the Samaritan woman
says later on to Jesus when He tells her of her " five husbands " ;
but that he should say to the seer of the scene under the fig-
tree " Thou art the Son of God, thou art King of Israel " is
hardly explicable except on the supposition that the brain-
evidence based on this power of "seeing" was merely an
addition to a great mass of heart-evidence derived partly from

1 Is. xl. 2 (R.V. marg.).

25 1

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Philip's testimony but much more from the presence of Jesus
Himself: "He 'saw me under the fig-tree'! Then all that
has been said about Him by Philip, and all that my heart tells
me about Him in His presence all this, and more than all
this, must be true !"

What follows may be divided into two parts. The first is
a gentle half-reproach to Nathanael for building his belief on
such slight grounds, and a promise, in the singular, that he
shall have more solid grounds hereafter : " Because I said
unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou ?
Thou shalt see greater things than these." The second is
a promise in the plural to all the converts present (" ye shall
see "). It seems to assume that the descent of the Holy Spirit
at Christ's baptism had been accompanied with that momentary
" rending " or " opening " of " the heaven " which the Three
Gospels had described but which the Fourth has not described.
And it assures the disciples that this " opening " shall hence-
forth be permanent, fulfilling the vision of Jacob's ladder in
a new sense. This new sense is introduced with a new term
new at least in this Gospel " the Son of Man." It is used
apparently with some allusion to Nathanael's exclamation
" Thou art the Son of God." If so, it is adapted to startle the
reader into an astonishment and perplexity that will not pass
away but will set him thinking and questioning himself : " What
did the Lord Jesus mean when He apparently set aside
Nathanael's confession 'Thou art the Son of God', and, instead
of praising him for it, directed his attention to what seems
a lower title, saying to him, ' Ye shall see the heaven [always]
open and the angels of God ascending and descending upon
the Son of Man"?"

Taking the two parts of the utterance together we appear
t find Jesus suggesting to Nathanael that, instead of beginning
from "the Son of God" in his attempt to attain the supreme
v! ion of the Truth, he would do better to begin from "the
Son of Man"; and instead of beginning from "the King of

252

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Israel," a picture that calls up thoughts of courtiers and officers
of state that come between the Sovereign and the subject, he
would do better to aim at some conception of a closer com-
munion. When the " heaven " is once thrown " open," no
messengers of heaven, no "angels," must be allowed to interpose
themselves between God and the sons of man. The "angels"
that minister to man's salvation are such as ascend to the
Father from man's heart lifted up by the trustful and loving
Spirit of Sonship, and descend, in the power of the same
Spirit, with gifts of righteousness and peace. Jesus Himself,
in His baptism, had " seen " this ascent and this descent, and
He promised His disciples that they also should see it. But
if they were to " see " it they must begin, in some sense, from
below. They must learn from the Son of Man to understand,
and love, and Spiritually "see," the other sons of man, their
brethren and His. Then they will be able to ascend, from the
Brother whom they have seen, to the Father whom no man
can see but whom the Son of Man will " declare 1 ."

| 8. Which of these accounts is the closest to history ?

Roughly, we may answer the question at the head of this
section by saying " Mark is closest as regards the preservation
of words actually uttered by Jesus, such as ' appointed-
time ' and ' gospel ' ; but John is closest as regards the
representation of His thoughts, influence, and Spirit." If
we accept Mark's phrase " there hath been fulfilled the ap-
pointed-time " as the closest approximation in the Four
Gospels to Christ's earliest utterance, it will be subject to the
proviso that Mark gives us here only a summary, inadequately
expressed, of Christ's proclamations of the fulfilment of Isaiah's
prophecy concerning the redemption of Israel from captivity.
Mark was also probably right, we may say, in assigning to
Jesus a word that the careful historian Luke and the spiritual

Comp. Jn i. 18, xiv. 9, i Jn iv. 20.
253

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

evangelist John never attribute to Him evangel, or gospel.
But then we should have to add that " gospel " was meaning-
less for all readers who could not supply an answer to the
question "gospel of what kind?" "evangel conveying what
good tidings ? "

As to John, the combination of mysticism and history in
his Gospel makes conclusions of a general kind very difficult.
We might be disposed to say that the preceding examination
has shewn him to be a poet, not a historian. Writing an
account of the creation of the Church, he certainly treats it as
a six-days Genesis, followed by a Sabbath. " His chronology
therefore," it might be said, " must not be regarded historically.
The naming of Simon as Peter did not take place till long after
the Johannine date. John also places a visit to the Temple at
the beginning, instead of at the end, of Christ's public career.
Nothing, therefore, that he states as a fact, ought to be
accepted as a fact, unless corroborated by some other Evange-
list."

But every now and then come indications that John gives
more heed to historical detail than we had supposed. Mostly,
these relate to details in Mark omitted by Luke. But the call
of Philip is not mentioned by Mark, and in the Johannine
account of it we found traces of allusion to a Matthew- Luke
tradition. Also the giving to Simon of the name of " Cephas "
(a form of the name not found in any Synoptist) is corroborated
by early Pauline Epistles. And the brief narrative of the
naming gives the impression of fact, not of invention. More-
"\< r the substitution of the Apostles for their Master, in the
Johannine narratives of the Calling so that Peter is not
exactly " called " by Jesus but is brought to Jesus by Andrew,
and Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip does not seem
al all likely to have been invented, or to have "sprung up" as
an automatic tradition.

I IK- tendency of popular and erroneous tradition is to
concentrate the action of a great man's agents or followers on

254

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

the great man himself as trial by jury used to be attributed
to Alfred. But here we find actions that the Synoptists
attribute to Jesus taken away from Him and attributed to
disciples. What motive was there for this if Jesus did them ?
Was it to correct false inferences from the Synoptic accounts
of the Call of Peter by shewing that he was, in two senses,
second to Andrew, both as to the time, and as to the directness,
of the calling ? That would not explain the repetition of the
indirectness in the calling of Nathanael. More probably the
Evangelist is protecting his readers against taking Mark's
condensations and summaries as literally exact. The calling
of the four fishermen Apostles did not perhaps take place all
at once, as an isolated action, in the manner described by
Mark. And John is glad to emphasize the fact that, from the
first, the influence of Jesus, when it passed into any disciple,
could not be restrained from passing further. It was not like
water in a cistern. It was a fountain. It gushed forth from
each converted soul, which, having now life in itself, could not
but become a source of life to others.

At the same time it is possible to harmonize these Johan-
nine accounts with those in the Synoptists, if we suppose that,
after becoming the Lord's disciples, the Apostles returned to
their homes and lived for the most part there until Jesus
summoned them to go forth as missionaries. Such a recon-
ciliation between the Three Gospels and the Fourth, adopted
in the Diatessaron, is very much more easy than the task of
reconciling the Mark-Matthew account, with the Lucan account,
of the calling of Peter. There the Diatessaron in consecutive
narratives, first (following Mark-Matthew) represents Jesus as
saying to Simon and Andrew, while casting their nets,
" Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Then
(following Luke) it represents Jesus as finding Simon again,
washing his nets, and as repeating the call after a miraculous
draught of fishes in similar words, "Fear not, henceforth thou
shalt be a fisher of men unto life." Two such consecutive

255

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

calls of Simon seem most improbable ; especially when we
find Mark and Matthew omitting the second, which is ac-
companied by something like a miracle, and Luke omitting
the first, which has no claim to anything like a miracle.
It may be said that the second call, like the second appearance
to Hamlet of his father's ghost, was intended to "whet"
Peter's "almost blunted purpose." But in that case, should
we not have expected Luke, as an accurate historian, to have
inserted the first calling in order to explain the meaning of
the second ? Luke gives us no hint of a first call. He leaves
us under the impression that he is not supplementing the
Mark-Matthew narrative but substituting for it one that he
considers more accurate. It seems probable that there was
actually current, in the days when Luke wrote his Gospel,
a tradition, and a true one, connecting some kind of call of
Peter a second call with a wonderful draught of fishes.
And, so far, Luke was accurate. But he has been misled as
to its date. According to John, it occurred much later on,
after the Resurrection, when Peter, in penitence, returns to
the service of his Lord.

For these reasons we can lay down no general rule as to
the comparative accuracy of Johannine and Synoptic accounts,
where they differ. True, we have ascertained that, where
Luke deviates from or omits what is in Mark, John often
steps in to explain what is obscure or harsh in Mark, and to
explain it in a form differing from the form in Luke. But we
have not ascertained that in all such cases John is superior in
historical accuracy, though in many cases he appears to have
been superior in spiritual insight.

As regards chronology, and especially the chronological
lion of the number of passovers included in Christ's public
career, there is almost as much difficulty in Luke, who pro-
write exactly and in chronological order 1 , as in John,

the section entitled "Luke attempted to write in chronological
' Order : " in Intnnhtction^ p. 108 foil.

256

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

who makes no such profession. Luke says that the parents
of Jesus went " every year" to the Passover, and, "when he
was twelve years old, they went up after the custom of the
feast 1 ." The Law prescribed that every male Jew of age
should go up to the three feasts. Luke, however, subsequently
only once describes Jesus as going up to Jerusalem, and to
only one feast, the Passover that closed His public life. It
has been shewn in the Introductory Volume that if that public
life included only one Passover, it is impossible to explain
Mark's narrative about the cornfields in such a way as to re-
concile it with the Synoptic chronology 2 .

John, on the other hand, expressly describes Jesus as going
up to the Feast of Tabernacles as well as to the Passover and
possibly to the Feast of Weeks. That is at all events more
consonant with what we might expect from a Jewish Messiah.
There is also something scripturally and as it were dramatically
satisfactory in the Johannine view that Jesus, immediately
after the sign at Cana and a stay of " not many days " at
Capernaum, went up to the Passover in Jerusalem to purify
the Temple from defilement. Like the child Jesus, in Luke, so
the man Jesus, in John, associates His entrance into public life
with what He calls " my Father's house 3 ." And by this
speedy arrival Jesus also fulfils the prophecy in Malachi,
"The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple 4 ."
We might suppose that in the next Passover (or Passovers)
Jesus repeated this action, but that John omitted it (because
he assumed that He repeated it). Hence he would omit it in
his description of the last Passover, whereas the Synoptists
inserted it in their descriptions of that Passover, because they

1 Lk. ii. 42.

2 See Introduction, p. 89 foil., referring to Mk ii. 23 foil.

3 Jn ii. 1 6 "my Father's house," Lk. ii. 49 lit. "in the things of my
father," but Syr. and Palest, have "house"

4 Mai. iii. i.

A. B. 257 17

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

had no opportunity for inserting it before. This is what might
be said in favour of the Johannine narrative 1 .

" But is it possible," we may ask, " that Jesus, at the outset
of His career, and unsupported as yet by any multitude of
disciples, could have achieved, or would even have attempted,
such a task as the expulsion of traders from the Temple
a task colossal, physically, and implying a deadly collision with
the Jewish authorities ? Surely it would have been premature ! "

Perhaps it would have been premature, and, therefore, was
not attempted. But perhaps it was premature, and, in spite
of this, was actually attempted. As at Cana, the " hour was
not yet come," but the action may have taken place, to be
repeated afterwards. Moreover, as to our assumption that
Jesus would have been " unsupported," are we safe in assuming
it? Are there not indications that Jesus was more popular,
early in His career, before He had, in effect, refused to make
any attempt to release John the Baptist, than afterwards ?
The abuse of selling " doves " for " pence of gold " was rife
at this time. "By this Temple," said Rabban Simeon Ben
Gamaliel, " I will not lie down this night unless they be sold
for pence of silver." Is it not conceivable that Jesus, too,
a few years before Rabban Simeon, made the same protest,
but in action as well as word, in the midst of a swarm of
sympathizing Galilaean pilgrims who did not much care
about spiritual discourses, but did care a great deal about the
inconvenience, as well as the religious and national disgrace, of
such extortion in the rulers of God's Temple 2 ?

1 There remains, against the Johannine narrative, the difficulty of
explaining why John the Baptist did not aid Jesus in the attempt to
cleanse the Temple. On this, see Introduction, pp. 95 6.

2 See Son 3585 c d on the " pence of gold." Origen allegorizes all

counts of the Cleansing of the Temple. Concerning the use of the
"scourge of cords" in the Johannine account, he says (Comm. Joann.
x. 1 6) " Let us consider the Son of God taking the cords... whether it does
not imply, besides a self-willed audacity, the element of disorderliness (TO
too." Westcott says "Jewish tradition (Sanhedr. 98 b, Wiinsche)

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Our conclusion is, that although Mark happens to have
preserved Christ's original allusion to the "good-tidings," or
" good-tidings of peace," mentioned in a certain passage of
Isaiah which Luke has expressed by referring to a different
passage of the same prophet yet all the Synoptists left much
to be done in the way of expressing, first, the meaning of
" the gospel," and, secondly, the precise part played by Jesus
in " the gospel." The Fourth Evangelist, more clearly than
the Three, sees and helps us to see, that Christ Himself is
" the gospel." For He is, as Paul says, " our peace " the
essence of that Good Tidings of Peace which Isaiah and John
the Baptist predicted, and which Jesus, by His personal and
indefinable influence, brought into the hearts of His converts
one by one, that they might bring it into the heart of the
whole world.

9. Why is not the gospel, or "good-tidings" called "the
good-tidings of peace" by Mark, as by Isaiah?

This question all the more demands an answer because
the Matthew-Luke account of the Instructions to the Apostles
tells us that the first words of the missionary entering any
house were to be " Peace be to this house 1 "; and Peter in the
Acts describes God Himself as "preaching good-tidings of

figured Messiah as coming with a scourge for the chastisement of evil-
doers." But Sanhedr. 98 b neither mentions a scourge nor implies it
(unless it is implied in the interpretation of Is. liii. 4 as meaning that the
Messiah will be smitten with the scourge of leprosy). Wetstein, Hor.
Heb., and Schottgen, give no such reference to the Talmud. These facts
indicate that evangelists had no reason for inventing the detail of the
scourge but some reasons for omitting it.

1 Lk. x. 5 6 " And into whatsoever dwelling ye enter, first say, Peace
to this house. And if a son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon
him (or, it), but if not, it shall turn back to you," where the original appears
to have been rendered more freely by Matthew (x. 12) "And on entering
into the dwelling salute it. And if the dwelling be worthy, let your peace
come upon it. But if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you."
See Clue 254 foil., Son 3371 d.

259

172

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

peace through Jesus Christ 1 " ; and almost all the Epistles open
with a salutation mentioning " grace and peace." Yet Mark
never mentions the noun " peace " except once, and that only
in the phrase "Go in peace," uttered by Jesus to a woman
whom He had healed. This last instance may throw light
upon the answer to our question. The Three Gospels have
severally :

Mk v. 34 Mt. ix. 22 Lk. viii. 48

Thy faith hath Thy faith hath Thy faith hath
saved thee. Go-back saved thee. And the saved thee. Go in
in (lit. io) peace, and be woman was made- (lit. to) peace,
(lit.) sound from thy whole (///. saved) from
plague (lit. stroke). that hour.

It will be observed that the Three exactly agree in the
words uttered by Jesus, " Thy faith hath saved thee," but differ
as to what follows. It is highly improbable that Matthew
and Luke would have omitted what Mark has added if they
had believed it to be His utterance. But the passage may be
explained by others in LXX, where we find interchanges such
as " go in peace " with " go in health-" The Hebrew " peace "
means, or is confusable with, a great number of words signify-
ing " health," " soundness," " completion," " making-up [a
reward, or recompense]" &c. When it means "peace," it is
capable of meaning not only peace as distinct from war, but
also moral and spiritual peace, peace with one's own heart
and peace with God. It may also mean the soundness of
perfect physical health 3 .

1 Acts x. 36.

2 Exod. iv. 1 8 /3a5ie u-ytatWy : Oi \onroi- Tropevov eiy flpqvrjv, Gen.
xxvi. 31 /itra q-corqptag ; Ot AOITTOI- /ACT' clpijvijs. Gen. xxxvii. 14 ei vyiaivov<riv,

A. 2. Tt]v (lpT)VT)V.

a. 1022 gives the noun as meaning "completeness, soundness,

welfare, peace." In Prov. xiii. 13 "he that feareth the commandment

shall be rewarded? A.V. marg. gives "shall be in peace" (Aq. and Symm.

row) and LXX has "is in good health (vyuiivci)," For passages

UK that "and tliou shalt become sound" might be confused with

M and she became sound," see Clue 28, 84, 87, 240.

260

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Now the " good-tidings of peace " in Isaiah apparently
announces the return of captives to their home in Jerusalem
through "a highway in the desert," along which the Lord,
like a shepherd, leads His flock 1 . But in a preceding passage
a similar return is described as that of " wayfaring men " (not
sheep), whose leaders are bidden to "strengthen the weak-
hands " and " confirm the feeble knees," and to whom it is
said, " Behold your God will come with vengeance, with the
recompence of God ; he will come and save you. Then the
eyes of the blind shall be opened and .the ears of the deaf
shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an
hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing ; for in the
wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert'-'."
Both passages appear to describe a journeying in the wilder-
ness like that of the Exodus, when Israel was delivered not
only from bondage but also from the danger of the diseases
of Egypt 3 and from the danger of acquiescing in the idolatrous
religion of their oppressors ; and it is difficult to say where the
spiritual or hyperbolical ends and the physical or miraculous
(if intended) begins 4 .

We have to try to put ourselves in a position where this
difficulty would be greatly increased. We have to try to
imagine the unmeasured astonishment that would fall on
pious and patriotic Jews, when, for the first time in Israel
(Moses alone being excepted) there arose a great Prophet

1 Is. xl. i ii. 2 Is. xxxv. i io.

3 Comp. Exod. ix. 14, and Deut. vii. 15 "The Lord will take away
from thee all sickness, and he will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt
(which thou knowest) upon thee."

4 The Jews differed (see Ibn Ezra on Is. xxxv. 3). Most referred the
prophecy to Messianic times, but R. Moses Hakkohen to the return of
fugitives under Hezekiah. On "the tongue of the dumb shall sing"
Ibn Ezra's comment is "A figurative expression for 'they will find water
everywhere.' It is the reverse of Lam. iv. 4." The Targum takes
"blind," "deaf," &c., as "blind to the Law," " deaf to the words of the
prophets," &c.

261

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

,-ind Teacher, who not only taught with surpassing force
and conviction, but also worked mighty works of healing on
so vast a scale that even Elisha (so far as number of miracles
was concerned) fell into insignificance beside Him. Was it
not inevitable that such mighty works should assume a
prominent, a too prominent, position in the popular concep-
tion of the "gospel" proclaimed by Jesus ? Those who rejected
Him would (doubtless) reject altogether the applications of
prophecy to His works. But those who accepted Him as the
Shepherd of Israel would also accept Him as the Shepherd
predicted by Isaiah ; and then, how could they fail to in-
terpret these prophecies of Isaiah as literally predicting His
mighty works ? Especially would this be the case at a time
when another prophet and that a great one, like John the
Baptist was preparing the way for Jesus and working no
mighty works at all. A contrast would inevitably be drawn,
and exaggerations would be almost equally inevitable " John
worked no wonders, Jesus could work wonders at will."

Some apparently resulting exaggerations will come before
us when we discuss Mark's Gospel in its order. For the
present, in explanation of Mark's failure to mention, or at
least to emphasize, " peace 1 ," we may give, as one reason, the
fact that he identified " the gospel of peace " with " the gospel
of Jiealing." More especially he dwells on that particular kind
of "healing" which delivered a man from such internal wars
and tumults of the soul as were attributed in those days to
what was called demoniacal " possession."

This is but one of many instances where Mark, though
"ftrn closely approaching the exact words uttered by Jesus,
appears to have failed to express their meaning, sometimes

1 It should In- added however that Mark, alone of the Evangelists,
the verb " be-at-peace." He alone inserts, in the doctrine about
salt," tin- words (ix. 50) "Have salt in yourselves and be-at-peace
ainon- one another."

262

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

perhaps through want of spiritual insight, but sometimes in
consequence of some corruption in the tradition that he
followed 1 .

1 In previous parts of Diatessarica so many instances have been given
of errors caused by Hebrew corruption, and so few of errors caused by
Greek corruption, that I venture to place here, out of its order, an apparent
instance of the latter kind, in order to shew that such a possibility is not
ignored (though, even here, Hebrew corruption also may not improbably
have been at work).

It occurs in Mk x. 21 "But Jesus (i) having looked stedfastly on
him (fn(3\f\l/as avrcp) (2) loved him (ij-ydtrrja-fv atroi/)." Matthew and
Luke omit both clauses. They might well omit "loved him" at all
events. For why should Jesus have "loved" this wealthy "ruler," who
said that he had fulfilled from his youth all the commandments including
(according to Matthew) "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," which
Paul (Rom. xiii. 8) describes as the "fulfilling" of the whole Law? Field
suggests that jyaTrrjo-fv means "caressed" " fondled" ; Hor. Heb., that
Dm here meant "pitied? but was rendered "loved? as in LXX of
Is. Ix. 10, Zech. x. 6, Prov. xxviii. 13. This is perhaps the best solution.
But another is given below.

(1) The Hebrew original stated that Jesus looked stedfastly at the
man and saw that "he deceived himself." In the earliest Greek tradition,
this was rendered HTTATHC6N AYTON. The writer of the extant
Mark mistook this for HfAITHCfeN AYTON a confusion paralleled in
2 Pet. ii. 13 R.V. txt "love-feasts? marg. "deceiving*" (W.H. txt aTrarais-,
marg. dydnais), and freq. in LXX (e.g. Sir. xxx. 23). The Johannine
Epistle says (i. 8) " If we say that we have no sin we deceive (-rrXavwpfv)
ourselves and the truth is not in us."

(2) But Hebrew confusion may also have been at work as follows.
This rich ruler was one of the "rulers" about whom John (xii. 40) quotes
Isaiah, "he hath blinded" (quoted by Matthew xiii. 1415 (LXX) " they
have shut fast"} "their eyes." Isaiah's word, yy^ (Gesen. 1044) means
(i) "be blinded," confusable (ib.} with (ii) "look about," and (iii) " take delight
in? "fondle" Mark thrice repeats "look" or "look about? e>/3AeVa> or

>, in this narrative (x. 21, 23, 27). On the hypothesis of Hebrew
corruption, he has based his narrative on the interpretations of yyw as
(iii) "fondle? (ii) "look about? and dropped the right interpretation
(i) " blinded himself."

(3) As regards Mk x. 21 d-n-fv auroi *Ev o-f vvrepel, the original
meaning probably was " The one thing [needful] is wanting to thee,"
namely, God, or the love of God, alluding to the preceding x. 18 p) els
6 Q(6s. Comp. Wetstein on Lk. x. 41 2 quoting commentators who say
that "the one thing needful" is either "the commandments," or the

263

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

10. "/ came not to send peace but a sword 1 "

The explanation given above of the non-mention of a
14 gospel of peace" in Mark does not apply so well to Matthew
and Luke, who lay less stress on exorcism. Still less does it
apply to John, who mentions no exorcism at all. In these
Evangelists we must search for another reason. This in-
vestigation will be quite different from investigation of con-
fusions between the words "peace," "safety" or "salvation,"
" healing," " life-giving," and the rest. It concerns the question,
a purely spiritual one, "What is, in the highest sense, true
peace ? " What did Jesus say about " peace " in this sense ?
And in what way, if any, did He connect it with "gospel " ?

The words placed at the head of this section are not the
only indications that Jesus would not have called His gospel
a gospel of immediate " peace." The context proceeds to say
that one result of Christ's mission will be to produce division
in families. Similar division is predicted by all the Synoptists,
in the Discourse on the Last Days 2 . When Philip (or who-
ever it was) was bidden to " leave the dead to bury their own

"love" that includes them all. After auro> (written as AYTO) TO may
easily have dropped out before N.

These facts suggest an entirely new view of the rich ruler. He "ran
forth," but does not follow Jesus when He (Mk x. 17) "was going forth
into the way." He thought he saw the truth, and said, in effect, " I see."
lint he blinded himself in his self-love, and hugged the wealth that blinded
him when Jesus tried to open his eyes. This prepares the way for a contrast
The poor beggar Bartimaeus, conscious of blindness, beseeches Jesus to
remove it. Throwing aside his cloak, the blind man leaps up and comes
to Jesus. Then he receives his sight from Jesus, and (Mk x. 52) " followed
him in the way."

1 Mt. x. 34 (Instructions to the Twelve), "Think not that I came to
bring peace on the earth. I came not to bring peace, but a sword,"
I.k. xii. 51 "Suppose ye that I came-forward to give peace in the earth ?
No, I tell you, but only division."

Ml. \iii. 12, Mt. xxiv. 10, Lk. xxi. 16. But Matthew repeats this
prediction in Mt. x. 21 (Instructions to the Twelve) where it is much
closer than Mt. xxiv. 10 (Last Days) to Mk xiii. 12.

264

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

dead," the " gospel " that came with such a bidding might
naturally be declared by Philip's family to bring " not peace,
but a sword."

How different from the gospel of Epictetus, who publishes
a " good-tidings of peace " indeed. Well may he boast of its
promises, if only they can be fulfilled. " You see," he says to
his disciples, " the seeming greatness of the peace that Caesar
provides for us no more wars, no battles, not even brigandage
of any importance or piracy worth mentioning." But (he goes
on to ask) can he " provide us peace " from fever, shipwreck
fire, earthquake or lightning? Can he from passionate love,
from sorrow, or from envy ? The answer is : " Not from a
single-one of these things. But the Word (or Logos) of the
philosophers promises even from these things to provide peace.
And what saith it? ' If, O ye men, ye will give heed to me,
then, wheresoever ye may be, and whatsoever ye may be doing,
ye shall be neither vexed nor angered, neither constrained nor
restrained. Untroubled and free from all bondage shall be
your life.'

" Possessing such a ' peace/ not proclaimed by Caesar
for whence has Caesar power to proclaim this kind of peace ?
but proclaimed by the [one] God through the Word (or,
Logos), surely a man should find all he needs even when he
is alone, looking at [facts] and thinking in himself, ' In my
present state no evil can befall me. For me a robber is not ;
earthquake has no existence. The whole world teems with
peace, teems with quietude. Every road, every city every
fellow-traveller, neighbour, or companion is deprived of the
possibility of harming me 1 .'"

Long before Arrian published his notes of the lectures of
Epictetus, his teaching, and that of the earlier Stoics which
he reproduced, must have been in circulation among many
who did not profess to belong to the educated classes, and

1 Epict. iii. 13. 9 foil., on which see p. 453, n. 3.
265

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

probably among many who, being slaves, had a fellow-feeling
with the philosopher who had been a slave himself. Traces
of his thought, if not of his language, appear in the Fourth
Gospel 1 . But the chief interest of the passage above quoted
lies in the fact that in the imperial world of the first century,
there were some serious minds to whom the Pax Romana,
even when it extended literally to every corner of the Empire,
suggested the question, " What, after all, is true peace ?
One tyrant may devastate a city into a solitude and call that
peace. That w r e say in a chorus is a false peace. But is it
not possible that another tyrant, by the constant pressure of
his legal constraint, may convert cities of living men into cities
of machine-like creatures, living in abundance of all material
things, and enjoying what they call an unbroken peace because
they have no right sense of evil within themselves, or outside
themselves, against which they should make war ? And is not
that peace also false 2 ? "

Such a feeling would correspond to the protest in Jeremiah
against the false prophets, " They have healed the hurt of my
people lightly, saying, Peace, peace, when there is no peace 3 ."
And Epictetus himself can he be altogether acquitted of the
charge of " healing the hurt of his people lightly " ? He will
have it that, for the philosopher, there are " no wars, no
battles," all things "teem with peace." And yet elsewhere
he deprecates marriage for the Stoic missionary, on the
ground that the Stoic ought to be "free from distraction"
during the present condition of things which is "as it were
in line of battle 4 ." Doubtless he would defend himself on the
ground that the sole conflict is against a man's own vain

1 See "Epictetus" in Indices to Joh. Gr., Son, and Light.

2 Comp. Acts xxiv. 2 with ib. 26 about the ''peace " that Tertullus pro-
d to "enjoy" under Felix and the "money" that Felix hoped to

t from Paul. It is difficult to believe that Luke did not himself feel
an ironical "enjoyment" in setting down this contrast.

:t Jcrem. vi. 14, viii. n. < Epict. iii. 22. 69.

266

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

imaginations 1 . But such a defence is based on his belief
that no philosopher ought to call anything an evil, if he has
not the power to remove it. The errors of his own disciples,
the sorrows or sins of his own friends or children these are
things that the philosopher will rightly endeavour to remove.
But if he fails, he will feel no sorrow, no trouble, no disquiet.
Such feelings cannot enter into him. Such is the perfection
of the Epictetian peace !

II. "Peace" in Mark and Matthew

Such "peace" was, at all events, not for the disciples of
Jesus. For them, there could be no peace till the Kingdom
of God was established. Mark does not record the words in
the Lord's Prayer acknowledging that this " Kingdom " is, as
yet, to " come." But he does record, in Christ's first sentence,
the statement that it has merely " drawn near"'

What Christian " peace " meant, the Pauline Epistles shew,
though they do not define it. First, it included the certainty
that all things work together for good for the children of God.
Secondly, it included the recognition of the fact that the sins
and evils against which the children of God are contending in
the world are evils in fact and not in mere word or fancy
evils that must needs pain, and sometimes even trouble, the
souls of the righteous.

This peace, this combination of restfulness under conflict,
joy beneath pain, confidence beneath trouble, this sense of
daily victory underlying daily defeat, is expressed in various
scenes of the Four Gospels, describing Jesus as bearing the
sins and imperfections of friends as well as enemies, but
especially in healing diseases. But the underlying strength
is sometimes obscured by the superincumbent pain. The

1 Epict. ii. 1 8. 29 ("call upon Him to be thy helper and ally (irapa-
(rrdrTjv}"} suggests a warfare; but the metaphor passes to a storm "as
sailors call on the Dioscuri in a voyage." And as for "the storm," he
says, " For the storm itself what is it but a vain-imagination

267

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Kvangelists speak of "virtue" as "going out of him," or of
His "grief" or "anger" at men's "hardness of heart," or of
1 1 is "sighing." Other expressions, such as "a soul exceeding
sorrowful, even unto death," " troubled " or " troubling himself,"
and "Jesus wept" will come before us in due course. For
the present we are concerned with the much rarer forms in
which the Evangelists severally express, in Christ's words
or their own, the sense that the gospel was " A gospel of
peace."

Mark does not express it. It has to be inferred from his
representations of Jesus as a healer of diseases and a conqueror
of "demons," or, as he prefers to call them, "unclean spirits 1 ."
The casting out of " an unclean spirit " appears to be, in Mark,
the first announcement of what the amazed multitude call
" new teaching," and the sign of " authority." Luke follows
Mark closely, but alters " new teaching " into " what is this
word 2 ? " Matthew omits the whole story. He has previously
used up (so to speak) the Synoptic tradition about the
" amazement " caused by Christ's " authority " by appending
it to his version of the Sermon on the Mount, whereas Mark
and Luke use it twice first as an introduction, and then as
a conclusion, to an act of exorcism in a Synagogue. It should
be noted below that Luke twice departs from Mark by adding
" word" in connection with " authority -." Perhaps Luke desired
to express his dissent from Matthew's view. According to
Matthew, "authority" referred to Christ's way of teaching:
" Ye have heard that others say so-and-so, but / [authori-
t<itii<ely\ say this" But Luke perhaps meant "It was not the

1 See/0//. Voc. 1695. " Unclean " does not occur in John and only once
(doubtfully) in Kpictetus. But in Mark it occurs more frequently than in
Matt hew and Luke taken together, and always in the phrase "unclean
spirit." Matthew (almost always) and Luke (generally) prefer "demon

2 Mk i. 27 "What is this? A new teaching! With authority he
commaiHk-th i-vcn the unclean spirits...," Lk. iv. 36 "What is this word
that with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits...?"

268

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Lord's teaching \ha& was with authority. It was His word. He
taught with knowledge. But He commanded with authority.
He said authoritatively to a devil 'Go!' and it went, at His
word 1 !'

Later on, it cannot be said that Mark gives us many
glimpses of a bright and joyful Gospel of Peace. In the
discourse on the Last Days, communicated privately to four
disciples, the promise of being " saved " is only for him that
"endureth to the end," and the last word is "Watch." Also
the last word of the genuine Marcan Gospel is " afraid." And
the last saying attributed to Jesus in the Marcan Appendix
which does actually conclude on a note of triumph refers to
the " signs " of the Church as follows : " These signs shall
follow them that believe ; in my name shall they cast out

1 In the following, Mark twice uses the verb "teach" and twice the
noun "teaching." Luke once uses the verb "teach," and once the noun
" teaching," but twice adds " word " :

Mk i. 21 2, 27
And theygo into Ca-
pernaum ; and straight-
way on the sabbath
day he entered into
the synagogue and
taught (tbl$a.(TK.ev}. And
they were astonished
at his teaching; for he
was teaching ($v bi-
a0-Ko>i>)them as having
authority, and not as
the scribes.... And they
were all amazed, inso-
much that they ques-
tioned among them-
selves, saying, What is
this? A new teaching \
With authority he com-
mandeth even the un-
clean spirits, and they
obey him.

Mt. vii. 289
And it came to pass,
when Jesus ended
these words, the multi-
tudes were astonished
at his teaching-, for he
was teaching (tfv di-
ddo-Kuv) them as [one]
having authority, and
not as their scribes.

Lk. iv. 31 2, 36
And he came down
to Capernaum, a city
of Galilee. And he
was teaching (rjv di-
8(i(T*o)v} them on the
sabbath day : and they
were astonished at his
teaching; for his word
was with authority....
And amazement came
upon all, and they spake
together, one with an-
other, saying, What
is this word, that with
authority and power
he commandeth the
unclean spirits, and
they come out?

269

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

devils ; they shall speak with [new] tongues ; they shall take
up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no
wise hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover." Such is the end of the words of Jesus in the
completed Gospel of Mark 1 . There is no word about love,
concord, or harmony. A Greek, contrasting his Apollo with
this Marcan Christ, might say that the latter was the God of
Harmony and Light without his lyre and bow, an Apollo
reduced to an Aesculapius.

Matthew ends on a higher note though briefly and
obscurely. He refers again to that " authority " which he had
mentioned at the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount,
where he described the Lord as promulgating the new Law
in the place of the Law of Mount Sinai. There Matthew had
said that Jesus " was teaching as one having authority '." Now
he represents Jesus as saying " All authority hath been given
unto me in heaven and on earth 2 "; and this followed by a
precept to His disciples to " make disciples," and by a promise
of His presence ("lo, I am with you always"). What is this
" authority " ? Authority is to be looked for in the ideal
Ruler ; and Jesus Himself has described the true Ruler as
one who makes himself least of all and minister of all 3 . And
this is implied in the nature of God the Father who is per-
petually giving Himself to man, and who gives even His Son
to die that man may live 4 . Through His Son, the Prince of
Peace 5 , the Father, who is the eternal and ever-giving Love,

1 The second Mark-Appendix closes thus: "Jesus. ..sent forth by
them (/.-. the Apostles] the holy and incorruptible preaching of eternal
salvation."

- Mt. \\viii. 18.

:; Mk x. 42 foil., Mt. xx. 25 foil., Lk. xxii. 25 foil.

4 Mk x. 45, Mt. xx. 28.

' ""i]. I'liilo i. 103 "Let us therefore give to the tyrant the title of
An h..n nt War, but to the [true] king the title of Emperor of Peace,
!! is ri-fciTing to Melchizedek, king of Salem.

270

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

radiating unity and concord, draws all His children into the
perfect peace of " The Family that is above 1 ."

The original point and spiritual force of the last words of
Matthew's Gospel is perhaps a little weakened for many of us
by controversies arising out of the precept to " make disciples"
and " baptize," which makes mention of " the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit." Some say, " Here we have the
earliest reference to the doctrine of the Trinity, and in Christ's
own words " ; others allege that the clause about the Three Per-
sons is an interpolation ; others say that the text may be sound
but that the words were not uttered by Christ, and that the
passage is later than many portions of Matthew's Gospel.
Amid these controversies we may forget perhaps to ask,
" What meaning would a Jew, such as the author of what
we may call the Jewish portions of Matthew's Gospel, attach
to the whole passage with or without the Trinitarian words
when he wrote it down as expressing the substance of the
blessing pronounced on His disciples by Messiah, the Son of
God, departing to heaven and sending them forth to continue
His work on earth? "

The answer is reasonably to be looked for in the words
that constitute the essence of the blessing, " / am with you
always-" It is a repetition of the promise (mentioned by
Matthew alone) that where the " two or three " of " the family
that is below " are "gathered together" in the name of the Son,
there the Son will be present 3 . The very word " with" when
it means " together with " and is applied to persons, whether
human or divine, often leads to a thought of " peace." Those
whom "God is with" are also "with " that is, "at peace with"
one another 4 . In one of the Psalms, " the Lord of hosts [is]

1 Comp. Son 3342 a quoting Berach. 17 a "that thou mightest make
peace in the family that is above and in the family that is below"

2 Mt. xxviii. 20. 3 Mt. xviii. 20.

4 Compare the Pauline expressions "The God of peace be together
with you all" and " The God of love and peace shall be together with
you" in Rom. xv. 33, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Philipp. iv. 9.

271

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

untk us " is repeated twice as a refrain of war ; but between
the two war-cries comes, "He maketh wars to cease unto the
end of the earth 1 ." Also in Isaiah, the name of the Child who
is to be called "God with us" which also is repeated as a war-
cry against the " two kings " whom Israel abhors, and against
the invader who is to " fill the breadth of thy land, O God with
us" encouraging Israel to believe that the counsel of the enemy
" shall not stand, for God [is] with us " prepares the way for
other names of the Child, of which the last is " Prince of
Peace 2 ."

The Child-name "God with us" or Immanuel, is mentioned
by no Evangelist but Matthew 3 ; and the thought implied by
it in his Gospel appears to be a Christian development of the
thought in the above quoted psalm and in the prophecies.
Matthew teaches us to ask, as Paul asks, "If God is for us,
who is against us 4 ?" But he also teaches something else,
something more than a mere statement that God is " for "
men. He suggests, in a mystical manner, that when men are
" together with " one another, in the Spirit of the Son, they are
also " together with God," and like God the divine Person-
ality being (so to speak) "together with" Itself. In other
words, there is something in the unity of "the Family that
is above" corresponding to that peace which binds together
" the family that is below 5 ."

Paul says that this peace, the peace of God, " passeth all
understanding" where critics are divided as to whether he
in< -,-ins that it is like the love of Christ which "passeth
knowledge," or that it surpasses all device and counsel of

1 Ps. xlvi. 7 ii. 2 Is. vii. 14, 16, viii. 8 10, ix. 6.

; Mi. 1-23. 4 Rom v jii 3I

6 Comp. Clem. Alex. 956, who says, concerning God, ro /ueV
w IT ur fifty TO fie fjfuv avpTradfs yeyoi/e ntjrrjp. This does not say, in so
many words, "God is our Mother as well as our Father." But that
ii|)j)-;ir-> t> IK,- the meaning for plain persons, who are not metaphysicians
and yet not materialists.

272

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

men 1 . Origen perhaps inclines to the former. But the latter
is also true. This " peace " passes our intellect when we
attempt to apprehend its power ; and it surpasses all the wise
devices of lawgivers and statesmen when they attempt to
mould families into nations. Matthew, in words that recognise
this power as "all authority," closes his Gospel thus: "All
authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth.
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing
them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit' 2 , teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I commanded you. And lo, I am with you always even unto
the consummation of the aeon."

12. " Peace," at the beginning of Luke but not at the end

Luke's view seems to be that Jesus came to the House of
Israel with the message " Peace be unto this house ! " but
that " no son of peace was there," so that the peace " returned
back" to Him 3 . Peace is frequently mentioned at the outset
of his Gospel but not at the end. In the Introduction,
Zacharias says " the dayspring from on high " shall " visit us,
to shine upon them that sit in darkness... to guide our feet
into the way of peace 4 " ; but that implies a promise that men

1 Philipp. iv. 7. Lightfoot prefers the latter. The context in Origen's
Exhort. Mart. 4 and 37 (Lomm. xx. 235, 286) rather suggests that
Origen, interpreting the word emotionally, preferred the former. In no
case does his context suggest the latter. Comp. Eph. iii. 19.

2 Eusebius is said to quote Mt. xxviii. 19 about 25 times either with
" baptizing them in my name? instead of the Trinitarian formula, or else
stopping short at "nations" and only once (in a genuine work) with the
usual text. But no other authority is alleged as omitting the formula
(except for brevity). If there had been variations in the Greek text, would
they not have been appealed to in early times by controversialists ? The
quotations of the passage by Tertullian and Origen shew that writers
might often stop short at "nations" where the object was to shew that
the Gospel included "the nations" as well as the Jews while elsewhere
(and less frequently) giving the sentence in full.

3 See Lk. x. 5 6 quoted above, p. 259, n. i. 4 Lk. i. 78 9.

A. B.

273

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

shall receive light to see "the way of peace," not that they
shall accept its "guiding." A little later, the angels sing
"Glory in the highest to God and on earth peace," but it is
only "in men of well-pleasing 1 " such as Simeon, to whom it
is ^nven to " depart in peace " because his prophetic eyes have
"seen," in the Babe, Jesus, the " salvation " of God 2 . Passing
over such expressions as " go in peace," " his possessions are in
peace 3 ,'' we come to the two above-quoted passages, first, the
instructions to the Twelve about the conditional message
" Peace be to this house," and secondly, the disclaimer " Think
ye that I came hither to give peace in the earth 4 ?" Thus
we are being gradually prepared for the failure of the gospel
of peace when it is at last brought to Jerusalem.

Here Luke deviates widely from Mark and Matthew by
inserting a tradition about Christ's weeping, which indicates
that there is no hope of peace for the City of Jerusalem.
David wept as he ascended the Mount of Olives departing
from the City. But the City was soon to welcome him, re-
turning in peace. Jesus, on the other hand, " near the descent
of the Mount of Olives," wept when He drew near and saw
the City, saying " If thou hadst known in this day, even thou,
the things that pertain to peace 5 ! "

As if to prepare the way for this prediction of (in effect)
no-peace at all events no-peace for Jerusalem on earth,

1 Lk. ii. 14 on which see Hort's note. For "men of well-pleasing,"
comp. Dan. x. 11, 19 "man of desirableness," Vulg. " vir desideriorum,"
K.V. "man greatly beloved." In almost all Origen's quotations of this
ige the context lays stress, not on the limitation of the "peace " to a
particular class of men, but on Jesus as the Giver of the " peace," so as to
suit a reading of " man " for " men," that is, " Peace on earth in the Man
in whom He is well pleased? preparing the way for the utterance of the
Voice from heaven in Lk. iii. 22 "*' thee I am well pleased" Perhaps
Origen regards the " men " as incorporated in the Man of well pleasing.

'-' Lk. ii. 29 30.

; Lk. vii. 50, viii. 48, comp. xi. 21. We may also pass, as irrelevant,
32.

1 Lk. x. 56, xii. 51. & 2 S. xv. 30, Lk. xix. 37, 42.

274

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

no-peace for the City made with hands Luke previously inserts,
as a parallel to the Hosanna clauses in Mark and Matthew, an
utterance of " praise " that does not point to any future
salvation " on earth " (as in the song of the angels at the
beginning of the Gospel) but to things of the recent or
immediate past : " for all the mighty works that they Jiad
seen 1 ."

The appeal to Jerusalem, " if thou hadst known the things
pertaining to peace" implies to a Jew a paradox of pathos not
at once intelligible to a Gentile. For the word Jerusalem is
said by Philo to have meant " vision of peace" and certainly
meant, in some form, " city of peace-" For a Jew, there was
a special aptness in the repetitions of the Psalmist, " Pray for
\\\e peace of Jerusalem... Peace be within thy walls !...! will now
say, Peace be within thee 3 !" And so for a Jew here, there
would be something paradoxical as well as pathetic in the
fact that " the City of Peace " did not know " the things per-
taining to peace." To Hosea the Lord says, concerning his
new-born son, " Call his name Lo-ammi (i.e. Not-my-people) ;
for ye arc not my people, and I will not be your [God] 4 ." So
here, the King of Salem* ', bringing the bread and wine of
peace to His own beloved City who refuses it, hears the word
of the Lord saying "Call her name Lo-salem, Not-Peace,
because she knoweth not the things that pertain to peace!'

" For the sake of the house of the Lord our God," says the
Psalmist just quoted, " I will seek thy good 6 ." Jesus is here
described as feeling the bitterness of " seeking " to " do good "
to Jerusalem and of inability to do it. The " peace " that He

1 Mk xi. 9, Mt. xxi. 9 (comp. ib. 15); Lk. xix. 37 "had seen" may
mean "had been seeing." For Lk. xix. 38 "peace in heaven," see
below, p. 276.

2 Comp. Light 3809 *:, quoting Philo i. 691 2. The actual origin of
the name is uncertain, but it is certain that Jews regarded "salem"
as meaning "peace."

3 Ps. cxxii. 68. 4 Hos. i. 9. 6 Heb. vii. 2
6 Ps. cxxii. 9. Comp. Jn ii. 17 "the zeal for thy house."

275 18 2

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

has been " seeking " for Jerusalem on earth is not to be found.
Hence, in Luke's narrative of the Riding into Jerusalem, the
tone of angelic exultation over good tidings fulfilled below
(" peace on earth ") is exchanged for the tone of human
aspiration to something that must be fulfilled above ("peace
in heaven "). And not until " peace in heaven " has been
attained can "peace on earth" follow as its consequence 1 .

It is perhaps in part because of this view of the "good
tidings of peace " as a promise that could not be fulfilled on
earth that Luke deliberately concludes his Gospel on a note
of suspense : " Tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with
power from on high." The rest is simply a silent blessing 2 .
It is reserved for the Acts to relate what follows. Even in

1 Later on, it will be shewn that Luke's " peace in heaven " may be
connected with other passages bearing on the Entry into the Temple :
(i) Jn xii. 31 " Now is the judgment of this world ; now shall the prince
of this world be cast out," (2) Mt. xxi. 16 (Ps. viii. 2) "Out of the mouth
of babes.. ^that thou mightest still the enemy." Comp. (3) Lk. x. 18
" I beheld Satan fallen as lightning" followed by Lk. x. 21 " reveal them
unto babes." " That thou mightest still the enemy " refers (according to
Jewish interpretation) to the adversaries, or Satans, of Israel, and Origen
says (on Ps. viii. 2) "Understand [by this] the genuine (d\r]6ivbv)
Nebuchadnezzar" ; it is also "the devil" (i.e. the "slanderer," slandering
men to God as in the case of Job, as well as God to men) and the babes
are " the illiterates and fishermen through whom Jesus brought the devil
down."

Uncertainties as to the particular meaning of "Hosanna" uttered at
a Passover, and as to the best way of explaining it to Greeks, may have
induced the later Evangelists to insert traditions of good (though not of
threefold) authority, illustrative of the general and spiritual meaning.
The remarks of Papias on Rev. xii. 7 "war in heaven" (see Swete) with
the early scholia on the passage, and Origen's remarks on Eph. vi. 12
u the spiritual [powers] of wickedness in the heavenly [places]," shew that
u uar in heaven" was a subject of early discussion, which necessarily led
to the' thought of "peace in heaven." See Light 3809 b foil, on Odes of
Solonum viii. 8 "And peace was prepared for you before ever your
war v.

" Silent" in this sense, that when Jesus (Lk. xxiv. 50) "lifted up his
.md blessed them," either He said nothing, or what He said has
been passed over in silence by the Evangelist.

276

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

the Acts the Apostles are still to wait till they are " baptized
with the Holy Spirit " and to " receive power when the Holy
Spirit is come upon them." Nothing follows till the day of
Pentecost. Then the Spirit descends, but the descent suggests
power rather than peace : " There came from heaven a sound
as of the rushing of a mighty wind... and they were all filled
with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues,
as the Spirit gave them utterance 1 ." Some indeed mocked
and said, " They are filled with new wine." Peter successfully
vindicates the disciples, and preaches the Resurrection of Jesus
and the promise of remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy
Spirit, to those who will repent and be baptized in the name
of Jesus Christ.

This may be said to imply " peace." But the word is not
mentioned. Our minds are led rather to the thought of a
Spirit active against evil that creates a "partnership " or
"fellowship" between man and man, as well as a sense of
peace with God. Accordingly, when the first proclamation
of the gospel by Peter on the day of Pentecost has brought
three thousand converts into the Church, Luke says " They
continued stedfastly in the teaching of the Apostles, and [in]
\b& fellowship^ the breaking of bread, and the prayers 2 ."

As regards Jesus Himself, the last words recorded in the
Acts are " Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in
all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the
earth 3 ." But He leaves behind Him, as it were, a second

1 Acts ii. 2 4.

2 Acts ii. 42. The different meanings of N.T. Koivavia ("partnership"
"fellowship" " communion " representing at least two Hebrew words)
will come before us in the Call of the Fishermen, where Luke (alone)
describes the sons of Zebedee (v. 7 10) as both /xfro^oi and KOIVWVOI with
"Simon" (comp. Jn xxi. 3 "We also come with thee [i.e. Simon}," and
Gal. ii. 9 where the Apostles "to the Circumcision" make some kind of

i'a with the Apostles "to the Gentiles"). The first N.T. instance of
ia is closely followed (Acts ii. 424) by "they had all things
common (<oivd)." 3 Acts i. 8.

277

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

utterance, reminding the Apostles when "a cloud received
him out of their sight " and they stood " looking stedfastly
into heaven " that they are not to stand there gazing up as
though to find their lost Master in one of the seven heavens :
" Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking into heaven ?
This [same] Jesus that has been taken up from you into
heaven shall in-the-same-way come [back] [in] the [same]
manner [in] which ye beheld him going [away] into the
heaven 1 ."

Why are the Apostles bidden to be witnesses u in Jerusalem,
Judaea, and Samaria," but not in Galilee 2 ? And, though they
are, of course, Galilaeans, why should they be addressed as
" men of Galilee " ? Is there not something that would strike
an educated Greek as a little suggestive of narrowness, some-
thing as it were provincial, in the selection of these particular
words as a final utterance, on the part of, or by the representa-
tives of, the ascending Saviour ?

Possibly Luke has a deliberate purpose in this emphasis
on "Galilaean." Both in his Gospel and in the Acts he
emphasizes it, as though he knew there was a prejudice in the
Roman Empire against the name, but a prejudice that must
be overcome. In his Gospel alone is there a protest of Jesus
that certain " Galilaeans " were not " sinners above all the
Galilaeans " because they had " suffered these things," and a
warning, to those who reported this calamity, that they, too,

1 Acts i. ii.

2 Perhaps because the witnesses of the Ascension (Acts i. 11), the
speakers with tongues (tb. ii. 7), and the witnesses of the Resurrection
(ib. xiii. 31), are all said to be from "Galilee." Note that the only
mention of spiritual peace in Acts is in x. 36 7 " The word that he
[i. God] sent. . .preaching-the-gospel-of peace through Jesus Christ...
lurginning from Galilee." This implies that God "preaches." Comp.
Mk i. 14 "Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God." Is
ivtrr supposed to mean here that God " preaches-the-good-tidings of
peace," in the sense of "peace after war " ? Comp. 2 Cor. v. 20 " We are
ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as though God were intreating by us ;
we beseech [you] on be-half of Christ, Be ye reconciled to God."

278

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

would perish, unless they repented 1 . Also, in the Acts, Judas
the Galilaean is mentioned by Gamaliel as a ringleader of
rebellion whose projects perished with him ; but the mention
is accompanied with the suggestion, in effect, that if the projects
of Jesus the Galilaean do not perish with him, it will be a proof
that heaven is on his side 2 . These and other facts 3 indicate
that Luke may have regarded "Ye men of Galilee" as an
exhortation from heaven at Christ's Ascension bidding the
disciples not to be ashamed of belonging to a small and
despised province of a small and despised people. It was to
be a trumpet-call to them to go forth conquering and to
conquer till the world should be forced to cry " Vicisti,
Galilaee ! "

Nevertheless, to the Christians of the Empire of the end

1 Lk. xiii. i 3. Luke also alone records (xxiii. 6) Pilate's inquiry
" whether the man [i.e. Jesus] was a Galilaean," and the sequel.

2 Acts v. 37.

3 Epictetus iv. 7. 6 speaks of the endurance of the Galilaeans acquired
by custom, as matching the endurance of madmen. Josephus erects the
Galilaeans into a separate sect along with the Pharisees and Sadducees.
They were somewhat despised by the Jews of Judaea (Hor. Heb. i. 170 i)
for their blunt ways and their rough dialect. Justin Martyr and Hegesippus
both include " Galilaeans " in their lists of the " seven " pre-Christian
Jewish sects (Diet. Christ. Biogr., "Genistae"). Justin says (Tryph. 80)
that Jews would not admit them to be really Jews. He also accuses Jews
thus (ib. 108) " You have sent. ..men throughout all the world to proclaim
that 'a godless and lawless heresy has sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean
deceiver, whom we crucified...'." These are the only two instances of
the word in Justin.

John uses the word only in Jn iv. 45 "When he [i.e. Jesus] came into
Galilee the Galilaeans received him, having seen all the things that he did
in Jerusalem at the feast ; for they also went to the feast." This is
equivalent to saying, " It is a mistake to suppose that the early signs
of the Lord were mostly performed in Galilee, and, more particularly,
in Capernaum (as we might infer from Luke (iv. 23)). On the contrary,
they were performed in Jerusalem. The Galilaeans themselves owed
their knowledge of them mainly to the fact that they had come up to
Jerusalem, when Jesus also came up, at the outset of His public work, to
celebrate the Passover."

279

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

of the first century, still expecting but not perhaps in many
places expecting immediately the Coming of the Lord Jesus,
there must have been some sense of narrowness in the limita-
tion suggested by " Ye men of Galilee." Also there may have
been something a little unsettling in the prediction of a corporeal
descent, which might occur at any moment, exactly corre-
sponding to this corporeal ascent. To some, the words in the
Acts might read almost as though the angels said "You
must not expect Him," and yet, in the same utterance, " Wait
for Him to come from heaven at any moment 1 ." Looking at
Luke's Gospel and Acts as setting forth the last utterances
of Jesus about His "good tidings of peace," some might
prefer the selection of words like those in Matthew, indicating
that Christ, our Peace, though taken from us in the flesh, is
still with us and will be with us for ever. For any later evan-
gelist, the question might well arise whether it was not possible
to find, among the many traditions about the last words of
Jesus, some that might shew how He combined the promise of
His Spirit with the promise also of His personal presence.

13. "Peace" at the end of John, promised

" Peace " occurs for the first time in John when Jesus,
just before His arrest, prepares the disciples for His departure.
Then He mentions it thrice, first, with reiteration, at the
beginning of this preparatory doctrine, and then at the
conclusion of it, when He turns from discourse to prayer 2 .

At the outset, the disciples have been questioning Him as
to a substitute, a mysterious Other, or Paraclete, whom He
lias promised to give them during His own temporary absence :
" I will make request of the Father and he shall give you
Another, a Paraclete. ..the Spirit of truth, whom the world

1 Compare a scholium in Cramer (on Acts i. 11) ov<e'n eiao-ei/ avrovs

MI mv Tri>t,<rftoK(ii'...(ivTQ)s (\fv(TfTai^ (^f/tri, teat <uff e' ovpavov auTov

2 Jn xiv. 27 (bis\ xvi. 33.

280

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

cannot receive, for it beholdeth him not, and knoweth him
not ; ye know him, for he abideth with you and is [indeed] in

you. I will not leave you orphans, I come unto you In

that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me,
and I in you 1 ." Then in answer to another perplexed disciple,
Jesus explains that this "coming" of the Father and Himself,
and (presumably) of the Other self, the Paraclete, is a coming
into the heart of him who lovingly does the will of the Son :
" If a man love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will
love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode
with him 2 ." At this point comes the first mention of " peace,"
connected with a repetition of the promise of the Paraclete,
" These things have I spoken unto you, while [yet] abiding with
you. But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and
remind you of all things that I have said unto you. Peace
I leave unto you, the peace that is mine own I give unto you.
Not as the world giveth am I giving unto you. Let not your
heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful 3 ."

This passage, mentioning, as it does, " the Holy Spirit," and
also twice mentioning "peace," resembles one in the Epistle
to the Ephesians, " And he came and preached-the-gospel-of
peace to you that were afar ofT, and peace to them that were
nigh ; for through him we both have our access, in one Spirit,
unto the Father 4 ." But that, again, seems based on a passage
in Isaiah, which also contains a twofold mention of " peace,"
and which, though it does not mention " Spirit," contains the
word " comfort," of which the Greek is a form of " Paraclete."
" I have seen his ways and will heal him... and restore comforts
unto him and his mourners. I create the fruit of the lips :
Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near 5 ."

1 Jn xiv. 1620. On "Another, a Paraclete," see Son 3618. "Is
[indeed]" = W.H. txt eV, marg. eorat (R.V. "shall be").

2 Jn xiv. 23. 3 Jn xiv. 257. 4 Eph. ii. 1718.

5 Is. Ivii. 1819 (LXX) "I have seen his ways and healed him and

281

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

Jerome, on Isaiah, quotes both the Gospel and the Epistle as
describing fulfilments of the prophecy ; and both of them
appear to refer to it. The repetition of " peace " is, in itself,
unlikely to be a mere coincidence, and the unlikelihood will
be increased by evidence that will be given later on.

As for the meaning of the " near " and the " far off," Jewish
opinion was divided about it ; but according to the Ephesian
Epistle they are the Jews and the Gentiles, between whom
" peace " is made by bringing both into Christ, " for he is our
peace, who made both one 1 ." The Epistle implies but does
not express that each soul individually also finds peace in
Christ. The Gospel does more than imply ; it expresses the
fact that this peace is given to the disciples 'as a gift. In this
" peace " there is no thought of being reconciled to an offended
God. It might be called (as Paul, above-quoted, calls it) a
reconciling of our estranged, suspicious, and timorous hearts
to a loving Father. But John dwells on it rather as being
freedom from vague fears and troubles as to our future fate :
" Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be fearful 2 ."
It is the power of the Father ("the Father is greater than I ")
not His love that the Son anxiously vindicates, as affording
a firm foundation for that " peace " which He emphasizes by
a twofold repetition, by the emphatic " my-own" and by
changing " bequeathing " to " giving," so that the thought is
of this kind, " Peace I leave you as a legacy. Nay, rather,
peace I give you as an immediate and lasting gift, not like

comforted (napcKaXfa-a) him, and have given him the true comfort
(nap('iK\T}(Tiv d\7]0ivi)v\ peace upon peace, to those far off and to those
near." This verbally resembles " the Comforter, the Spirit of truth "
(Jn xiv. 16 17).

1 I -I'll- ii. 14. Comp. Mic. v. 5 "and this [man] shall be peace [for us,

i.e. for Israel]," and Zech. ix. 10 "he shall speak peace unto the Gentiles."

rule, " I \-ace be unto you" would be a salutation to those to whom

lint Jesus in His farewell to the disciples (Jn xiv. 278)

! "t 1 1- will, as it were, leave "peace" with those/raw whom He

Plating "peace" (Jn xx. 19, 21, 26) when He returns.
Jn xiv. 27.

282

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

the gifts of the world, transient and false, but true peace, my
own peace. Troubles must needs pain your minds, but they
must not penetrate them or make them timorous...! am still
your Helper, and more your Helper than before. I go to the
Father, and the Father is greater than I 1 ."

Origen, quoting this passage, calls attention to the fact
that the Hebrew " peace," expressed in the name of "Solomon,"
suggested the building up, or completion, of the Temple a
work not for David the type of war, but for Solomon the type
of peace, and for Jesus as one Greater than Solomon 2 . The
conclusion of the Johannine version of Christ's Last Words
implies the fulfilment of both types. War has preceded peace
but is now over, consummated in victory : " These things have
I said unto you that in me ye may have peace. In the world
ye have tribulation, but be of good cheer, I have-been-victorions-
over the world 3 ."

14. "Ptac*" and "the Paraclete"

The bestowal of the legacy of peace, described above, was
preceded by a mention of some kind of Substitute for the Son,
who was to take the Son's place as the Friend and Helper of
the disciples when deprived of the visible presence of their Lord :
" I will make request of the Father, and he shall give you Another,
a Paraclete, that he may be with you for ever the Spirit of

1 Jn xiv. 27 8. Some Latin versions transpose or confuse the two
verbs "leave" and "give." They also repeat "my own" twice, or
transpose it. Chrysostom gives the impression of having a text that
repeats "leave" twice (instead of "leave" and "give").

2 Comm. Joann. vi. I.

3 Jn xvi. 33 "have-been-victorious-over (rcrlxifica}.* See Light 3&15 9,
on this passage and others such as i Jn v. 4" This is the victory that^z/^-
been-victorious-over the world, even our faith." The advantage of ren-
dering the verb " be- victorious-over " is that it retains the connection
between it and the noun " victory" In illustration of victory and peace
prepared before war, comp. Odes of Solomon viii. 8 " Peace was prepared
for you before ever your war was."

283

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

truth 1 ." It is the presence of this Paraclete that is the guarantee
for the legacy of peace : "The Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom
the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things
and quietly-remind you of all things that I said to you [on
earth]. Peace I leave you... the Father is greater than I 2 ."
Before proceeding to the last Johannine mention of " peace "
on the occasion when Jesus said to the disciples "peace be
unto you" and "receive the Holy Spirit," we have to ask
what John means by " Paraclete," a term that he connects
first with " the Spirit of truth " and then with the " Holy
Spirit."

The word is from the Greek paracaleo, " call a person to,"
advoco, and was adopted into the Jewish language in the
technical sense of an advocate some one " called in " to
speak or manage legal matters for a friend or client unable to
speak for himself. In Greek, the etymological and the actual
meaning of the word are often at variance, owing to the
different meanings of paracaleo in LXX and other causes 3 .
But these must not distract our attention from the undeniable
fact that it is used by Philo in a doctrine that appears to
be deliberately contradicted by John, as being diametrically
opposed to right views both about Creation and about the
right attitude of man toward God.

First, as to Creation, Philo says that God used no paraclete
but only Himself in resolving to benefit Nature 4 . John states

1 Jn xiv. 1 6, see/0/fc. Gr. 2793, Son 3618. " Make-request-of " = epanjo-a.

2 Jn xiv. 26 8 "quietly-remind (vTro/ii'jffm)."

:5 napaxaXeG) in LXX regularly represents the Heb. "comfort," the

root of Nahum and Me-nahem. Menahem is given as one of the names

of the Messiah in/. Berach. ii. 4 (3). Outside LXX, TrapaxaXeo) generally

means "request," "invite," &c. UapdK\rjros never occurs in LXX, but

ropojtX^rop once, Job xvi. 2 "comforter," where Aq. and Theod. have

TrnpiIicAjjTof, taking it actively, although etymologically it should be

ive. In Demosthenes, Barnabas, and Dio Cassius, 7rapii K \r)Tos is

(I in a bad sense, concerning a hired orator, or applauder,

importer, coming not spontaneously but because he is "called in."

PhilO i. 5 oi/3fi/i de TrapaK\T)T<0 ri'y yap Tfv crepop; poj/o) Se

284

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

that in the beginning the Word was with God, and was God,
and that " all things came into being through him." Next, as
to the right attitude of man toward God, Philo indicates it
by reference to the High Priest going into the presence of
God in special vestments, which, he says, represent the four
elements, " so that the whole of the world (Cosmos) may go
in with him ____ For it was necessary that he that is making
[a] holy [offering] to the Father of the world (Cosmos) should
use as Paraclete \that Father s\ Son most perfect in excel-
lence... 1 ." That is to say the Cosmos, or World, is to be
brought as man's Paraclete into the presence of God 2 . This
is the very opposite of Johannine doctrine, In John, the
Paraclete comes to " convict the world (Cosmos) " and convicts
it " because the ruler of this world hath been judged " ; the

(bs eyrco 8flv (iifpyfrdv. ..TTJV avtv 8a)p(ds dfias (pvviv cT
e avTf)s ovdfvos dyadov 8vvap.evrjv. (i) Possibly, as a judge may be said
to "use" the services of the advocate on either side, stating the case of
either client, so here the word may mean " advocate to state the case
of Nature." (2) More probably it means "assistant." In either case, it
puts aside the conception of God as "calling into counsel" His Word,
or Son, when He made the world, and especially then when He said
" Let us make man."

1 Philo ii. 155 ifpupcvov, "performing a holy service," is shewn to be
the present participle of lepdopai from the preceding context, where
ifparat actually occurs: SiKaiwv ruv l(pap,vov r<a 6fw^ naB* ov %povov
tfparat, irpofpepfiv cnrdvTw. In both places Mangey (followed by others)
accents the word if people z>o, as the perf. pass, of fepoco, " having been made
holy " to the great detriment of the sense.

Philo ii. 520 contains unimportant instances of irapd<\r)ros as
" advocate." More important is the prediction (ii. 436) that the scattered
Jews will return to their country "destined to use (xpr)<r6p.(voi) three
Advocates for their reconciliations to the Father (rpia-l TrapaKXrjrois TWV
npusTov Uarepa KaraXXaytoi/) " : (i) the kindness of Him that is pleaded
with (TOV irapaKa\ovp.evov), (2) the holiness of the Patriarchs, (3) the
" amelioration (/SeAruuo-tr) " of those who are being thus " brought into
a treaty" with God.

2 Comp. Philo i. 277 " For this world (6 p.ev yap Koa-p-os OVTOS) is God's
younger Son, as being perceived by sense (arc alo-flrjTos <w>/)," see Light
3717 j k. On the Platonic doctrine of the Cosmos as "a living
creature," and as povoyevfa see above, p. 28 foil.

'85

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

whole of the discourse about the Paraclete or the Spirit implies
a warfare between the Paraclete and the world ; and the dis-
course closes with the words "In the world ye have tribulation ;
but be of good cheer, I have been victorious over the world 1 ."
It would be folly to infer that John, simply for the purpose
of contradicting Philo, inserted in his Gospel a doctrine that
he did not believe Jesus to have taught. Much more probably
he found in the Christian Churches some traditions about
a Paraclete or Advocate, or about the Holy Spirit regarded
as a Paraclete, which were variously reported and liable to be
misunderstood. Some, for example, might narrow do\vn the
office of the Holy Spirit to little more than that of a clever
advocate helping Christians to plead their cause before magis-
trates, as in Luke : " Settle it therefore in your own hearts
not to practise beforehand [your] defending yourselves ; for
I will give you a mouth and wisdom that all your adversaries
shall not be able to withstand or gainsay 2 ." In the Acts we
see how this personal action of the " Holy Spirit," or " the
Spirit of Jesus," might do much more than this on one
occasion " not suffering " an apostle to go to " Asia " or
" Bithynia," and on another guiding him by a " vision " to
Macedonia 3 . Again, the Corinthian Epistles shew how the
action of the Spirit, when manifested in what was called
" other tongues," or " kinds of tongues," or " speaking with
tongues" a manifestation of comparatively slight importance
might sometimes give rise to exaggerations, disorder, and
foolish conceit 4 . These statements, outside the Gospels, point
to some actual doctrine and promise of Jesus like that which
is inside the Gospels. Jesus may or may not have used the
term "Paraclete" on some of the occasions on which He
promised the disciples the help of the Spirit ; but whether He

1 Jn xvi. 8, ii, 33. "World" is K 007*0? throughout this discourse.
- Lk. xxi. 1415, Mk xiii. u, Mt. x. 1920, Lk. xii. 11 12. Mark
and Matthew differ from Luke, see Son 3617.

3 Acts xvi. 6io. 4 , Cor xiv< 2 fo |i

286

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

did or not, His actual doctrine appears to have implied the
promise of spiritual helpfulness which is the essence of the term.

Whatever Jesus may have said about a Paraclete, or about
anything equivalent to a Paraclete, might easily be corrupted
by some of the earliest Christians, owing to the inveterate
dread and distrust of God felt by man, and man's consequent
desire to put up between himself and God what may be called
veils of mediation. Jewish traditions, commenting on a
passage in Job that mentions " an angel, an interpreter 1 /' call
this " angel " a Paraclete, and explain it as meaning that, in
the day of judgment, one good deed, appearing as a man's
Paraclete against nine hundred and ninety-nine evil accusing
deeds, will save a man from condemnation.

Jesus, however, in a Lucan parable, is reported to have
spoken, not about " works," but about " friends " who are to
"receive into everlasting habitations' 2 " the man that makes
them " friends." The parable is obscure ; and how its doctrine,
from being spiritual, may degenerate into the mechanical, may
be seen by comparing Clement of Alexandria with Jerome in
their comments on it :! . But it seems to mean that a man can
do with his money what the good Samaritan did when he

1 Job xxxiii. 23 4 " If there be with him an angel, an interpreter,
one among a thousand, to shew unto man what is right for him, then he
is gracious unto him and saith, Deliver him from going down to the
pit, I have found a ransom." Targ. has " angelus unus, paracletus, de
millibus (sic) accusatoribus" See Rashi, and Levy Ch. ii. 300 #.

- Lk. xvi. 9.

3 Clem. Alex. 952 5 emphasizes the power of "those who have an
everlasting habitation with the Father," those who are God's "little ones,"
and whose "angels" behold His face, to benefit their benefactors by
receiving them into that habitation. Jerome writes about the death-bed
of the rich Fabiola (Letters Ixxvii. 1 1 ed. Fremantle) " Having a presenti-
ment of what would happen, she had written to several monks to come
and release her from the burden under which she laboured," i.e. the
remnant of her fortune, "for she wished to (Lk. xvi. 9) l make to herself
friends of the mammon... habitations? They came to her, and she made
them her friends...." On the disciples of Christ as being Christ's
"friends," see Joh. Voc. 178492.

287

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

made himself a " neighbour," that is to say, a " friend," to the
Jew whom he relieved. If that Jew was grateful, then the
kindness was blessed to the Samaritan by making the Jew
his " friend." If the Jew was ungrateful, still the kindness
was blessed to the Samaritan, for it became and remained
his " friend," lifting up his heart toward the Father of all
kindness and preparing him to be " received into everlasting
habitations." In the former case the kindness was "twice-
blessed." In the latter, it was only "once-blessed." Still, it
ivas "blessed," and became what might be called "an angel of
introduction." Jesus always assumed that good works must
be works of the heart. We can have no " treasure in heaven "
unless our " heart " is there 1 . The angels that are to be our
Paracletes cannot be ours unless we are as the " little ones "
of God 2 . And these "angels" are not independent beings.
They must be, as John teaches us, "ascending and descending
on the Son of Man 3 ."

Nevertheless, the doctrine of obtaining salvation by a
substantial balance of good deeds over bad deeds has great
attractions for the human mind ; which, in religion more than
in anything else, craves definiteness, safe routine, and absolutely
certain assurances that if a man does this or that according to
fixed rule, he will be saved. It is not therefore to be wondered
at that John takes great pains, we must not perhaps say to
make indefinite the doctrine of the Paraclete, but at all events
to depict it in such different aspects that it may be impossible
for the reader to explain away the Paraclete's help by any
arithmetical theory of debit and credit.

Among these aspects must be mentioned the one in the
Johanninc Epistle where the Son Himself is called a Paraclete,
with the epithet " righteous " attached to it, and with a mention
of " the whole world'' This epithet and this modifying phrase
should shew us that we have to do with no ordinary advocate,

1 Mt. vi. 21, Lk. xii. 34. 2 Mt. xviii. 10. 3 Jn i. 51.

288

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

pleading in our special favour, but with One who pleads for
others as well as for ourselves One who will by no means
extenuate our particular offences even when He carries our
sin-stained confessions, our imperfect sorrows, and our frail
repentances, into the presence of the Father : " My little
children, these things I write unto you that ye sin not. And,
if any man sin, we have a Paraclete with the Father, Jesus
Christ, a righteous [Paraclete] ; and he is the propitiation for
our sins ; and not for ours only but also for the whole world 1 ."

15. "Peace" in John^ Jiow imparted

The passage just quoted from the Johannine Epistle
calling Jesus "a Paraclete," and "a righteous one," rather
favours the view that the Epistle should be regarded not as
an Epilogue, but as " calling out a welcome 2 " for the Gospel,
which had been long orally preached and was now to be
given to the world in writing. The writer seems here, as often
elsewhere, to be reminding Christians of what they " know,"

1 i Jn ii. i 2.

2 " Calling out a welcome." See Westcott's The Epistles of St John,
(p. xxxix) "writes to call out a welcome for what he knows to be the
Gospel...? (p. xxxi) "the relative dates of the Epistle and of the Gospel
as written" " It can only be said with confidence that the Epistle pre-
supposes in those for whom it was composed a familiar acquaintance with
the characteristic truths which are preserved for us in the Gospel." The
words I have italicised appear to draw a distinction which might easily
be overlooked between (i) ' ; the Gospel" meaning the fundamental truths
of Christ's Gospel as a whole, and (2) " the Gospel" meaning the Fourth
Gospel.

Those who had heard the Johannine doctrine preached year by year to
them at Ephesus would need no Preface to it when at last it was committed
to writing and published. But readers studying the new Gospel in other
Churches might be greatly helped by an Introductory Epistle preparing
them for its new expressions. For example, the Fourth Gospel mentions
" life," 00?), twice as often as all the Synoptists together, and for the first
time thus : " in him [i.e. the Word] was life." For this we are .prepared
in the Epistle by (i Jn i. i) "the Word of life." In the Gospel, Christ's
doctrine draws towards its close with a mention of the Paraclete. The
Epistle (i Jn i. i ii. i) prepares for it.

A. B.

289

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

and thus to be preparing them for the reading of his Gospel,
which will shew them, step by step, how Jesus led the Church
to "know" it 1 .

The Church had taught them to " know " the precepts of
Christ. But something more might still be done by the writer
to help them to " know " the Spirit of Christ, not as One
seated in heaven 2 at the right hand of God, but as their con-
tinual Helper on earth, the source of their new life and joy,
and of their fellowship with the Father and the Son. Years
had passed away since many of the converts had been baptized ;
and they knew only too well that though not sinning as
before they had not remained free from blemish and stain.
Were they to remain thus stained, timorously awaiting the
Coming of the Lord from heaven ? Not so, they had the
Paraclete already among them and in them on earth, Christ's
Other Self; and the Disciple teaches them to say " He is the
propitiation for our sins."

None of the Synoptic Gospels had mentioned the Paraclete
by name. But the Johannine Epistle brings this new title
before us at its outset in order to denote Christ's present
Person or present Spirit, present with His disciples upon
earth, and endowed with so blessed and divine a power of
helping them, as almost to suggest that to send this Paraclete
had been the end and object of the Saviour's Incarnation. It
seems as if the writer, assuming the fulfilment of the promise
of the Paraclete at the beginning of his Epistle, thereby
prepares his readers for the description of the actual promise
of the Paraclete at the close of his Gospel.

But if this view of the relation between the Epistle and

1 Comp. i Jn ii. 2021 "Ye have an Anointing from the Holy One.
Ye all know. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth,
but because ye know it." There is no writing in N.T. in which "know"
(Kntf. Concordance) occurs proportionately so often as in the First
Johanninc Kpistle.

2 The word "heaven" does not occur in the Johannine Epistle.

290

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

the Gospel holds good about the Paraclete, we are led to ask
whether it holds good about other subjects, and, in particular,
about the one we are considering. What does the Epistle say
about " peace " ? The answer is surprising. It says nothing.
It does not even mention the word. There is not another
writing in the New Testament about which we can say this
not even the short Epistle of Jude or the Epistle to Philemon
or the shortest of the Johannine Epistles. How are we to
explain this?

Possibly in this way. The Introductory Epistle takes for
granted all the deepest results of the Life described in the
Gospel. It tells believers what they arc to do in consequence of
them, but does not describe them over again. The opening of
the Gospel is " In the beginning was the Word." The opening
of the Epistle shews the object of going back to the begin-
ning : "That which was from the beginning... that which we
beheld and our hands handled... declare we, that ye also may
have fellowship...'.^ The Epistle assumes that " the peace of
God" has been imparted by the Word to men, tJiat they may
have "fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus
Christ," that is to say, "the fellowship of the Holy Spirit."

" Peace," in Hebrew and Jewish thought, implied a great
deal more than it does to us. The verb from which it is
derived meant " complete." The noun meant " completeness,"
" soundness," " welfare " in every sense, as well as freedom
from actual conflict or disturbance. One aspect of it might
be described by the Greek word parr hesia, " freedom of speech,"
such as exists between the members of a family, and such as
ought to exist in man toward God, when man is truly the
child of God ; and this, too, is a favourite word in the Johannine
Epistle 1 .

1 i Jn ii. 28, iii. 21, iv. 17, v. 14. This use of Trapprjaia must be dis-
tinguished from its use in the adverbial clause cv TT., that is, "in public,"
"openly." See Levy iv. 103 on the Hebraized parrhesia, "there is no
parrhesia under ten [persons]."

291 19 2

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

We return to the Gospel and to the description of Christ's
bestowal of " peace " in it, prepared to believe that the gift
will imply a responsibility resting on the recipient. On the
evening of the day of Christ's Resurrection, " Jesus came, and
stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace \be\ unto you...
the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord 1 ." Then
follows, without mention of any intervening word or action,
a repetition : " Jesus therefore said to them again, Peace \be~\
unto you : as the Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when he had said this, he breathed into [them] and saith
unto them, Receive ye the Holy Spirit ; whosesoever sins ye
remit, they are remitted ; whosesoever [sins] ye retain, they are
retained 2 ." Referring the reader to a previous treatise for dis-
cussions on " remitting " and " retaining 3 ," we may note here
that, whereas the first of the two pronouncements of " peace "
is followed simply by " rejoicing 4 ," the second is followed
by an action of Christ toward the disciples, and a precept
enjoining on them action toward others. That is to say, the
" peace " followed by the " in-breathing " is not to be the peace
of a hermit or contemplative philosopher but that of a man
moving among men. As the Son lives from the Father, and
the disciples from the Father through the Son, and the Spirit
(or Paraclete) so the world is to live from the same source,
but through one more channel. The source is still the Father ;
but the Father's Gospel of Peace and Righteous Judgment,

1 Jn xx. 19 20 eo-Tr) ets TO peaov (see Joh. Gr. 2307).

- Jn xx. 213. On " breathing into," see Son 3086 c e, 3623 hj.

3 Son 3414 (i), 3495 A and /<?>&. Gr. 2517 foil.

4 Jn xx. 20. Contrast Lk. xxiv. 36 7 "He stood in the midst of them
[[and saith unto them, Peace [be] unto you]]. But they, being terrified
and affrighted, supposed that they saw a spirit." "Joy" is repeatedly
mentioned in Jn xv. 1 1 xvi. 24, in connection with the Spirit or Paraclete,
and also in Christ's prayer for the disciples (xvii. 13) "that they may have
the joy that is mine fulfilled in themselves" and nowhere else in Christ's
words throughout the Gospel (but in the Baptist's words (iii. 29) (twice)
of the "joy" that comes from the Bridegroom's voice). This accords
with Cal. v 22 "the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace...."

292

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

passing through the Son and the Holy Spirit to the disciples,
is also to pass, through the disciples, to the world.

" Peace," here, perhaps suggests completion as well as rest-
fulness. In the material Creation, God breathed the breath
of life into the first-created man. In the spiritual Creation, the
Son of God pronounces a twofold " peace " or " completion,"
and, at the second pronouncement, breathes into Man the life
of the life-giving Spirit, an emanation from Himself imparted
to those for whom He had given His life, and whom He has
prepared to impart life to others.

| 1 6. The JoJiannine "peace" and the Epictetian "peace"

Compared with this " peace," the peace above described as
that of Epictetus 1 is a very mean, petty, and, we may almost
say, selfish affair. Epictetus himself is much loftier and his
ideal hero and ideal philosopher are loftier than the language
that he occasionally uses to describe the blessings of his system.
For his words amount sometimes to this, that if you have no
care for anything that is not in your power to receive by an
act of willing no care for pleasure or comfort or wealth or
power or fame or good repute, no care for neighbours or friends
or family or native country, no care for the unphilosophic pains
and distresses and agonies of the countless souls that cannot
help caring about all these things then you can look down
on Paul's passionate sense of weaknesses, trials, and hindrances,
and despise him for troubling himself about " the care of all
the churches." " To me," you can say, " all things are harmless,
all things are full of peace."

Paul, too, could have said " all things are harmless to me."
But he could say more. He could recognise " the world " as
being full of things harmful, swarming with harmful devices
and hindrances of good, but he recognised also that he had
power through the Spirit to surmount multitudes of such

1 See p. 265 foil.
293

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

obstacles, to pull down strongholds of evil, and to trample
under foot the adders and scorpions of sin ; " I can do all
things," he said, "through Christ who maketh me strong."
But this triumph was not to be effected without cost. " We
were well pleased," Paul says to the Thessalonians, " to impart
unto you not the gospel of God only but also our own souls 1 ."
It was by this " giving of his own soul " that Paul conquered
" the world " in the Roman empire, imitating his Master who
had similarly taken Saul of Tarsus captive, converting him into
Paul the servant of Christ. This the Lord had done, not in
the character of the Avenger, but avowedly in the character
of the Persecuted, crying " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou
me ? " And it was in this character that He " conquered the
world," as the Fourth Gospel says : " I came not to judge
the world but to save the world," and " The bread that I will
give is my flesh, for the life of the world 2 ."

The important part assigned by John to the promise of
the Paraclete, and to the fulfilment of that promise in the
solemn imparting of peace and the Holy Spirit, is justified by
many passages in the Epistles and the Acts, which describe
Peter, Paul, and others, as receiving messages from Jesus or
His Spirit, extending, in one instance, perhaps, even to an
utterance about the Lord's acts and words " in the night on
which he was delivered up 3 ." That utterance has affected

1 i Thess. ii. 8.

2 Jn xii. 47, vi. 51, comp. Philipp. iii. 12, 2 Cor. ii. 14. Clement of
Alexandria (960) says that the Apostle John pursuing an armed robber,
who had once been a convert of his, and who now fled from him lest he
should be reconverted, cried out to him " Why, my son, dost thou flee
from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not, thou hast
still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be,
1 will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord [endured] death for us.
For thee I will surrender my life. Stand ! Believe ! Christ hath sent
me.'' The sequel illustrates the power of the Spirit, in such an Apostle,
to " conquer the world." The armed robber was disarmed and taken
aptive.

3 I Cor. xi. 23, on which see Paradosis 1155, 1202, 131525 foil. &c.,

294

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

many millions of souls. And who can doubt that the whole
history of Christendom was powerfully influenced by the Voice
that said to Peter " What God hath cleansed, that make not
thou common 1 "? If Peter had been in the habit of writing
letters, no doubt we should have heard of many more such
visions and voices. They would not all, perhaps, have been
of general or public import. Some might have been of a
private character, like that which said to Paul, when he
prayed to be delivered from his thorn in the flesh, " My grace
is sufficient for thee." But even private directions might some-
times have far-reaching public effects, by determining an
Apostle's action in particular cases ; like those voices which
said, in effect, " Go not into Mysia," " Obey the voice, that
saith unto thee, Come over to Macedonia and help us," "Go
not into Bithynia," " Stay here in Corinth, for I have much
people in this city," u Bonds and afflictions await thee in Jeru-
salem," " Fear not, Paul, for thou must stand before Caesar 2 ."

There is every reason, textual as well as historical, for
supposing that this period of voice-intercourse between Jesus,
and His disciples continued long after the " forty days '

and 1417. In Paradosis 14167 I took the view that, if Paul received this
tradition from Ananias, as the Lord's messenger, sent specially to him, he
" would naturally say ' I received from the Lord '." But the Greek
commentators (of whom, unfortunately, Origen is not one) favour the
view that it was received, directly, from the Lord Himself. Chrysostom's
commentary quotes OTTO rov <vpiov correctly, but proceeds to say iras 5e
<pTj(Ti irapa TOV Kvpiov TrapetXrjfpevai ; and he applies Trapa8t8<i)p.i to Christ
thrice as "delivering" (i) Himself, (2) "all things," (3) "the Supper"
in such a way as to suggest that he is combining, and perhaps confusing
several interpretations.

If the Pauline Eucharistic form so much fuller than that of Mark and
Matthew, and so satisfying to the Christian sense was delivered by
Ananias to Paul immediately on his conversion, must it not have been in
use, presumably, much earlier? If so, how can we explain the fact that
Mark and Matthew, writing much later, give such meagre equivalents ?

1 Acts x. 15.

' 2 Cor. xii. 9, Acts xvi. 6 9, xviii. 10, xx. 23, xxvii. 24.

2 95

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

generally supposed to have limited Christ's personal inter-
course with them after His resurrection 1 ; and, if this is so,
we may reasonably say that John is substantially right in
giving what some may call a non-historical prominence to the
doctrine of the Paraclete, or Holy Spirit, who was to represent
Christ to the Apostles after His departure and to guide them
in their preaching of the gospel.

The Discourse of Jesus on the Paraclete seems to be, to
some extent, the Johannine substitute for the Synoptic Dis-
course of Jesus on " the end of the world " and " the last days."
Many will be found to assert that the Synoptic Eschatology
was Christ's, while the Paraclete-doctrine was not. But this
expression of preference is hazardous for three reasons.

First, Mark tells us that the Eschatological doctrine was
given by Jesus to only four of the Apostles. It was also
given "privately." True, both these limitations are dropped
by Luke, and the former by Matthew ; but there is no reason
why Mark should have inserted them if they were not of very
early date. On the other hand, there is good reason why
later writers might discard them as lessening the value of the
revelation. Probably, therefore, these limitations belonged to
the original.

Secondly, the authority of Mark and Matthew is lowered,
as regards the Discourse on the Last Days, by the fact that
Luke frequently and seriously differs from them, omitting,
adding, and altering, in such a way as to indicate that he
regarded Mark's text as below its usual standard of authority.

Thirdly, we must bear in mind that the special circum-
stances of the first century would combine with the general
infirmities of human nature to make the mass of Christians
much more interested about the approaching "end of the

1 On Acts i. 3 fii* r)pep2> v TfaiTtpunovra, see Joh. Gr. 2331 c, and Notes
2892^/ foil, on "The Interval between the Resurrection and the
Ascension," and below, p. 298, n. 2.

296

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

age" than about Christ's doctrine concerning the Father in
heaven and the spiritual reign of the Son of Man.

Taking these three considerations into account we shall
not really be unreasonable if we venture to assert that,
although the Synoptic Discourse on the Last Days may
here and there contain phrases that actually proceeded from
Christ's lips, along with others that were uttered through
revelations received after the Resurrection, while the Johannine
doctrine of the Paraclete does not include and does not aim
at including half a dozen consecutive words actually uttered
by Christ, yet the latter better represents Christ's own thought
and attitude towards the future, and also the thought and
attitude that He desired to enjoin on His disciples.

17. The last Johannine mention of "peace"

We pass now to the last Johannine mention of " peace."
It occurs at the end of what may be called the body of the
Gospel (as distinct from the Galilaean Appendix which de-
scribes the seven disciples " fishing " and receiving " bread "
from Jesus). The last two verses of all the verses preceding
the Appendix say " Many other signs therefore did Jesus in-
the-sight-of the disciples which have not been written in this
book ; but these have been written that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that, believing, ye
may have life in his name 1 ." " In-the-sight-of " occurs in
John nowhere but here. It would hardly have been inserted
if it had not been intended to limit the "signs" to those
performed "in the sight of" the disciples alone, after the
Resurrection. Luke uses it to describe Jesus, after the
Resurrection, as "eating in the sight of" the disciples*; and
perhaps John is here referring to that Lucan tradition, in
order to give point to the lesson, speedily to be taught, about

1 Jn xx. 3031.

2 Stejoh. Gr. 2431, and 2335 quoting Lk. xxiv. 43.

297

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

the blessing on " those who have not seen? In any case,
immediately before these words, comes a manifestation to
Thomas, who has protested that he will not be convinced of
the Lord's resurrection by mere sight without touch : " And
after eight days, again, his disciples were within, and Thomas
with them. Jesus cometh, the doors being shut, and stood in
the midst, and said Peace \_be~] unto you 1 ?

Jesus bids Thomas not only "see" but touch : "Reach [here]
thy hand and put it into my side." But perhaps Thomas
in spite of his protest ultimately believes without doing this.
For he is not recorded as doing it. And afterwards Jesus
mentions merely the proof of "seeing," saying to him, "Because
than Jiast seen me" (not, "because thou hast touched me"),
" thou hast believed ; blessed are they that have not seen and
[yet] have believed." The Evangelist's selection of this " sign "
in preference to "many other signs 2 " is explained by the

1 Jn xx. 26.

2 Paul's enumeration of the appearances of the risen Saviour omits all
of the appearances to women, and may reasonably be supposed to omit
others to the less authoritative disciples. It does not even apparently
include the manifestation to the seven disciples in Jn xxi. i foil. On the
other hand it includes appearances not recorded in any Gospel. That
there were "many" appearances (many more than the five enumerated
by Paul) would seem probable even if the period of them were limited by
the phrase (Acts i. 3) " by the space of forty days." Still more probable
would it be if the original tradition from which the present Lucan text
was derived described Jesus as " appearing [for the last time] after an
interval of forty days."

See above, p. 296, n. i, referring to Notes and Joh. Gr., to which add
the following remarks on Acts xiii. 31 "he appeared to them for (eVi)
several (wX*iW) days" (A.V. and R.V. "many days")- The phrase is
peculiar (in N.T.) to Acts xxi. 10, xxv. 14, xxvii. 20, and not paralleled
from Greek literature by Wetstein, Thayer, Steph. Thes. But it is fairly
frequent in LXX, where it always represents Heb. "many days." Gen. r.,
followed by Rashi, makes the Hebrew phrase mean, in Gen. xxi. 34
< w- 7ToAA0, xxxvii. 34 (LXX ^. wds, v. r. TroAXar), severally,
" twenty-six years" and "twenty-two years." In O.T. it is mostly (though
noi always,! applied to a period that would exceed forty days, e.g. Numb,
xx. 15, Josh. xi. 18, xxiii. i, xxiv. 7.

298

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

obvious force of the lesson that it teaches, namely, that
all generations of Christians may derive comfort in their
regret that it was not given to them to see Christ face to
face from the blessing pronounced on those who " have not
seen and yet have believed."

For they are in the position of Thomas. He was absent,
perhaps unavoidably far off, from the circle of disciples to
whom Jesus first came, and on whom He twice invoked
" peace." So were the Gentiles unavoidably absent, or " far
off." But the Epistle to the Ephesians says that Jesus came
" preaching peace " to them : " peace to you [Gentiles] that
were far off, and peace to them [i.e. the Jews] that were nigh."
We have seen that this quotation takes us back to Isaiah's
prediction about " peace, peace, to him that is far off and to
him that is near " ; which Jerome connected both with the
Ephesian passage, and also with the promise of peace in
John, " Peace I leave unto you, the peace that is my own I
give unto you." In view of these scriptural traditions about
peace to the " near " and the " far off," the present and the
absent, it seems reasonable to suppose that John has here in
view this prophecy of Isaiah, and this inclusion of the absent
as well as the present in the Gospel of Peace.

It remains to point out that also in the verbal framework
of this narrative there is an arrangement, characteristic of
John and akin to Jewish mystical literature, which gives
weight to this promise of peace made twice to the disciples,
and then for the third time when Thomas is included in the
circle. Several instances of an emphatic threefold repetition
in John have been included in Johannine Grammar, and
especially the statement that the last manifestation of Jesus
was the "third," and the threefold repetition of the word
"manifested 1 ." But it should have been added that in a

1 See Joh. Gr. 2589 quoting Philo i. 243 " Now a holy matter is
approved through three witnesses? and 2620 quoting Jn xxi. i 14
" Jesus manifested himself again to the disciples on the sea of Tiberias.

299

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

noteworthy passage of Berachoth the passage from Isaiah
about "peace " is quoted with another Biblical passage where
"peace" is repeated three times, as instances of the well-
omened significance of " three 1 ."

This adherence to traditions of Biblical phrase and Jewish
mysticism ought not to prevent us from seeing that in these
Johannine poetic narratives of the promise of peace and its
fulfilment, we have a clue to the explanation both of the rapid
spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire, and also

Now he manifested himself thus.... This is the third time that Jesus
manifested himself to the disciples," where the remark naturally suggests
itself, "How simple, in the first verse, to have written merely, 'Jesus
manifested himself again thus... Tiberias,' using the verb but once!"

1 See Berach. 55 b quoting Is. Ivii. 19, along with i Chr. xii. 18
" and the spirit came upon Amasai, who was chief of the thirty [and he
said] Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse. Peace,
peace, to thee, and peace to thine helpers, for thy God helpeth thee "
(a passage also quoted in Gittin 62 a as shewing that the repetition is
suitable for a royal salutation), i S. xxv. 6 " Peace be both unto thee, and
peace be to thine house, and peace be to all that thou hast" (an instance
where the "peace comes back" (see above, p. 259, n. i) to those who
announce it, because " a son of peace " does not dwell in " the house." To
these might have been added Ps. cxxii. 6 8 " O pray for the peace of
Jerusalem.... Peace be within thy walls.... I will now say, Peace be
within thee. For the sake of the house of the Lord our God I will
seek thy good." This last passage may illustrate the transition of
metaphor in Origen's mind when he passes from the thought of building
the House on the Rock (Comm. Joann. vi. i) to the thought of "the
peace that passeth all understanding," and then to the words (Jn xiv. 27)
" Peace I leave with you," and then asks us to consider "whether some
similar lesson is not taught under the surface with regard to David and
Solomon in the narrative about the temple." " Salim," "Jerusalem,"
"Solomon" are all associated in the Jewish mind not only with one
another but also with the thoughts of "peace," "perfection," and the
"completion" of the "perfect" Temple.

Here it may be noted that Jerome, on Jn iii. 23 "^non near to
.SV//W," where "John was baptizing" (EpisL 69), calls attention to
l> .s;/////j" as meaning "peace or perfection" in connection with "the
Lords forerunner." Mystically interpreted, the meaning is that John
was on the way to "peace? but not actually there, being still (Jn iii. 31)
"of the earth."

300

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

of the subsequent successes and failures of the gospel. It was,
so to speak, the " breathing " of peace not the spoken words
promising peace in the future or tendering it at a particular
moment later on that gave new life to the souls of men.
R. Jose the Galilaean said well that Messiah was named
" Peace 1 ." In breathing " peace " into the disciples, the
Messiah breathed Himself into them. It was the possession,
and carrying about in themselves, of this Personal Peace, that
gave the early Christian Missionaries that success which dis-
tinguished them from the non-Christian philosophers.

There are many reasons why the Fourth Evangelist should
desire to personify, or at least to connect with the Person of
the Messiah, the thought of that "peace" which plays so
prominent a part in Hebrew history and prophecy. Philo
describes, in full, the nature of the threefold peace enjoyed
by Abraham, peace of body, of soul, and of mind 2 . The same
R. Jose that called attention to the Messiah's name of " Peace "
said also " Great is peace, because even wars are waged for
the sake of it 3 ." Still more appropriately might it be pointed
out that the first "war" mentioned in the Bible brings Abraham
into the field, the rescuer of captives, and also introduces the
first mention of the word "peace" not indeed as peace, but
as the name of the city of Salem, ruled over by Melchizedek,
the King of Righteousness 4 . Peace pre-existed eternally in
the mind of God before war came, according to the saying of
the Odes of Solomon, " Peace was prepared for you before
ever your war was 5 ." But it could not be manifested to men

1 Derek Eretz ad fin.

2 Philo i. 5 14 foil, on Gen. xv. 15 " thou shalt go to thy fathers in
peace."

3 Derek Eretz ad fin. quoting Deut. xx. rofoll. Philo ii. 372, quoting
the same passage, says that " peace even though very costly (eVi^ios) is
more profitable than war." But the context in Deuteronomy describes
aggressive war, not like that of Abraham rescuing Lot.

4 Gen. xiv. 18.

6 See Light 3809 b foil, quoting Ode viii. 8 as referring to Abraham.

301

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

apart from war, and the Fourth Gospel appears to aim at
combining the two thoughts : 1st, peace, from the beginning
foreordained, through war ; 2nd, peace, at the end, purchased
by victory.

For this purpose, the Evangelist, in the very first sentence
of his Gospel though he does not mention the word " peace "
yet suggests a peace that passes understanding the eternal
concord of the divine unity between the Word and God, after-
wards more clearly indicated by the phrase describing the Son
as " in the bosom of the Father." Then though again he
does not mention the word "war" he hints at the conflict
through which this peace is to be obtained, by introducing
the "light" as "shining in the darkness." Thus he takes
back our thoughts to the beginning, when " darkness was on
the face of the deep." " Darkness " and " light " ! This, to
some minds, may seem no more than an innocent contrariety.
But in others it may raise a suspicion of some evil opposition,
some impending discord. On this " darkness " Philo remarks
merely that the lower air was called thus because it was black.
But Origen says that darkness means " first, the shadow cast
by a body, and, secondly, a certain conception of the mind,
that is, the devil 1 ."

Not quite in this latter aspect, but in one somewhat like
it, the Evangelist passes to an indication, first of a co-existence,
and then of a hostile existence, as the relation between the
Darkness and the Light, pointing to a conflict about the issue
of which, until the Word shall have become flesh, the Gospel
will pronounce nothing decided or positive : " The light shineth
in the darkness, and the darkness overcame it not" That

1 I'hilo i. 6, Origen on Gen. i. 2 (Lomm. viii. 106, n. 4) vorjrw ,
TovTfa-Ttv o St'a/SoAos-. Comp. Justin Martyr Apol. 67 about " Sunday
(TT)V roO fj\iov tjpfpav)" as being the day on which God "made Cosmos,
having routed darkness and matter (ro O-KOTOS <at TTJV v\rjv rpe'^ar)." See
Strph. Thes. vii. 2384 quoting the Iliad xxi. 603 Tptyas v. r. (rrpo//-as-, and
comp. Justin Apol. 59 v\r)v iip.op(pov ovvav (TT

302

JESUS BEGINNING TO PREACH

refers to the past. It is merely negative. And it leaves us in
suspense hoping, yet questioning, or at least marvelling as
to the nature, and the outcome, and perhaps as to the possi-
bility of the continuance, of this failure of the Darkness to
"overcome." The hope grows as the drama of the Gospel
proceeds, setting before us the seven acts of the victorious
Word, revealing Himself in His seven characters, and with
His seven signs 1 , and shining forth at last as the conquering
Light, not only not "overcome" but also Himself "over-
coming." Thus we are led on to the evening before the
Crucifixion, when Judas " goes out," the captive of Satan, from
the presence of the Lord who had chosen him to be one of the
Twelve. Then it is " night " indeed 2 . Then the hearts of the
disciples are "troubled" and "fearful 3 ." And that is the
moment chosen for the first mention of " peace " in this
Gospel as the Lord's parting and permanent gift : " Peace
I leave unto you, my own peace I give unto you." The
Discourse closes with an exhortation to the disciples to make
this " peace " that is in their hearts dominant over the " tribu-
lation " that they will have " in the world," since " victory " has
been purchased for them by the Lord of Light as a result of
His death in the war against the Darkness of this world :
" These things have I spoken unto you that in me ye may
have peace. In the world ye have tribulation, but be of good
cheer, I have been victorious over the world 4 ." Last of all
comes the fulfilment and bestowal of that peace, after the
Messiah has breathed His Spirit, His Peace, into the hearts of
the disciples.

1 "Seven." See>/*. Gr. Index "seven."

'* Jn xiii. 27, 30. 3 Jn xiv. i, 27. 4 Jn xvi. 33.

303

CONCLUSION

| 1 8. Conclusion

What lessons have we learned from the investigations in
this volume which deals, so far as consecutive study is con-
cerned, with no more than fifteen verses of Mark's Gospel ?
Let us summarise our principal results.

(1) We have learned what Mark's original must have
shewn, but what Mark did not express the meaning of the
word "gospel" in our Lord's lips. It meant "the good-
tidings of the peace of God."

(2) This " peace " meant unity between God and man,
and hence between man and man. The doctrine of this
" peace " was that God is the Father ; Man is the Little Child,
greatest when feeling himself to be least. Men cannot be at
" peace " with the Father, unless they are at " peace " with
His children.

(3) It was for the purpose of establishing this "peace"
between God and man that Jesus believed Himself to have
been sent into the world by God, and to have been baptized
by the Holy Spirit descending from heaven. This Holy
Spirit, felt by Him within Himself as the Spirit of Sonship,
He was to impart to His disciples. They, in turn, were to
transmit it to others, so as to bring all mankind into the
Family of God.

(4) The fourth lesson is rather negative than positive.
Jesus taught men to " repent." " Repent," in English, includes
and sometimes without including anything more "be
sorry." But, in the Prophets, and in the doctrine of Jesus,
" repent " meant " turn toward God." Jesus taught that there
was no real "turning toward God" except "becoming like
God," and that no man could "become like God" by doing
outward and (so to speak) artificial works, without the cor-
responding inward and natural work. As a fruit-tree cannot
be made out of a stick by attaching to it leaves and fruit, but
must be made by growth, so a son of man cannot be made

304

CONCLUSION

like God except by growing up as a son of God. And he
cannot become a son of God the Father unless he is born
again in the Spirit of the Son.

(5) Here we must stop. For we must not anticipate
what Mark has next to tell us about the Calling of the
Fishermen, the teaching with " authority," the exorcism with
" authority," and the acts of healing all of which come to a
sudden climax in the claim that " the Son of man hath power
on earth to forgive sins."

With these and subsequent Marcan details abrupt and
obscure without Johannine interpretation we shall be able
to deal much more briefly as well as safely now that we have
the clue afforded by the four above-mentioned lessons. For
now we shall understand how simple and homelike and yet
how profoundly deep and mysterious, and how easy to be
misunderstood by Pharisees and by Sophists and by all those
whom Jesus called the children of this world was the view
that Jesus Himself took of His Mission and of His Person.
He came into the world as the Son of Man, God's Little One,
last-created according to the flesh, first-begotten according to
the Spirit. An ancient Jewish tradition on the Eighth Psalm
represents contemptuous angels as looking down on God's
helpless creature, outcome of the last day of the Creation, and
as venturing to remonstrate with the Creator : " What is this
feeble thing, man, that thou visitest him, what is this babe,
the son of man, that thou regardest him ? " But it was in this
character, from first to last, that Jesus consistently claimed to
heal, to forgive, to regenerate, and to rule, mankind. The
unity of Man with God, and of the Son of Man with the Son
of God that was His "gospel." And since He Himself was
the expression of this unity we may say that He Himself was
His own "gospel."

Receiving this Little One into our hearts, we do not
exactly learn, say rather we experience, that God is Love a
proposition of portentous difficulty, or even impossibility, for
A. B. 305 20

CONCLUSION

those who can receive no truth save through the senses and
the intellect, but a certainty for the hearts of those who have
been brought close to the heart of the invisible Father through
the Spirit of His Son. This is the truth of truths which is
impressed on us in the Fourth Gospel by " the disciple whom
Jesus loved."

We may sum up the whole relation between the First
Gospel and the Fourth by saying that, where Mark represents
Jesus as saying " the Son of Man," and often supposes Him
to mean a kind of royal Deputy at the right hand of God, the
King, John represents Him as saying " I," but as always
meaning " the Love of God in me." The Johannine meaning,
though not the Johannine saying, seems historically correct.
It was the Love of God, not the Sovereignty of God, that was
really the pole-star of Christ's doctrine. And it is toward this
star that the compass-needle of the Fourth Evangelist amid
all the labyrinthine windings through which he leads us
invariably points.

306

APPENDICES

307

20 2

CONTENTS OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX I

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

ADDENDUM
NAZORAEAN AS A NAME FOR CHRISTIAN

PAGE

i Nftzer and Tsemach 326

2 Nazoraean and Christian 329

3 Pliny on " Nazerini" 332

4 Early misunderstandings of the terms "Christ" and "Christian'' . 336

5 The term " Christ" how introduced or explained in the Gospels . 342

APPENDIX II
THE DISCIPLE THAT WAS "KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST"

APPENDIX III
THE INTERPRETATION OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

i " Without envy" . 373

2 " Thou shalt not acquire an alien the blood of thy soul" . . 380

3 "And those that were silent became with speech" .... 387

4 "I believed, therefore I was at rest" 389

5 "Unto thee have I fled, my God" 392

6 Why is the Greek word for "harp" always used in the Syriac version

of the Odes? 394

7 Alleged translation from Greek words with privative alpha . . 396

8 The use of the Syriac relative after substantives to express possession 400

9 "Until it was given in the midst" 406

10 "He was known from before the (lit.} casting-down of the aeon" . 408

ii " The babe leaping" 415

12 Evidence from the Anaphora of St James 420

13 " Without grudging" 430

14 The detached possessive in Syriac 432

15 "Danger" in Greek, corresponds to "strait "or "straitening" inHebrew 434

1 6 "Without danger," in Ode xxxix. 7 439

17 "No strait" in Isaiah Ixiii. 9 442

1 8 The context in the Ode and the contexts in Isaiah .... 445

19 Conclusion ^j

308

APPENDIX I

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

IN this Appendix it will be argued that (i) u Nasarene?
meaning a man of Nazareth, and (ii) " Nasoraean" meaning
the Netzer or Rod of Jesse mentioned by Isaiah, were probably
interchanged by a play on the two words ; so that the populace,
acclaiming Jesus as the Lifegiver and Healer, altered " Jesus
the Nazarene," into "Jesus the Nazoraean." To state the
theory more exactly, we should say that they called Him
Jesus the Netzer, or the Na(t)zoraean, partly because there was
a pre-existing belief that the Messiah would be the Netzer, and
partly because they vaguely felt what Matthew ventured
definitely to express, that His residence from childhood
onward in Nazareth had been ordained to fulfil the prophecy
" He shall be called Nazoraean (i.e. Nttzer) 1 "

If this was the case, it would appear that " Nazarene 2 ,'' a

1 Mt. ii. 23. R.V. renders Na^eopaTos- sometimes " Nazarene " and some-
times "of Nazareth," but never by its exact form " Nazoraean."

2 See Pliny v. 81 "Coele habet Apameam Marsya amne divisam a
Nazerinorum tetrarchia," which suggests a field that ought to be explored
by anyone entering into the question of the origin of "Nazarene" But
it seems to have attracted very little notice. I am informed that nothing
is known of these " Nazerini" Pliny is not referred to by Encycl. Bib.
3360 (where it is maintained that " ' Nazareth' ought to mean 'Galilee'"),
or by Hastings' Diet. iii. 496, or by Prof. Burkitt in his Syriac Forms of
New Testament Proper Names, on which see footnote on pp. 324 5.
Strabo does not mention "Nazerini." Was Pliny misled by misunder-
standing some reference to "Nazarenes" (see Schiirer II. ii. 89) which
had already reached his ears, coming from a Jewish source? See the
Addendum on " Nazoraean as a name for Christian," where an attempt is
made ( 3) to answer this question, and also to give a general view of the
uses of the term " Christ " in the several Gospels.

309

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

form used by Mark and Luke but not by Matthew and John,
was an error, except in special contexts which may prove
that the place-name, and not the Messianic title, was meant.
It is proposed here to examine the Gospel uses of (i) " Naza-
rene," and (ii) " Nazoraean."

" Nazarene" occurs four times in Mark : (i) " What have
we to do with thee, Jesus, Nazarene ? " (where Matthew omits
the whole story, and Luke follows Mark 1 ) ; (2) " having heard
that it is Jesus the Nazarene 2 " ; (3) " thou also wast with the
Nazarene, [namely] Jesus 3 " ; (4) " Jesus ye seek, the Nazarene,
the crucified 4 ."

It will be observed from the notes below that only in the
first of these four instances is Mark followed by any other
Evangelist. That instance occurs in a case of exorcism. The
demoniac exclaims " Jesus, Nazarene," and " I know thee who
thou art, [thou] the Holy One of God." " Nazarene " might
be formed from the noun-form " Nazara 5 " (used once by
Matthew and once by Luke for the ordinary " Nazareth ")
a place not mentioned by Josephus or the Talmud and
probably of small importance. It would appear to be a
place-name that would suggest to many Jews, on first hearing
it, the question " Where is it ? " What are we to infer from
its use here ? Some such title as " Nazoraean," in a Messianic

Mk i. 24 'Irjcrov Nafaprjve (D Na^ap^i/ai, d Nazorenae), Lk. iv. 34
N(iapT)ve (D Naopr)vat, d Nazarenae). Mk and Lk. agree verbatim
in what follows : " I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God."

2 Mk x. 47 W.H. marg. 'I. c<rrlv 6 Na(apr)vbs i.e., perhaps,"Jesus [namely]
the Nazarene," Mt. xx. 300 'lrj<rovs irapdyei, Lk. xviii. 37 on 'I. 6 Nafapaios
(D Na^apijvo?, but d Nazoraeus) Trapep^erai.

3 Mk xiv. 67 Ktu a-v pera TOV Na^aprjvov tfaQa TOV 'ir/o-oO (the MSS vary
as to order, D and d Na^opjjvov), Mt. xxvi. 69 "Thou also wast with Jesus
the Galilacan," Lk. xxii. 56 "This man, too, was with him."

1 Mk xvi. 6 'irjo-ovi/ (rjTflrf TOV Nagaprjvbv TOV ea-Tavpw^fvov (D om. TOV
Nufuprji/oi/), Mt. xxviii. 5 'Irjorovv rbv OTavpa>p.fvov ^reire, Lk. xxiv. 5
" Why seek ye the living with the deadt n For netzer=vfK.pos, s. p. 325.

1 Mt. iv. 13, Lk. iv. 16. Elsewhere (Mt. twice, Mk once, Lk. 4 times,
Jn twice, Acts once) it is Na^aptV, or Naape'0.

310

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

sense, would seem more appropriate. Can it be that, when
Jesus rose to sudden fame in Galilee, people began at once to
play on the words "Nazarene" and " Nazoraean," and that
the demoniac followed the popular cry, which Mark has
wrongly rendered ? An affirmative answer is suggested by
the very few instances in the A both where a Rabbi is intro-
duced with a birthplace-name or something different from the
ordinary "son of so-and-so 1 ."

But before passing on to shew how the hypothesis of an
original Netzer might suit the facts, we must recognise that
the play on the two words, Nazara and Netzer, might be
complicated, when passing into the first Greek Gospel, by
a confusion with a third word, Nazir, i.e. " Nazirite" This, in
A.V., is always spelt with an a, incorrectly, " Nazarite" The
Onomastica Sacra shews that Eusebius confused the three
terms, Nazara, Netzer, and Nazir*. Jerome, as we shall see,

1 In the Aboth, Rabbis are very rarely introduced by any title except
ben "son of," or ish "man of." But there are at least the following
exceptions : (i. 2) " Simeon the Righteous? (i. 78) " Matthai the Arbeit,"
i.e. from a place called Arbela, (iii. 17) " R. Eliezer the Modai? i.e. from
a place called Modai(m), (iii. 28) " R. Eleazar Chasmah* (Levy ii. 89
"Chisma "), (iv. 16) " R. Jochanan the Sandalar," i.e. the maker (or, wearer)
of sandals, (iv. 26) "Samuel the Little? (iv. 30) " R. Eliezer the Kappara "
(Levy iv. 357 a "the Cyprian"}.

Some of these epithets or place-names are probably plays on words.
Arbela (Levy i. 157 b} means "sieve" ; "sandal" suggests that the Rabbi,
besides being a sandal-maker, obeyed the Marcan precept (Mk vi. 9) "be
shod with sandals" (s. Corrections 390 (ii) (e)a); "the Little" might
mean "the younger," but it is explained in J. Sota ix. 13 "because he
made himself little" ; "the Cyprian" (Levy iv. 357 a) may mean "the
gum-seller "(in which I cannot see any allusive force) ; " Modai" (Levy
iii. 423) is a form of the word "know," and (Sabb. 55^) R. Gamaliel
said " We always need Modai (knowledge), for Eleazar the [man] of
Modai(m} (knowledge) said..." (Goldschm. " wir brauchen immer noch
den Modder? Levy " noch immer bediirfen wir des Ausspruches des
Modai"} ; lastly " Chisma" (Levy ii. 89 ) is expressly said to have been
so called because he had once been a dumb and, as it were, muzzled
teacher, and became " unmuzzled?

2 (i) Ndap (sic) is explained by Eusebius (see Index to Onomastica}

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

indicates that "Nazirite" was an early interpretation of
Matthew's " Nazoraean." Tertullian, after quoting from Luke
the cry of the demoniac " What have we to do with thee,
Jesus 1 ? Art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who
thou art, the Holy One of God," and after saying that " a (or,
the) prophet" had prophesied of " the Holy One of God 2 /'
and that "God's name of 'Jesus' was in the son of Nun,"
proceeds to explain " Nazarene " thus : " The Christ of the
Creator had to be called Nazaraeus according to prophecy ;
whence the Jews also designate us by that very name (ipso
nomine) Nazaraeans, after Him. For indeed we are those
about whom it is written 'Nazaraeans are made whiter than
snow 3 '." Tertullian is quoting a passage in Lamentations
rendered by A.V. " Her Nazarites were purer than snow 4 ."
He takes " Nazarene'' in Luke, applied to Jesus, as meaning
" Nazirite" and himself applies the term, in this sense, to the
followers of Christ.

Obviously such an application could not long maintain
itself against Jewish controversialists. It is true that the

as tivtiosy (2) Naapalot (v.r. Na^eopaioc, and Nofa/wot) as the ancient name
of Christians, (3) Nofapc'0 as (a) Kadapiorijs (ft) avBos aKpaifpves r) Kadaporrjs
(c) the name from which Christ was called " Nazoraean," (4) Na^aper as
uKpffiovos (branch) avrov 77 KaOapos, (5) Na^etpaios as (#) ayios (^) rj nada-
pcoTaroy (<r) rj CK KOiXias p.r)rpos a(pa>ptoyzeVos' $eou, (6) Na^patoy (v.r. Nao-
palos) as e^i/v^KT/ueVos-, (7) Na^copalos as (a) Kadapos (&} ayios f) <a6apos
(c) the name of Christ derived from Noape# (adding /cat Na^apaloi (sic)
(v.r. Naa>paiot and Na^apivoi) ro naXaiov rjpcls ol vvv XpurrMtvot).

'I hese details shew that whereas (i) the root of Netser implies
"flowering" or "growing," and (2) Nazir implies "consecration,"
"purity," "separation (or, dedication) to God," c., Eusebius oscillates
between the two, with an additional occasional oscillation towards
(3) "the town of Nazareth."

1 Tertullian Adv. Marc. iv. 7. He omits "Nazarene" in the quota-
tion, but proceeds to explain it in the next chapter, as though he had
quoted it.

1 < l.uk's translation suggests, as the prophecy, Ps. xvi. 10 "thine holy
one," and D;m. ix. 24 R.V. txt "the most holy."
1 1 mill. Adv. Marc. iv. 8.

4 Lam. iv. 7 R.V. "her nobles (marg., ( or, Nazirites*}?

312

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

term " Nazirite " was used with some latitude, as is shewn by
the Jewish discussion whether Samuel could be called " a
Nazirite 1 "; and the Jewish and Syriac Versions of Ben Sira
give Samuel this title 2 . But in the face of Christ's own state-
ment that "the Son of Man came eating and drinking 3 ,''
" Nazirite," applied to Christ, could hardly hold its ground.
Nevertheless it is not only credible but even probable that
Mark (whose Gospel does not contain the saying about
"eating and drinking") is here recording unintelligently
a tradition that called Jesus Nazir instead of Netzer and that
took Nazir to mean " holy one." "Nazirite (i.e. Nazir) of God"
is twice rendered in the LXX " holy [one] of God*" This does
not indeed occur in any passage where " the Holy One " is
used in its highest sense. It refers merely to Samson. But
it might easily combine with other causes to lead the earliest
of the Evangelists into an error as to this difficult title. While
explaining "thou Netzer" as "thou Nazarene" Mark might
naturally add in accordance with his frequent habit of
combining two interpretations 5 "thou Nazirite of God" in
the sense of " thou holy one of God"

It will be shewn hereafter that the influence of a familiar
term like "Nazirite" (spelt with a z) might go even further
than the influence of the name of an insignificant place like
Nazara, to cause a substitution of z for tz in early Greek trans-
literations of Netzer. But we now pass to the consideration
of other passages in the Gospels testing the Netzer hypothesis,
beginning with the denials of Peter. In the first denial,
where Mark has " Thou also wast with the Nazarene [namely]
Jesus," Matthew has "Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean^T

1 See the Talmudic Nazir ix. 5 (Mishna).

2 Sir. xlvi. \^c "a Nazirite of the Lord in prophecy" (not in LXX),
Syr. "a Nazirite in prophecy" (om. "of the Lord").

3 Mt. xi. 19, Lk. vii. 34.

4 Judg. xiii. 7 LXX a'yioi/ $eo, al. exempl. Naipalov tfeov, rep. xvi. 17.
6 See Clue passim, and especially 128 foil.

6 Mk xiv. 67, Mt. xxvi. 69.

313

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

In the second denial, where Mark has " This [man] is [one] of
tliein" Matthew has " This [man] was with Jesus the Nazo-
raean^" If " Nazoraean,-" meaning Netzer, was regularly used
about Jesus by His Galilaean followers in Jerusalem, it would
naturally be repeated by the Roman soldiers, and afterwards
by Gentiles in general, as a mere place-name " Nazoraean "
being regarded by Mark and other Greek writers as an
inaccurate form of " Nazarene."

" Nazoraean " occurs in all the Gospels except Mark, and
still more frequently in the Acts 2 . But it does not occur in
the LXX nor in Greek literature apart from Christian in-
fluence. Matthew says (i) that " Nazoraean " was connected
with residence in " Nazareth," but also (2) that the residence
was ordained in order to fulfil a prophecy about " Nazoraean "-
which is not a form of " Nazareth." His words give us the im-
pression of an early play on words by which Christ's disciples
converted some form of " Nazareth " or " Nazara " into some
word used in prophecy to denote the Messiah : " He [i.e. Joseph]
came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth ; that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that * he shall be
called Nazoraean* '."

Jerome, in his commentary on Matthew, gives two expla-
nations of this. One is, that " Nazaraeus " means " holy," and
that all the Scriptures declare that the Lord will be holy.
Another is, that there is a reference to Isaiah's mention of
" Jesse " and " a branch out of his roots 4 ." In his commentary
on Isaiah he goes further : " That expression [as to] which, in
the Gospel of Matthew, all ecclesiastical writers seek, and cannot
find where it is written ' that he shall be called (?) Nazoraean

1 Mk xiv. 69, Mt. xxvi. 71. Lk. xxii. 58 has "Thou also art [one] of
them." R.V. nowhere renders " Nazoraean'' 5 literally, see p. 309, n. i.

2 Mt. ii. 23, xxvi. 71, Lk. xviii. 37, Jnxviii. 5 7, xix. 19 (Acts 7 times,
im hidim; xxii. 8 "I am Jesus the Nazoraean"}.

Mt. ii. 23 OTTO)? -rr\T)pu)6f) TO prjdev dta rStv irpo<pr)TO)v on Nafapalos

1 Is. xi. I.

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

(Lat. text Nazaraeus}', learned men among the Hebrews think
to be taken from this passaged He goes on to say that the
peculiar sound of the Hebrew , (tz} in ntzr, " branch," being
between s and #, cannot be expressed in Latin.

The hypothesis of this allusion gives us a reasonable
explanation of the term " Nazoraean," if it was a Messianic
name, derived from Isaiah, " And there shall come forth a shoot
out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch (netzer) out of his
roots shall bear fruit." The Targum paraphrases " branch " as
Messiah thus : " And there shall go forth a king from the sons
of Jesse and a Messiah from his sons' sons shall be anointed
[as prince]." It ought not to surprise us if, among many
Messianic names in the first century, that of the Branch of the
Tree of Jesse, the Prince of the House of David, the symbol
of the Kingdom of Peace, became familiar and popular, so
that the Messiah might be hailed as Netzer, along with the
more prosaic and ordinary title " Son of David."

The name "Jesse" is associated with old age ; and there
was a picturesque paradox in the history of the old man's
youngest son, a mere stripling, overlooked at first among his
elder brethren all of whom were " rejected " and coming
unexpectedly to the rescue of Israel 1 . No wonder that the
story suggested to the poets and prophets of his people the
thought of a branch springing out of the root of a tree
decaying and almost dead. In later times, when the tree of
the house of David had suffered grievously from foreign
conquerors, it was natural that Isaiah, after predicting that
the Lord would " lop the boughs with terror," should refer
to the "branch" from "Jesse" in his comforting prophecy,
" And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse,
and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit, and the Spirit
of the Lord shall rest upon him 2 ."

1 See i S. xvii. 12 (R.V.) "the man was an old man.. .stricken [in
years] among men," and ib. xvi. 7 " I have rejected him [i.e. Eliab]."

2 Is. xi. i 2.

315

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

Philo appears to refer to this passage when he says, not
long after quoting Isaiah about Israel as being once childless
and desolate, but now a mother of many children 1 , that " when
the trunk is cut down, but the roots not taken away, new
shoots spring up by which the old decrepit tree is surpassed 2 ."
It may be the same, he says, in mankind. Wherever a small
seed of virtue is left, it may become a source of all that is best
and most glorious, through which desolate cities are once
more inhabited, and nations advance in population. This is
his philosophic and impersonal and abstract way of saying
what Galilaeans would express by avowing their faith in
the " Branch " from the aged Jesse, who would " assemble the
outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah,"
and stand for "an ensign of the peoples, unto whom the
nations shall seek 3 ."

That " Jesse " was the subject of Jewish mystical thought
at an early time appears from Chronicles, where his name
is spelt so as to make it identical with " man " " vir, potens
robore," says Rashi 4 . Sot a goes further. It fastens on the
warlike meaning of " man " and ignores " Jesse." Instead of
saying that " David son of [a] man [that was an] Ephrathite 5 "
might have two meanings, 1st, son of Jesse who was called
" man " (vir), and 2nd, " son of God," since God is " a man of
war 6 ," it gives the second meaning alone. Probably there
were in the first century very many legends about Jesse of
which only a few survive 7 .

1 Philo ii. 434 5 quoting Is. liv. i.

2 Ib, ii. 437 alluding to Is. xi. i. 3 Is. xi. 12, 10.

4 i Chr. ii. 13. The passage also spells "David" "plene cum yod
propter honorem Davidis," and omits " Elihu," so as to make David the
seventh son instead of the eighth.

S. xvii. 12. R.V. omits "man."
' ; Sota 42 b quoting Exod. xv. 3.

In-ritch. 58 ,t about Jesse as being one who always moved " with
a multitude? \\ legend arising from i S. xvii. 12 (lit.) "went among men?
kashi "numerabatur in coetu virorum honoratorum? Targ. (Walton)
nihns? I. XX " ///," butz/.r. "years."

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

The early evidence from Chronicles bearing on the spelling
of Jesse's name gives somewhat more importance than might
be otherwise attached to the curious statement of Epiphanius
about " Jessaeans," as an early name for Christians. It
deserves mention here as it bears on the meaning and spelling
of " Nazoraean."

Epiphanius says that all Christians (before they were
called Christians at Antioch) were called " Nazoraeans," and
indeed, " for a short time, Jessaeans." The Jessaeans he there
regards as deriving their name from Jesse 1 . But, later on, he
suggests that the Jessaeans may have derived their name
either from Jesse, or from Jesus as meaning Healer or
Saviour 2 . He identifies them with those whom Philo calls
Essaeans (known to us as Essenes) some of whom accepted
Jesus as Messiah, from whom as being conceived in the
womb at Nazareth, and hence called "Jesus the Nazoraean,"
they called themselves Nazonieans-'. Finally, he says, " But
it was a different sect that called themselves Nasaraeans ; for
the sect of the Nasaraeans was before Christ and did not
know Christ 4 ."

We cannot depend on the judgment of Epiphanius or on
his knowledge of Hebrew. He neither quotes Isaiah nor in-
dicates a belief that any of these sect-names might be derived
from the prophet's combination of "Netzer" and "Jesse."
But his silence at all events shews that he is not inventing
facts, or adapting facts to a theory of his own derived from the
text of Isaiah. He is merely enumerating and describing (what
he believes to have been) Jewish and Christian sects. Among
the most ancient of these he finds (i) " Nazoraeans" connected
with "Jesse," and (2) a still earlier sect "before Christ," called
"Nasaraeans" If there were such sects, or early traditions

1 Haer. xxix. p. 116 foil. 2 Id. p. 120. 3 Ib. pp. 120 i.

* Ib. p. 121 "AXXoi 8e Nacrapcu'ous eaurovs eKaAetrai/. The aXXot appears to
be emphatic : " it was others."

317

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

mentioning such names, it must occur to every one that
the names had some connection with Isaiah's mention of
the Netzer of Jesse.

Against these views it may be urged that the Talmud
knows nothing of such a Jewish sect, or of such a Messianic
name. But the Talmudic silence, under the circumstances,
would prove little. The Talmudists would naturally be silent
about a Jewish sect, or a Messianic title in Scripture, that had
originated a term fraught with such sinister associations to
their nation, as " Nazoraean " and the kindred " Nazarene."

There is a trace, however, of allusion to " Nazoraean," if
connected with netzer, in a Talmudic story about one of five
disciples of Jesus, called Netzer, put to death by the Sanhedrin.
He pleaded for his life, on the ground of the favourable mention
of "the branch" (^'branch of Jesse") in Isaiah. But he was
answered by another text of Isaiah mentioning "an abominable
branch" where LXX has " corpse " for " branch'' He was
told that he was the latter, and must be killed 1 .

So far as it goes, the evidence of the Talmud favours the
derivation from " branch " rather than from Nazara. For it
calls Jesus (or His followers) Notzri. This does not resemble
Nazara. But it closely resembles a form of " branch " (Ndtzer)
extant in the text of Ben Sira, " The branch of violence shall
not be unpunished 2 ." And it is easy to believe that the Jews
parodied a form of Netzer, to distinguish the Branch of the

1 See Levy iii. 431 b quoting Sanhedr. 43 a which plays on Is. xi. I,

xiv. 19. To the Jewish mind, regarding Israel as the Vine of the Lord,

the Messiah might seem to be not only a Branch from the roots of Jesse

but also a Branch from the roots of the Vine. To Christians the Messiah

seemed the Vine itself. Yet the thought of " David" as the Branch seems

<1 with the thought of David, and David's Son the Messiah, as the

Vine, in Ditttich. $ 9 "We give thee thanks, our Father, for the holy vine

/?>/>/." ( )n " corpse " for " branch " see p. 325.

: Sir. xl. 15, Gesen. 666a. The margin drops the 6. It is also dropped
ID /ifn Nltxer (referring to Dan. vii. 8 "a little horn" (Gen. r. on Gen

U II, Wii. p. 374)).

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

Christians from that true Netzer of Jesse which God might
call " the branch of my planting 1 ."

According to this view, " the Nazoraean," in the mouths of
the peasants and fishermen of Galilee, meant the Prince of
the House of Jesse, or David, who was to "judge the poor with
righteousness," and to bring about a reign of universal peace ;
and hence, whenever we find in a Gospel an appeal to the
" Son of David " or a mention of " Son of David," we ought not
to be surprised if some parallel Gospel has "Nazoraean." Jesus
came, literally, from Nazareth or Nazara. But the people
that acclaimed Him would say in their hearts "Not Nazarene,
but Nazoraean," and their tongues would repeat only the latter.
A literalistic Evangelist like Mark might feel bound to give
the place-name literally, but he would not express the popular
feeling.

Conveying, as it does, the notion of a " shoot," growing up
from the root of Jesse into life and vigour, " Nazoraean," if
meaning nctzcr, would suggest to all Jews thoughts of
strengthening, healing, revivification, and resurrection. Peter's
first proclamation of the gospel begins with it : " Ye men of
Israel, hear these words : Jesus the Nazoraean " going on to
describe His resurrection from death as predicted by David
His ancestor, and His establishment as " both Lord and

1 Is. Ix. 21. On ha- Notzri applied to Jesus, see Christianity in
Talmud and Midrash (R. T. Herford) p. 52 n. " It is well known that
the name of Nazareth does not occur in the Talmud, and indeed first
appears in Jewish writings so late as the hymns of Qalir (A.D. 900 circa},
in the form Natzerath. This is probably the correct Hebrew form ; but
there must have been another form, Notzerath, or Notzerah, to account
for the adjective Notzri."

Since this form " Notzerath," which "must have been "in existence, if we
are "to account for the adjective Notzri," cannot be found, it is natural to
look in some other direction for an origin of Notzri, as being " the Branch "
in a bad sense, like " the abominable branch," or " the branch of violence."

For an illustrative parallel, see Schiirer I. ii. 298 on the late Jewish
interpretation of Bar-Cosiba, whom Akiba had called "star" as "deceiver"

319

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

Messiah 1 ." Peter's first act of healing is also introduced with
it, " In the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazoraean, walk." This
is followed by a proclamation of Jesus as " the Prince of life
whom God raised from the dead," and, later on, by the
declaration, "In the name of Jesus Christ, the Nazoraean,
whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, doth this
man stand here before you whole 2 ." In all these passages,
and still more perhaps in one of the accounts of Paul's
conversion containing the words " I am Jesus the Nazoraean,
whom thou persecutest," most readers if they approach these
stirring announcements with a desire to realise them as if
hearing them for the first time will feel (I think) that there
would be something flat in the mention of "the Nazoraean" if it
only meant " born at Nazara " a name suggesting " Where is
it ? "but that it would sound an inspiriting and stirring note
if it also alluded to " the ever living Prince of Life, the Netzer,
the Branch of the Lord's Planting 3 ."

As regards the Gospels, most of the instances in the
Synoptic tradition have been mentioned above 4 ; and it

1 Acts ii. 22 36. Acts ii. i 21 introduces, but does not proclaim the
gospel. 2 Acts iii. 6 15, iv. 10.

3 Acts xxii. 8. Between this and the Petrine instances comes Acts vi.
14 "We have heard him [i.e. Stephen] say that this Jesus, the Nazoraean
[as these heretics call him] (on 'irjcrovs 6 Nafapalos ovros) will destroy this
place." The other instances in the Acts are xxiv. 5 " a ringleader of the
sect of the Nazoraeans" and xxvi. 9 " contrary to the name of Jesus the
Nazoraean." " Nazarene " does not occur in the Greek of the Acts (in
spite of xxiv. 5 R.V. " Nazarenes," as to which see p. 309, n. i).

4 No mention has been made of an instance peculiar to Luke, in the
story of Emmaus (xxiv. 19), " the things concerning Jesus the Nazarene?
It is the only instance of "Nazarene" in Luke (apart from Lk. iv. 34
where he closely follows Mark). Possibly Luke simply retains the form
used in a narrative that he incorporates in his Gospel. But it would have
a distinctive meaning if it implied that the two disciples had, for the
moment, given up their Messianic hopes, and that Jesus, whom they
would but ret rntly have called " the Nazoraean, the Branch of the Lord's
planting," had, for the moment, become to them simply "the Nazarene?
beloved and longed for, but only as " Jesus of Nazareth"

320

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

should be added that an insertion peculiar to Matthew,
immediately after the Riding into Jerusalem, mentions
" prophet " and " from Nazareth," whereas the other three
Gospels mention " king " or " kingdom " in the preceding
welcome of Jesus, but Matthew does not 1 . In John, "Jesus
the Nazoraean " is the reply twice made by the cohort and
the servants of the chief priests to the question asked by
Jesus, " Whom seek ye 2 ? " Jesus makes, and confirms, the
avowal that He is " Jesus the Nazoraean " (" I am he ").
A little afterwards Pilate writes on the Cross " Jesus the
Nazoraean, the King of the Jews," and confirms it with
" What I have written I have written." The Fourth Gospel
gives us the impression that the whole of the inscription was
written by Pilate as God's instrument. The Synoptists do
not insert in it " Jesus the Nazoraean" Mark has simply
" the King of the Jews." Matthew and Luke add "this" or
" this is Jesus 3 ." What Pilate understood by " Nazoraean "
we are not told. Whatever it meant, the accused had been
arrested under that appellation, and would be consistently
tried and executed under it, whether it meant to Romans
" of the town of Nazara " (as it probably did) or " commonly
called Nazoraean." But John, by making Pilate write on the
Cross " Jesus the Nazoraean" along with " King of the Jews,"
certainly succeeds in conveying the impression that Provi-
dence was giving a royal glory to the former title.

From this, the last Johannine instance of " Nazoraean," let
us return to the Johannine introduction of " Nazareth " in the
dialogue between Philip and Nathanael, in which the latter
objects to Nazareth as the Messiah's birthplace and yet

1 Mt. xxi. ii ; comp. Mk xi. 10, Lk. xix. 38, Jn xii. 13 "king" (or
"kingdom"), Mt. xxi. 9 om. "king."

2 Jn xviii. 5, 7.

3 Mkxv. 26; Mt. xxvii. 37 ovros <TTIV 'I. o /3. r<av 'lov&uW ; Lk. xxiii. 38
6 /3. To)i> 'lovdaidiv OVTOS.

A. B. 321 21

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

accepts Jesus in spite of the objection. In the case of Philip
it might well be said that the objection to " Nazareth," as the
Messianic home, appeared to be not met but overridden. Are
we to suppose that it was " overridden " in the case of
Nathanael also ? The context suggests that there may be
another explanation.

It is liable to the charge of being " subtle." But it is at
all events in accordance with all the facts enumerated above.
In particular, it accords with the Matthaean tradition (as
interpreted from Isaiah) that the residence in Nazareth was
ordained in order that Jesus " might be called the Branch"
i.e. the Prince of the House of David, and the Branch of God's
planting. It is this that Nathanael, an " Israelite without
guile " and also learned in the Scriptures, being forced by the
power of Christ's personality to receive Him as the Messiah,
and yet being at the same time told that He is " from
Nazareth" is driven at once to the same conclusion as that
set forth by Matthew, namely, that the connection of the
Messiah with the village of Nazareth was ordained " in order
that He might be called Netzer!'

Historically and logically Nathanael's exclamation is
unjustifiable. He ought (we may say) to have waited for fuller
information. Then he would have ascertained that Jesus was
born in Bethlehem which was either (as Matthew implies)
the home, or (as Luke says) the lodging-place, of Joseph and
Mary at the time of the birth. But the Synoptic Gospels
give us no hint that the birth at Bethlehem was publicly
known during Christ's life. The Fourth Gospel goes further.
It gives us reasons for confidently asserting that it was not
publicly known. It represents objections raised by some of
41 the multitude," and also by " the Pharisees," that the Christ
or " the Prophet 1 " could not come " out of Galilee " as being

1 Jn vii. 52. On the necessity of this interpretation see Johannine
(irammar 2492.

322

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

allowed to pass uncontradicted. In both cases, supporters
of Jesus are present. Some of them had said before " This is
the Christ." But they have nothing to say now. Nicodemus
pleads for Christ, but when they fling in his face " Art thou
also of Galilee ? " he leaves the gibe unanswered 1 .

Putting ourselves in the position of Nathanael, convinced
that Jesus must be the Messiah, and also that He was " from
Nazareth," and knowing nothing of the alleged birth at
Bethlehem, could we, as Jews, with Jewish ways of interpret-
ing Scripture, find a much better refuge for the moment at
all events than the assumption that, if Jesus was indeed
" from Nazareth," it was divinely ordained, in order that He
might be " called Nazoraean," that is to say, the Branch, who
was at once the Son of God and the Son of Israel ?

In concluding our consideration of this very difficult
question we shall do well to remember that in the transition
of Christian tradition from the language of the East to that
of the West, it would be natural to introduce into the thought
a definiteness that was not part of the original. Birthplace-
names such as " the Stagirite " would not suggest to a Greek a
metaphorical or mystical interpretation, or anything but plain
" Aristotle." But Abram the Hebrew the first mention of
" Hebrew " in the Bible is rendered by LXX as meaning
that " Hebrew " was " the Grosser, or Passer, Over." R. Jehuda,
commenting on this passage, implies that the Patriarch
"passed over" from the world of falsehood to the world
of truth, and Philo takes the same view 2 . Also " Elijah
the Tishbite" is taken by the author of Horae Hebraicae as
alluding to the mission of Elijah to be " the Converter 3 ."

1 Jn vii. 41 2, 52.

2 Light on the Gospel 3948 foil.

3 See Hor. Heb. iii. 21 (on Lk. i. 17). He adds that "the Targum and
other Rabbins would have it from the city Toshab? But it is difficult to
believe that there was not found in " Toshab" some allusion to the
Prophet's task.

323 212

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

Even those who took Tishbite to mean " from Toshab " might
admit that the prophet's birthplace-name was, as it were, a
prophecy of the " conversion " that was to be the prophet's
work. And that thoughts of this kind extended to the use of
birthplace-names in the earliest traditions of the Talmud is
indicated by the instances given above from Abotk. This
general consideration should go a long way toward convincing
us that Jesus was called " the Nazoraean," not " the Nazarene,"
by His disciples, and that Mark, in substituting the latter for
the former, has committed a natural but a serious error 1 .

1 Professor Burkitt in the course of some valuable remarks about
Nazareth &c. in Syriac Forms of New Testament Proper Names
(published for the British Academy, 1912) says (p. 18) "It seems to me
most probable that the word is really connected with "VTJ and the vow of
the Nazirites," adding "It is a desperate conjecture, and I would not
make it, were it not that the ordinary view of Nazareth seems to me
wholly unproved and unsatisfactory." With the words that I have
italicised I heartily agree; but he adds "And the most unproved and
least satisfactory part of the ordinary view is that part of it which is
attested by the Syriac Versions, whereby the z is made to represent
a Semitic " From this I venture to differ for the reasons given above,
maintaining that the Syriac has preserved the original " Semitic " which
belonged to Netzer.

No doubt, Professor Burkitt is right in saying (p. 28 foil.) that the
Semitic is rarely represented by the Greek . Yet he himself points
out that "Zoar" (the name of the city near the Dead Sea, where Lot took
refuge) is an exception, and he indicates the reasons, (i) It was a well-
known place and spelt Zodpa or Zcocipa by Ptolemy. (2) It was supposed
to mean "Little-borough." Now "little" is spelt in Hebrew with (tz)
but in Aramaic with z. He adds that "though T and do not indis-
criminately or regularly interchange, yet one or two roots containing
these letters do interchange, and iyv "iyt is one."

Here he does not go so far as Levy in recognising the likelihood of
interchange of ^ and T- Levy Ch. i. 209 says that the Aramaic T is
"often" interchanged with similar sibilants, "especially" s and tz (" D und
"), and gives an instance a little later (ib. 2146) where the Hebrew
"viaticum," has passed into the Aramaic jniT ( see a l so Levy iii. 213^
and iTD)- If Levy is right, it becomes much more easy to under-
stand how the Hebrew netzer might pass into the early Christian Church
in a form that substituted z for tz. That Jewish Christians ever called

324

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

Christ "a Nazirite" seems to me in the highest degree improbable, both
because Christ's manner of life was alien from such a title, and because
the title had no Messianic traditions; but that the term "Nazirite"
interpreted as "the consecrated one" or "holy one of God" was one of
several causes that led Gentile Christians to misunderstand a Jewish play
on the titles "Jesus the Netzer" and "Jesus of Nazara" seems very
probable indeed. Comp. Ezr-Apoc. xiii. 45 "Arzareth," where z is
Heb. tz.

In particular, there are the following grounds for believing that "Jesus
the Netzer" would be a controversial phrase, in the first half of the first
century, between Jews and Christians in disputes concerning the Resur-
rection of Christ, (i) According to Matthew (xxviii. 15), the Jews per-
sistently accused the Christians of stealing the body of Jesus from the
sepulchre. [According to John (xx. 2), the women for a short time believed
that it had been "taken away" by others ("they").] (2) The Jewish
accusers would probably apply to such a Christian theft, even though
they somewhat strained the verbal prophecy, the words of Isaiah (xiv. 19)
"cast forth from thy sepulchre like an abominable netzer, as the raiment
of those that are slain, that are thrust through with the sword." (3) Here
the LXX has "dead (j>f/cpor)" for netzer, and Aquila and Symmachus
have IX<*P and fxrpco/ia, implying that the body was a mangled mass of
flesh and blood. (4) We have seen above (p. 318) that, according to the
Talmud, the Jews used Isaiah's words to justify them in killing a certain
Netzer, a Christian heretic. (5) Isaiah's preceding context (xiv. 13) "I
will ascend (di/a^o-o/zat) into heaven" was applied ironically to Jesus
Himself (Notes on New Testament Criticism 2998 (xviii) a) by Rabbi
Abbahu (about 280 A.D.). (6) Both passages of Isaiah were referred by
the Jews primarily to Nebuchadnezzar, whose pride made him boast of
" ascending " to heaven, and whose apprehended resurrection from the
dead caused his enemies to " thrust-through " his corpse " with the sword."
From the Jewish point of view, a secondary application to Jesus was very
natural. (7) On the other hand, concerning the true netzer, the netzer
from the root of Jesse, the LXX calling it "a flower" said (Is. xi. i) "a
flower from the root shall ascend (dvaftrjaeTai, but Heb. lit. 'bear-fruit')."
(8) Where Mark (xvi. 6) has "ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified"
the parallel Luke (xxiv. 5) has " why seek ye the living with the dead

The facts suggest that the tradition on which Mark was based con-
tained some contrast between the true and the false " netzer" to this
effect : "Ye are seeking the [living and growing] netzer as [if He were
the netzer] thrust-through [and helpless among the dead]." If so, Mark
has retained netzer as "Nazarene" and "thrust-through" as "crucified."
Luke has retained neither word, but has given something approaching to
the sense of both.

325

ADDENDUM

NAZORAEAN AS A NAME FOR CHRISTIAN

AGAINST the thesis that Nazoraean represents an original
Netzer it has been urged by a friend (i) that the word
Tsemach, Branch, mentioned by Jeremiah in the prophecy
" I will raise-up unto David a righteous Branch 1 ," is recognised
in Jewish literature as referring to the Messiah, whereas
Netzer is not so recognised. It has also been suggested to
me (2) that Aramaic-speaking people would not at once catch
the meaning of Netzer.

i. Netzer and Tsemach

To deal, first, with the second objection. I admit that
Netzer, as a common noun, meaning "shoot [of a tree]," is
very rare indeed in Aramaic 2 . But the Targum on Isaiah
renders " a shoot (netzer} from his roots " by " Messiah from
his son's sons," i.e. as a proper name 3 . We may fairly suppose
that many Jews in the first century were accustomed to hear
the Hebrew Netzer thus interpreted as the Aramaic Messiah,
or Anointed, when this passage of Isaiah was read to them in
the synagogue, and that they accepted Netzer as a proper
name, with a feeling not perhaps always very definite but

1 Jercm. xxiii. 5 "raise-up," not "raise" (Gesen. 8790), comp. ib.
xxxiii. 15, Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. It is unfortunate that our English Bible
remit is l,<,tli Tsemach and Netzer by "branch."

I.* -vy Ch. ii. i26a. 3 Is. xi. i.

326

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

still a feeling that besides being a Messianic name, it con-
veyed a notion of "growth" or "shooting up into life."

Next, to meet the objection that in Jewish literature
Tsemach is recognised, whereas Netzer is not recognised, as
meaning Messiah. A reason for this (so far as it is true) may
perhaps be found in the Talmudic treatise entitled Sanhedrin
which omits both Netzer and Tsemach from its list of Messianic
titles 1 . It is the only Talmudic treatise that contains an anti-
Christian story about a heretic Netzer, who pleaded for his
life, saying that he was the " netzer " in the eleventh chapter
of Isaiah, and who received the reply that he was the " netzer "
in Isaiah's fourteenth chapter ("an abominable branch*").
Anti-Christian allusions are also found based on passages in
Daniel where "netzer" occurs; and, under the title Ben
Netzer, there are probably hostile references to Jesus 3 . Such
a feeling of hostility may afford an explanation of the com-
parative rarity of Jewish references to Netzer in a Messianic
sense 4 .

It is not so easy to explain why Sanhedrin omits Tsemach.
Rashi commenting on " the Branch," Tsemach, in two pas-
sages of Zechariah, says ( I ) " The name is given to the
growing greatness of Zerubbabel," who " was Nehemiah, as it

1 Levy iv. 197 b calls attention to this omission in Sanhedr. 98 .

2 See p. 318 above.

3 So Levy i. 240 a referring to Gen. r. (on Gen. xxxii. 11) quoting
Dan. vii. 8 (comp. xi. 7). And comp. Cetuboth 51 b (quoted in Hor. Heb.
i- 337) where a distinction is drawn between " the kingdom of Ahasuerus "
and " the kingdom of Ben Netzer" These traditions are late. But they
point back to a very early use indeed of " Netzer," in a hostile sense,
such as may have been acutely felt by Paul when he heard the words
" I am Jesus the Nazoraean, whom thou art persecuting."

4 See, however, Echa (on Lam. i. 16, Wii. pp. 87 8) which gives a
list of Messianic titles, quoting first Zech. vi. 12 in support of Tsemach,
and then, at some interval, Is. xi. i including Netzer. On the other hand
Jer. Berach. ii. 4 (3), after giving Tsemach and other titles, quotes only
the first half of Is. xi. i "a rod... stem of Jesse," stopping short before
Netzer.

327

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

is said in Sanhedrin"; (2) "This is Zerubbabel...some explain
it about Messiah ; but the whole of the context bears on the
second temple 1 ." This reference to Sanhedrin is remarkable
because that treatise, when quoting the first of the passages
in Zechariah mentioning the Branch, makes no mention of
Zerubbabel, and stops short, omitting "behold,... Branch 2 ."
Also Ibn Ezra, commenting on Isaiah's saying " In that day
shall the Branch (tsemach} of the Lord be beautiful and
glorious," says, " Some refer this to Hezekiah ; I think that
it signifies the righteous portions of the inhabitants of
Jerusalem that will be saved 3 ." This view accords with the
collective meaning of tsemach in the passage describing the
destruction of "the leafage (or, growth] (tsemach) of the
ground " in Sodom 4 ; and it also supports Aquila in render-
ing tsemach in Zechariah not by " branch" but by a word
not recognised as existing elsewhere in Greek literature,
meaning " iipgrowth 5 " These facts seem to shew that tsemach
was not so well fitted as netzer to express " a scion," in such a
personal sense that Christians might apply it to Jesus as the
" Branch from the root of Jesse," while Jewish persecutors
of Christians might apply it to Him as "the abominable
branch." Thus the effect of the alleged preponderance of
tsemach over netzer in a Messianic sense decreases when
closely examined ; and it becomes of still less weight when

1 Kashi, on Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. He is silent about the interpretation
!' Tsemach in Isaiah and Jeremiah.

2 Sanhedr. 93 a, when quoting Zech. iii. 8, makes no mention of the
Branch nor of Zerubbabel, but specifies Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah
(Dan. i. 7, iii. 1330) as the (Walton) " viri portend" mentioned by
/.( hariah. Sanhedr. nowhere quotes Zech. vi. 12.

; Is. iv. 2. Rashi's note, on " Erit germen Domini," is simply " Vobis
decori."

n. xix. 25.

/.(( h. vi. 12, LXX m'UToAiy, Aq. dvcxfrvr], Sym. Q\u(TTT)p.a. Steph.
7'/ti-\. ([notes no other instance of dva^vf) except "inc. Zech. iii. 8" (not
I by Field).

328

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

we perceive that, toward the end of the first century, the
Messianic netzer might pass out of frequent Jewish use except
in a few traditions that preserved the record of Jewish hatred
of the false Netzer's followers, variously called the Nazoraeans
or Nazarenes.

2. Nazor-aean and Christ-ian

We have been hitherto working forward from the Old
Testament word Netzer, and finding, as we think, that it leads
us to the very common New Testament word " Nazoraean."
Let us now work back from the very rare New Testament
word " Christian," and see whether that leads us to the same
term " Nazoraean."

" The disciples," it is said, " were first called Christians in
Antioch 1 ." The termination in "Christ-ian," as also in the
Mark -Matthew " Herod-ian 2 ," implies a sect or faction. Cicero
in this sense uses the words " Sullan " and " Marian "; Caesar
called the followers of Pompey "Pompeians"; the Emperor
Augustus gently reproached the historian Livy with being a
"Pompeian"; and under the shortlived Emperor Galba the
contending factions are called by Tacitus " Othonians " and
" Vitellians," whereas the imperial forces are not called
"Galbans'."

The next step is to shew that it was the Jews who
prejudiced the Gentile world against the disciples of Jesus by

1 Acts xi. 26.

2 On Mt. xxii. 16, Jerome explains "Herodians" as (i) "militibus
Herodis," (2) "sen quos illudentes Pharisaei...' Herodianos' vocabant, et
(? ut) non divino cultui deditos." The second explanation (doubtless)
gives the meaning correctly. Chrys., however, assumes the first, "Herod's
soldiers," and perhaps some interpretation of this kind resulted in a
tradition peculiar to Luke (xxiii. 11 "Herod's soldiers"). "Herodians''
means the " party," or " clique," of Herod, in a bad sense, as opposed to
"the observers of the Law."

3 See these words in Lewis and Short's Lexicon, and see Tacitus^
Ann. iv. 34 for the epithet applied to Livy.

329

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

circulating reports that they belonged to what the disciples
themselves would call a "way," but the Jews a "faction," or
"sect." Paul was sent northward to Damascus "that, if he
found any that were of the Way" he might bring them bound
to Jerusalem 1 . Thus Luke phrases it. But the Jews, we
may be sure, would call the " way " a " heresy," as Justin
Martyr says to the Jew Trypho, " After you had crucified
Him... you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men
through all the land saying that the godless heresy of the
Christians had sprung up... 2 ." This is the first mention of
" Christian " in the Dialogue with Trypho, and we must note
that, according to Justin, the name originated from the Jews,
who created what Justin calls in the preceding sentence "the
wicked prejudice against the Righteous One" The Gentiles in
the North in Damascus, for example, and Antioch, and
Edessa would probably know very little, and trouble them-
selves still less, about the disciples of Jesus, until Jews came
to give them a bad name: "You have in Damascus, or
Antioch, or Edessa, a mischievous and disaffected party of
Jews who are both atheists in the sight of heaven and rebels
against Caesar on earth."

But by what name would the Jews call these " heretics " ?
They could not have called them by the name literally
corresponding to " Christianoi" \ for that would have been
" Messianoi" and they would never have told the Gentiles
that the leader of this detested sect was " Messiah." But they
might have said to the Gentiles at Antioch about them
something like what Tertullus, the spokesman of the Jews
against Paul, said before Felix later on : " We have found
this man [i.e. Paul] a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insur-
rections among all the Jews throughout the world, and a
ringleader of the sect of the Nazoraeans*" Not till afterwards

1 Acts ix. 2. 2 Tryph. 17.

3 Acts xxiv. 5.

330

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

would it be necessary to explain that the " Nazor " from
whom these " Nazoraeans " derived their name was so called
by his followers, partly because he happened to be born at a
village called Nazara, but mainly because they believed him
to be the royal Netzer, or " scion," of the House of David,
that is to say the " Messiah," or " Anointed," or, in Greek,
" Christos " though, in fact, he was a mere Pretender, a false
" Christos 1 ." It was not likely that Greek-speaking Antiochians
would trouble themselves about such outlandish and uncouth
terms as " Netzer " and " Messiah." But they would be very
likely to seize on the personal and pronounceable name of
" Christos," as being the originator of this novel blend of
atheism with sedition stigmatized in very early times as a
deadly superstition 2 . Then, as an almost inevitable con-
sequence, according to the analogy of such terms as the
Mariani, the Sullani, and the Pompeiani, the citizens of
Antioch would construct the new name, " Christiani."

This personal, and Hebrew, and non-geographical origin
of the term " Nazoraean " may explain, perhaps, why Luke
in the Acts, giving three widely different accounts of Paul's
conversion, records, in the first and the third, the description
given by Jesus of Himself, without any addition, simply as
" I am Jesus, whom thou art persecuting "; but in the second, as
" I am Jesus the Nazoraean, whom thou art persecuting 3 ." In

1 For the representation of Netzer in Aramaic as " Messiah," see the
Targum on Is. xi. i. For the addition of -alo? comp. Josephus Ant, xii. 6,
I Mace. ii. 4 5 where "Caddis, Thassi, Maccab-/j, Avaran, and Apphus"
are given as the surnames of five brothers, and only the most famous of
the names receives the Greek termination -ator.

2 Tacitus Ann. xv. 44 " Reos...quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus
Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis eius Christits... repressaque in
praesens exitiabilis superstitio rursum erumpebat." Suetonius (Nero
16 19) enumerates, among the "blameless or praiseworthy acts" of
Nero, his punishment of " Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis
novae ac maleficae" See p. 340, n. i.

3 Acts ix. 5, xxvi. 15, xxii. 8.

331

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

the first and the third of these narratives Luke is writing in
his own name, or is describing Paul as pleading before a
Gentile tribunal. But in the second narrative he describes
Paul as pleading before a multitude of Jews in Jerusalem, and
expressly says that Paul spoke "in Hebrew*? In Jerusalem,
and uttered "in Hebrew," an allusion to "Jesus the Netzer"
whose followers Paul had often tried to compel to " blaspheme "
in the synagogues of the City 2 , would be both intelligible and
effective. And how effective, too, if Paul actually heard that
word in the moment of his conversion ! For then it would
imply " I am Jesus, not ' the abominable branch ' as you
have been ignorantly calling me and striving to make my
followers call me but the Holy Branch, the Branch of David,
the Redeemer of Israel 3 !"

3. Pliny on " Nazerini"

The passage quoted above from the speech of Tertullus is
the only instance of the plural " Nazoraeans " or any form
of Nazar, such as " Nazarenes " in the New Testament.
Neither Nazareth, nor Nazoraean, nor any form akin to either
of these words, occurs in all the works of the Apostolic
Fathers and the Apologists, except in a single passage where
Justin Martyr says that Joseph, the spouse of Mary, "went
up from Nazareth where he lived, to Bethlehem 4 ." The word

1 Acts xxi. 36, xxii. 2.

2 Acts xxvi. 11, comp. xxii. 4.

3 Chrysostom says on " Nazoraean " in Acts xxii. 8 (Cramer) that " the
city is appropriately added for the purpose of recognition (xaAcos 17 TroXts-
TTfx'xTKtiTut coo-re (iriyv&vai avrovs}." Does Chrysostom mean that Paul
uddt'd "Nazoraean" before the Jews, that they might understand who

:IK ant? If so, does he suppose that Paul did not "add" the term
"Nazoraean" before Festus because Festus would understand without it?
II-- does not make it clear that he assumes that Jesus Himself did not
it tier tlic word '" Nazoraean" but he gives the impression of assuming this.
' '/'rv/i/i. ^78. The Onomastica, however, testifies to its ancient use,
143 (romp. 2X5; "Sod ct nos npud veteres quasi pro opprobrio Nazaraei
(In < hanuir, <|uos nunc Christianos vocant."

332

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

is not given in fairly copious Indices to Irenaeus and Clement
of Alexandria; and it has been shewn that Tertullian confuses
the word with Nazirites 1 . These indications of the rarity of
the word in early Christian writings make Pliny's mention
of " Nazerini " along with a name given in Teubner's text as
" Mabog " all the more worthy of investigation : " Coele habet
Apameam, Marsya amne divisam a Nazerinorum tetrarchia,
Bambycen quae alio nomine Hierapolis vocatur, Syris vero
Mabog ibi prodigiosa Atargatis, Graecis autem Derceto dicta,
colitur 2 ." Apart from " Nazerini," Lewis and Short's Lexicon
contains all these names except "Mabog" for which Teubner's
notes give as variations " Mabo " and " Magog." Horae
Hebraicae, quoting the passage, gives "Magog" and Breit-
haupt's notes to Rashi, on Ezekiel's mention of " Gog of the
land of Magog*" refer to the quotation without noting it as an
error or as a various reading.

To obtain some information about Mabog and its rival
readings we turn to the earlier parallel account in Strabo.
It mentions three of Pliny's names, all rare " Bambyce,"
"Atargatis," and "Hierapolis"; but instead of "Mabog," as
the third name for "Bambyce" or " Hierapolis," it substitutes
" Edessa" thus : "Bambyce which they call both Edessa and
Hierapolis wherein they honour the Syrian goddess Atar-
gatis 4 ." Now Pliny, too, mentions " Edessa" a little later on, but
he says that it was " formerly called Antioch*" If we assumed
this to be right, and if we combined Pliny and Strabo, we
should have to suppose that the ancient Bambyce which,

1 The Indices mentioned are those of Grabe and Klotz. On Tertullian's
" Nazaraeans," i.e. (R.V. marg.) " Nazirites," see above, p. 312, n. 4.

2 Pliny Nat. Hist. V. 81 (ed. Teubner). "Atargatis" and "Derceto"
are supposed to be equivalents to Astarte or Aphrodite.

3 Ezek. xxxviii. 2. See Hor. Heb. \. 338.

4 Strabo 748.

f> Pliny Nat. Hist. V. 86, Pliny's only mention of the eastern Edessa.
The Index gives a second reference (vi. 216), but that refers to " Edesus"
in Europe. The Index to Pliny shews that "Antiochs" were numerous.

333

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

Plutarch tells us 1 , was the old name of Hierapolis was also
called by two other names, namely, Edessa and Mabog (or,
Magog).

But assuming " Antioch " to be in all probability an error
(as will presently be shewn) let us consider how Pliny may
have been led into the error by stories that came to him from
Jewish sources.

Both Antioch and Edessa were strongholds of Christianity
from a very early date. As to Antioch, we have the authority
of the Acts, above quoted. As to Edessa besides the evidence
afforded by a persecution of Christians in Edessa under Trajan
Eusebius has preserved copies of letters, believed by him to
be genuine, which passed between Jesus and Abgarus, the
Toparch of Edessa ; and Thomas was believed to have been
sent by Jesus to heal the Toparch of leprosy after the
Ascension ; whence, says Eusebius, " the whole of the city
of the Edessenes is to this day devoted to the appellation of
Christ 2 ."

Until geographers, or other critics, can give us some other
explanation of " Mabog," the prima facie explanation seems
to be that it was a mistake for "Magog" and that it was
a Jewish name to describe the stronghold of idolatry in the
North. But, if that is so, then it would seem probable that
Pliny's " Nazerinorum tetrarchia," or "the tetrarchy of the
Christians," is a mistake for Edessa, the toparchy of Abgarus
and stronghold of Christianity. Both names may thus be
consistently explained. The country of the heretics in the
North the Jews called "the land of Magog"; the heretics

1 Plut. Vit. Anton. 37.

a Euseb. i. 13, ii- I / irao~a raJi> 'Edccnnp'ttt' TroXis rf) XpioToO TT pocrav a-
wptHnjyoplq. See Steph. Thes. vi. 1919. Perhaps the meaning is
that it was proud of being preeminently the City of Christ as King. See
Sui:cr p. 1552 quoting Greg. Nyss. 17 roO Xptorou TT poo-myopia TTJV ftao-iXeiav
cv&fiKWTm. Under Trajan (Diet. Christ. Biog. ii. 41) " a fierce persecution
< arricd on at Edessa."

334

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

themselves they called " the followers of the Netzer " or
" Nazoraeans'' Luke, in the Acts, has given this latter word
accurately. Pliny, in a form approaching that of Mark, has
given it inaccurately as " Naserini"

We return to Pliny's statement that " Edessa used to be
called Antioch" This is not stated in the parallel passages of
Strabo. Nor is it borne out by anything that Strabo says.
He mentions indeed elsewhere several cities named Antioch.
But he mentions only one in Syria, namely, that on the
Orontes 1 . Supposing Pliny to be wrong, we can again explain
this error, too, as arising from Jewish sources, if he had heard
from them that (i) "the Nazoraeans (or, Nazerini) had their
stronghold in Edessa" and, at the same time, that (2) " they
began first to be called Christ iani (the Greek name for
Nazoraeans) in Antioch"

We may conclude this section by noting that the above
mentioned facts accord better with the hypothesis of an
original Netzer, meaning a person, than with that of an original
Nazara, meaning a town, as the source of the names "Nazoraeans"
mentioned in the Acts, and " Nazerines " mentioned by Pliny.
For both these sectarian names may be explained with little
difficulty as meaning the followers of the Nazor (or, Nazer).
But if Jesus Himself is to be called the " Nazarene," or
" Nazarine," as being born at Nazara, then His followers
would (strictly speaking) be called " Nazarenaeans " or Naza-
rinaeans, or by some other form that would separate the
followers of "the Nazarene" from "the Nazarene" Himself.

It is easier to imagine the Jews cursing followers of the
hateful Ben Netzer, or Netzer, than to imagine them cursing
followers of the native of an insignificant village called Nazara.
And analogy deserves some consideration. Sects and great

1 Strabo 751 says that " Bambyce," which he has previously called
(748) "another name for Edessa and Hierapolis," is (751) "to the east of
Antioch." There he might have been expected to add, if he had believed
it to be true, that "Edessa itself used to be called Antioch"

335

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

religious communities may, no doubt, derive their names from
places as well as from persons. But instances of the former
are comparatively rare; .and the places are not insignificant
villages, but districts or countries, as, for example, the Moravians.
The followers of Judas of Gamala were not called Gamalites
but Galilaeans,and Judas himself was called Judas theGalilaean.
Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Mohammedanism, are not named in
this way ; nor (as far as I know) is there any evidence that
Mohammedanism was ever introduced to the world as " Mec-
canism," or Mohammedans known as " Meccans."

4. Early misunderstandings of the terms " Christ " and
" Christian "

Justin Martyr's first mention of " Christian " in his First
Apology contains a play on Christos, " Christ," and chrestos,
" good," thus : " We are accused of being Christians ; now
that what is good (chreston) should be hated is not right 1 ."
No attempt is made in the First Apology to explain the real
meaning of " Christos " ; and an apparent attempt to do so in
the Second Apology is probably a corrupt restatement of the
view that the name is connected with the root of " chrestos 2 "
We must try to realise the fact that " christos " does not occur
in pre-Christian Greek (apart from the LXX) except to mean

1 Apol. 4. Justin makes no attempt to explain "Christos," either
here, or tb. 12, y lr]<rovs Xpiaros", d<p y ov KOI TO Xpioriavol eVoj/o/za^fcr&u
(<rxf]KafjL(v. It will be convenient to differentiate, by a long e, the Greek
Xf^aTos (Chrestos] when anglicised, from the Latin Chrestus, sometimes
ustd as a proper name.

' l In 2 Apol, 6, KexpTo-tfai is perhaps a corruption of Kfxpr/o-Qai in a
statement that the Father and Creator "used" the Son in the Creation
(di avrttv TTUVTU (KTicrf}. The text is generally recognised as corrupt.
Compare the Preaching of Irenaeus 53, which combines a statement
(i) that the Father "anointed and set-in-order" everything through the
Son, with another (2) that the Son "was anointed" at His coming into
the world (Is. Ixi. i). The first two mentions of xPW T s i n tne LXX
"id.incc (i S. xxiv. n, 2 S. i. 14) are various readings for xP L(rTl > s
" anointed."

336

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

a "lotion" as distinct from "potion 1 ." On the other hand
"Chrestos" was in frequent use as a name throughout the empire
before Christian times 2 . It would hardly fail to be frequent
in Latin also, like Onesimus, being a kindly and convenient
name for a slave. Cicero rebukes Coelius for sending him,
instead of personally interesting news, " accounts of adjourned
cases and Chrestus compilation " perhaps meaning a Mis-
cellany published by some " Chrestus " who was, in those days
of Cicero, as well known (though not so favourably) as the
bookselling firm of " the brothers Sosius " a little later in the
days of Horace 3 .

It was a common custom to use the vocative, masculine or
feminine, on tombstones, in such phrases as "Farewell, Chreste,
or, (fern.) Chreste\" When the name of the departed happened
itself to be Ckrestos or Chrestt\ the similarity might suggest
some allusion to the meaning of " chrestos" "good," which,
when applied to food, often means "delightful" or "sweet 4 ";

1 See Steph. Thes. (which gives instances of ^pio-ros-, in this sense,
corrupted to xp^Toy). In the Lexicons or Concordances to Plato, Aristotle,
Demosthenes, Aristophanes and Lucian, xpto-ros is non existent. Was it
partly for this reason that Aquila substituted (Lactantius iv. 7 "badly
interpreted from the Hebrew") ij\ipp.(vos, "oiled"?

2 See Boeckh's Inscriptions (Index) and especially those from
Latium, Etruria, and Umbria. The Berlin Urkunde 1139 gives dot)Xo[i/]
Xprjro[v] with a query "nicht Xp^rrou," dated 26th year of Augustus, from
Egypt.

3 Cicero Ad Fain. ii. 8. i "Quid? Tu me hoc tibi mandasse existimas,
ut mihi gladiatorum compositiones, ut vadimonia dilata, et Chresti com-
pilationem mitteres, et ea, quae nobis, quum Romae sumus, narrare nemo
audeat?" The Index to Cicero does not mention "Chrestus" elsewhere.
Lewis and Short say he was "a slave or freedman of Cicero," but mention
no passage that supports this view. Without support, it seems improbable
that Cicero should thus contemptuously describe the news sent him by
one of his own slaves or freedmen not mentioned elsewhere in his
voluminous correspondence.

4 So did the Hebrew "good" (Gesen. 373 ) being applied absolutely
to honey, wine, fruit. Comp. Jerem. xxiv. 2 5 "good figs (LXX ^p^o-roy),"
Gen. iii. 6 "when the woman saw that the tree was good for food" (LXX

Lk. v. 39 applies xpjjo-roy to " wine."

A. B. 337 22

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

and hence in two cases a " beautiful Chreste" or a " Chrestos"
is called "sweetest child 1 /' in language recalling that of the
Petrine Epistle, which bids Christians come to the milk of
the Word, and " taste that the Lord is good (chrestos) " where
something between " good " and " sweet " would perhaps best
express the sense 2 .

A Latin confusion between " Christus " and " Chrestus "
may help to explain a difficult passage in Suetonius, which
says that the Emperor Claudius, among a number of acts of
favour or repression, mostly unimportant, "expelled Jews (or,
the Jews) from Rome making constant disturbances at the

1 Boeckh 6490 (xptjo-ros (sic) being restored for X/JT/O-COOS-) where the
little Chrestos is called (piXrarov KCU yXvKVTarov naidtov, and 6489, where
K(i\Tj Xprja-TT] is Called TCKVOV yXvKvrciTov.

2 Clem. Alex. 124, as the text stands, quotes I Pet. ii. I 3 as
Xpi-ffTos (for xpTjo-ror) 6 Kvpios. But probably he quoted it correctly, only
with a sense of the play on the word, and the scribe of Clem. Alex, (like
some scribes of the Epistle) has changed xpjjoroy to xp ia " r ^ s - Compare
Clem. Alex. 438 of ets TOV Xpia-rbv 7rf7ri<rreu /cores ^pr/o-roi re curt *at Ae'yoi/rai
...icai of Xpicrrov Xpio-riavoi. The conception of the Word of the Lord as
the fruit of the Tree of Life, and distinct from the fruit of the Tree of
the Knowledge of Good and Evil, might be illustrated from Ps. xxxiv. 8
" Taste and see that the Lord is good...." The Psalm might be called the
Psalm of Experience, and might be interpreted as meaning " Do not 'see'
first, and then ' taste] like Eve, who ' saw that the tree was good for
food.' Taste first. Learn by experiences, not by appearances." Rashi,
after quoting "Taste... good," simply adds "Taste His Word." Comp.
Heb. vi. 5 "having tasted the word of God that it is good (KO\OV
ywaupcvovs Gtov p^/zo) " ; and Clem. Cor. 36 "that through Him [i.e.
Jesus] we should taste the knowledge that dieth not (rfjs aBavdrov
yi/wo-eo)s)," quoted by Clem. Alex. 613 shortly after several verses from
the Psalm of Experience.

The Fourth Gospel is permeated with this belief in "learning by
experience," which it expresses dramatically in "Come and ye shall see"
or "Come and see," uttered in various circumstances (Jn i. 39, 46,
iv. 29) but, in all cases, resulting in conversion caused not by mere
" seeing :! but by "coming" and experiencing. "Tasting" is implied
from i IK- beginning of the Fourth Gospel in the "sign" of "the good
um( ' ll Cant, and in the doctrine of Christ's flesh and blood given to
be the food of the world.

338

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

instigation of Chrestus 1 ." No expulsion of Jews from Rome
by Claudius is mentioned by Josephus, who, on the contrary,
records several edicts issued by him in their favour" 2 . No
doubt, the Acts mentions such an expulsion, but in such
a form that, when Suetonius and the Acts are compared, we
may perceive a source of misunderstanding. The Acts says
that when Paul came to Corinth " he found a certain Jew
named Aquila, a man of Pontus by race, lately come from
Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded
all the Jews to depart from Rome ; and he came unto them... 3 ."
Now Jews from Pontus were present at the first Christian
Pentecost 4 . Christians in Pontus are among those to whom
the Petrine Epistle was addressed 5 . The Epistle to the
Romans places " Prisca and Aquila " at the head of the
saluted Christians, and even before " Epaenetus the first-
fruits of Asia " and others who, Paul says, were " in Christ,
before me 6 ." These facts favour the supposition, which the
words in the Acts also favour, that Paul "came" to Aquila
and Priscilla, as soon as he "found" the in ^ and tJiat they were
already Christians, and not converted by Paul.

If this is correct, we may suppose that Luke has inserted
"all the" before "Jews" owing to some misunderstanding.
Claudius had not really expelled " all the Jews," nor even " the

1 Suet. Claud. 25 "Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes
Roma expulit." The preceding act is a remission of tribute to the citizens
of Ilium ; the following act is a permission to the ambassadors of the
Germans "to sit in the orchestra." It is quite possible that Suetonius
knew so little about "Chrestus" that he supposed him to be still alive ;
but the meaning of "impulsor" might be "[still, as of old, their] instigator."

- Joseph. Ant. xix. 5 and 6.

3 Acts xviii. 2. It is added (ib. 3) "And, because he was of the same
trade, he abode with them." But that is not given as the reason why
"he came unto them." If they were already Christians, that would be a
cogent reason. It is expressly said (id. 8) about "Crispus, the ruler of
the synagogue," that he was converted. It is not said about Aquila,
presumably because he was already a Christian.

4 Acts ii. 9. 5 i Pet. i. i. G Rom. xvi. 37.

339

22 2

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

Jews " a nation that he favoured as a rule but only "Jews
constantly making a disturbance " so it was alleged by their
enemies "at the instigation of Chrestus^" Some of the
Christian Jews in Rome may have abused the right of speech
at first allowed them in Jewish synagogues. Or the Christian
Jews may have been entirely guiltless, and the " disturbance "
entirely due to the persecuting and orthodox Jews. But
in any case many difficulties disappear if we suppose that
Suetonius is giving an unimportant place to what he regarded
as a very unimportant act, the expulsion of some Jews,
alleged to be "tumultuous," whom, being called "Christian! "
or " Chrestiani," he inferred to be making tumults at the in-
stigation of their leader " Chrestus." On this hypothesis,
Luke was led into error by taking "Jezvs" to mean "all
the Jews" which he substituted for the sake of clearness 2 .

These very early misunderstandings of the name " Christos "
go some way toward justifying Justin Martyr in making no
attempt to explain the meaning of the word in his Apologies.
And he had other reasons for refraining. It was difficult to
explain to the Greeks that " Christos " was, so to speak, a
Hebrew official title, meaning one anointed for the office of
priest, prophet, or king. It was also difficult to explain
when, and where, and by whom, Jesus was thus anointed,
so that He came to be called " Jesus the Anointed, or Christ."

Justin, in his Dialogue, takes an entirely different line from
that taken in his Apology. In the Apology, presenting a petition
in behalf of " unjustly hated men," he demands that the charges

1 In Tac. Ann. xv. 44, it is said (Rev. of Theol. and Phil. 1914, p. 358)
that the best MSS read " Chn?stianos," as the error of the " vulgus,"
followed by " Chr/stus " as a corrective.

2 See Hastings Diet. (" Claudius ) " Dio (LX. vi. 6), perhaps correcting
Suet., asserts that the Jews, whose numbers were so great as to make
expulsion difficult, were not indeed expelled, but only forbidden to

:il>l<- tniM -ther." This approaches the truth, if it is taken to mean
that Claudius effectually "forbade" the Christian Jews to "assemble"
with the rest, in synagogues, by banishing them from Rome.

340

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

against them shall be investigated, and then says that the
charge is simply that they are called " Christianoi." Not till
after mentioning and referring to " Christianoi " does he say
that they had " Christos " as their Teacher 1 . But in the
Dialogue, Trypho, the Jew, when he makes his first mention
of " Christos," at once connects the name with " anointing,"
thus : " But Christos ^ if indeed He has come into being and
exists somewhere, is unknown, and is not even aware of
Himself or possessed of any power, until Elias come and
anoint Him and make Him manifest to all 2 ." Later on Justin
himself grapples with this objection and endeavours to shew
that Jesus was "anointed 3 ." Thus the word "anoint," which
is absent from the Apology, recurs repeatedly in the Dialogue.
And the Dialogue nowhere plays on the similarity between
"Christos" and " Chrestos."

The importance attached, in the Dialogue with Trypho
the Jew, to the " anointing " of Jesus, necessarily reflects also
some importance on Elias, without whom, according to Trypho,
the Messiah cannot be revealed. Hence the Dialogue re-
peatedly mentions Elias, and attempts to shew that the
" spirit " that was in Elias was also the " spirit " that was in
John the Baptist 4 . But the Apology nowhere mentions Elias,
except along with Abraham and the three Children in the
Furnace, as being Christians before Christ 5 .

1 ApoL i "this petition in behalf of those who are... unjustly hated
and ill-treated," 34 "that the charges. ..be investigated,. ..accused
of being Christianoi,... to hate what is good (chreston) is unjust. ..if any of
the accused say that he is not [a Christian}... if anyone acknowledge that
he is [a Chris tiait\...SQmt havitig received \teaching~\from the\ir\ Teacher,
Christos (irapaXaftuvTes rtves napa TOV 5i8acncaAou Xpiarov)...."

2 See Tryph. 8. The term is introduced, a little before, by Justin,
quoting his Christian teacher, ib. 7 TOV Trap* avrov (i.e. the Creator)
Xpio~Tov vlov avTov.

3 See Tryph. 38, 49, 56, 63, 86. 4 Tryph. 49-

"' ApoL 46. Elias is not mentioned by the other Apologists ; nor by
the Apostolic Fathers, except in Clem. Cor. 17, where Elijah, Elisha,
and Ezekiel are mentioned as "going about" in the skins of goats and

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

5. The term " Christ" how introduced or explained in
the Gospels

These facts may help us hereafter to understand the very
different ways in which the Four Evangelists introduce and
explain the term " Christ." This subject will come before us
again when we discuss Peter's Confession. But here we may
briefly compare their methods of introducing the title and
add a few words on their several uses of it.

Mark, in his opening sentence, "the beginning of the
Gospel of Jesus Christ," makes no attempt to explain the name
"Jesus" or the appellation " Christos." But by the abrupt
haste with which he passes on to "John baptizing in the
wilderness " and to the baptism of Jesus by John, whom his
Gospel regards as Elias he appears to share the above stated
belief of Trypho the Jew that it was essential that Elias
should " anoint " the future Deliverer in order that He should
be manifested as "the Anointed," i.e. "the Christ 1 ." In the
Marcan version of the Petrine Confession, "the Christ" is
uttered without addition 2 . It is only during the Trial and

sheep, preaching the coming of Christ. Clem. Alex. 610, quoting Clem.
Cor. by name, adds "John [the Baptist]" to the three prophets, and
" folds of camel's hair" to the clothing. Gen. r., on Gen. iii. 21, includes
"goatskins" and "camel's wool" in the clothing made by God for
Adam and Eve ; and the passage was variously allegorized by Origen
and earlier writers (see Iren. i. 5. 5). These curious details may have
some bearing on the Mark- Matthew details (omitted by Luke) about the
Baptist's clothing.

1 A Petrine discourse in Acts appears to explain (x. 36) "Jesus
Christ" by a contextual mention of "anointing" (x. 38) "anointed
(fxpio-fv) him [i.e. Jesus] with the Holy Spirit." Also compare iv. 26
"were gathered together... against his Christ" with ib. 27 "Jesus whom
thou didst anoint? Both passages appear to refer to the baptism of Jesus
by John. In N.T, xp' tu > occurs elsewhere only in Lk. iv. 18 (quoting
i i), 2 Cor. i. 21 xpio-ar fjnas, and Heb. i. 9 (quoting Ps. xlv. 7).

' 2 Mk viii. 29 "Thou art the Christ? Mt. xvi. 16 "Thou art the Christ,
the Son of the living God? Lk. ix. 20 " The Christ of God." Comp.
Jn vi. 69 " '///, Jtoly One of (,W.

342

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

the Crucifixion that additions are made, and these apparently
by the enemies of Jesus, " Art thou the Christ, the Son of the
Blessed"! " " Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down
now from the Cross 1 ."

In Matthew, as in Mark, the Gospel opens with the words
"Jesus Christ," subsequently referred to as "Jesus who is
called Christ," without attempt to explain either term 2 . But
when the birth in Bethlehem is related, the name " Jesus " is
described as supernatural ly dictated and explained, "for lie
shall save his people from their sins 3 ." A little later but
indirectly, not expressly the meaning of" Christ " is explained
by the fact that, when the Magi come saying " Where is he
that is born king of the Jewst n "Herod the king" was "troubled"
and "inquired where the Christ should be born 4 ." There are
no later explanations of the term, except in Peter's Confession
"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God 5 ." Before,
and during, the Trial, the term is used as one of ridicule,
applied to a Pretender, pretending to be either prophet or
king ; and Pilate twice repeats it, as if it had been though
it has not been previously mentioned by the accusers of
Jesus 6 .

Luke mentions the name " Jesus " for the first time in the
utterance of Gabriel " Thou shalt call his name Jesus 7 ." But

1 Mk xiv. 61, xv. 32. 2 Mt. i. i, 16. : Mt. i. 18 21.

4 Mt. ii. 2 4. This, and the subsequent massacre of the children
in Bethlehem, would be regarded by Christians as the first of the attempts
of "the kings of the earth" to "set themselves (Ps. ii. 2, Acts iv. 26)
against the Lord and against his Christ."

5 Mt. xvi. 1 6. But note also Mt. xxvi. 63 "the Christ, the Son of God?
parall. to Mk xiv. 61 "the Christ, the Son of the Blessed."

Mt. xxvi. 68 " Prophesy to us, O Christ ! " xxvii. 17, 22 "Jesus, -who
is called Christ " (not in Mark).

7 Lk. i. 313 "And thou shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be
great and shall be called the Son of the Most High ; and the Lord God
shall give unto him the throne of his father David : and he shall be king
over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be
no end."

343

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

the angel's utterance, though prolonged, gives no explanation
of the name, which might just as well have been Solomon or
Hezekiah, for aught that occurs in the context. The angel
goes on to mention " Son of the Most High," " the throne of
his father David," "kingdom," and "being king": but all
these are to be the gifts of God or the achievements of " Jesus."
There is no mention here of Christ, i.e. Anointed such as we
found in Matthew in connection with " King of the Jews."

But Luke mentions " Saviour." And perhaps he preferred,
as it were, to insinuate the name of " Jesus," in its Greek form,
as Soter, " Saviour," and also to imply it in the early repetition
of the word Soteria, " saving (or, salvation)": " My spirit hath
exulted in God my Saviour"', "He hath raised up a horn of
salvation for us," " salvation from our enemies," " to give
knowledge of salvation to his people 1 ." Then, on the night of
the Saviour's birth, the word " Christ " is for the first time
mentioned by the Angel to the shepherds, " There is born to
you today a Saviour, who is Christ, Lord, in the city of
David 2 ." This, as in the only other Lucan passage where the

1 Lk. i. 47, 69, 71, 77. "Salvation" does not occur in the Gospels
elsewhere, except Lk. xix. 9, Jn iv. 22. Swrij/oia in LXX represents (i) Heb.
corresponding to Salem, meaning "peace," "completeness," "health,"
(2) Heb. corresponding to Jesus, meaning " salvation!* The first instance
of the latter is Gen. xlix. 18 "I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord,"
which Jcr. Targ. paraphrases thus, " I expect not the salvation of Gideon,
nor look I for the salvation of Samson ; for their salvation will be the
salvation of an hour ; but thy salvation I have waited for, and will look
for, O Lord ; for thy salvation is the salvation of eternity."

2 Lk. ii. 1 1 o-toTrjp os ((TTiv xpiarrbs Kvpios. R.V. txt " a Saviour, which
is Christ, the Lord," marg. "or, Anointed Lord." Xpivros occurs twelve
times in Luke, but always with the article except here and xxiii. 2
Af'yoi/ra (nvrf>v xi )l(rr " v /3crtXe'a flvai, where R.V. marg. recognises the

ambiguity as here. Krauss p. 374 gives sdtar as the name of

a Rabbi from (rear;//,. Hut Levy iii. 5020 calls the Rabbi R. Samuel

bar Sutar, and says that the meaning is the same as when the word

tell with .7 for s (Levy i. 522 a), i.e. "little? Lat. "paulus." Spelt

thus, it is frequent as a proper name, ,-,<,'. Mar Sutra, R. Sutra bar Tobia.

344

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

article is omitted before " Christ" appears to mean " anointed"
as king. So, too, does the next instance, where it is said that
Simeon was not to die till he should see " the Lord's Anointed"
a frequent phrase in Scripture to denote lawfully appointed
kings of the Chosen People 1 .

Later on, but before the baptism of Jesus, Luke says that
all men were " reasoning in their hearts " about John the
Baptist "whether he might be the Christ" and that John,
while disclaiming the title, added that a successor would
come, mightier than himself, who would baptize with the
Holy Spirit and with fire 2 . This implies or favours the im-
plication that " the Christ " would thus " baptize." The next
mention of the word refers to the exclamation of " devils,"
which " came out " exclaiming to Jesus " Thou art the Son of
God," on which Luke remarks that Jesus " suffered them not
to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ*" These
passages indicate the popular acceptance of the word "Christ"
as meaning something more than an ordinary king. But at
the trial before Pilate, Luke represents the chief priests as
charging Jesus with " calling himself Christ, a king 4 ' " ; and,
although there is no parallel to this in Mark and Matthew,
the context implies that Pilate must have assumed this to be
the meaning.

In a very remarkable addition to the Mark-Matthew
tradition about the mockers round the Cross who, in effect,
twice told the "Christ," or the "King," to "save himself"
Luke adds a third utterance, coming from one of those crucified
with Him : "Art thou not the Christ! Save thyself m& us 5 ."
And after the Resurrection, as though taking up this taunt
about the paradox of the Saviour's inability to " save himself,"
Jesus Himself says in two passages containing the last

1 Lk. ii. 26, comp. i S. xvi. 6, xxiv. 6 &c.

2 Lk. iii. 15 1 6. 3 Lk. iv. 41. 4 Lk. xxiii. 2.

5 Mk xv. 30 2, Mt. xxvii. 40 4, Lk. xxiii. 35 43. Mk-Mt. mention
those crucified as simply "reviling" or "reviling in the same way."

345

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

mentions of the title " Was it not needful that the Christ
should suffer these things?^' "Thus it is written that the
Christ should suffer 1 ."

It will be observed that Luke, in his Gospel, never mentions
" Jesus Christ " or " Jesus that is called Christ." The reason
probably is that he tries to write as a historian in chronological
order, and believes that " Jesus " could not be accepted
as " Christ," in the full sense of the term, till the Holy Spirit
had been sent down by Him, after His resurrection, because
"No man can say 'Jesus is Lord,' save in the Holy Spirit 2 ."
Hence it was not till the day of the first Christian Pentecost
that Peter, addressing himself to all " Israelites," and beginning
from the title of " Jesus the Nazoraean " which we have seen
reason to interpret as Jesus the Netzer, the Branch from the
root of Jesse or David passes at once to His death and
resurrection, as being predicted by His ancestor and prototype
David in the words " Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,
neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption 3 ."
Commenting on this prediction of David concerning "the
fruit of his loins," Peter declares that David "spake of the
resurrection of the Christ'' Then, returning to the name of
Jesus, and saying " This Jesus did God raise up," he adds
"Being, therefore, by the right hand of God exalted, and
having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit,
he hath poured forth this " i.e. the Spirit "which ye see
and hear 4 ." Finally, asserting that David spoke about his
descendant as "my Lord" he concludes with these words:
" Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that
God hath made him both (i) ' Lord' and (2) 'Christ; this
(3) Jesus whom ye crucified 5 ." In this threefold combination

have the essence of the Lucan Gospel. It calls on us to
believe the "good tidings" that God the Father has revealed
Himself through " the Lord Jesus Christ"

1 I.k. xxiv. 26, 46. * i Cor. xii. 3.

3 Ac ts ii. 22-7. 4 Acts H> 33- 5 Acts u< 36i

346

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

The Johannine Gospel, apart from its Prologue and its
Appendix, may be almost said to begin and end with a
combination of the name Jesus and the title Christ : " The
law was given through Moses : the grace and the truth [of
God] came through Jesiis Christ" " Many other signs, therefore,
did Jesus... but these are written that ye may believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God 1 ." But the proof that
"Jesus" is "the Christ" is not quite like the Petrine proofs above
described in which " David " played a large part. The proofs
in the Lucan Gospel and Acts are largely prophecies and
mighty works ; the proof in the Fourth Gospel is largely " the
grace and the truth " that issued from Jesus-.

As to the meaning of the name Jesus the Fourth Gospel
is silent. Readers of the LXX would naturally connect the
name with the "Jesus," i.e. Joshua, first mentioned as "choosing
men" to "fight with Amalek 3 " ; and there are, perhaps, indi-
cations that the Evangelist regarded Jesus as a kind of second
Joshua, beginning, like the first, "beyond Jordan," and "choosing
out men " for the great conflict in which He was to " gain the
victory," not over Amalek, but over "the world 4 ."

But this is doubtful, and unimportant as compared with

1 Jn i. 17, xx. 3031.

2 In previous parts of Diatessarica attention was not drawn to the
connection between (i) the Johannine "grace? "truth? and "anointed*
(implied in "Christ") and (2) the Psalm on the Anointed, quoted in the
Epistle to the Hebrews (i. 8 9) as referring to Christ, and mentioning
"grace" and "truth" as attributes of the Bridegroom, whom God has
"anointed* (Ps. xlv. 2, 4, 7). Also Jn i. 18 "only-begotten, God" appears
to correspond to Ps. xlv. 6 "Thy throne, O God." This Psalm is fre-
quently quoted by early Christian writers (e.g. Justin Martyr repeatedly)
with special reference to Xpto-rdy and xpuo. The Johannine allusion
confirms the view (Johannine Grammar 2371) that dvrjp in Jn i. 30 is used
allusively so as to include the meaning of "husband."

3 Exod. xvii. 9 "And Moses said untojos/tua (LXX Jesus) Choose us
(LXX for thyself) men, and go out, fight with Amalek." John alone
represents Jesus as using exXfyo/Aai about His choice of the Twelve
(vi. 70, xiii. 18, xv. 1619).

4 Jn xvi. 33.

347

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

the Evangelist's early, definite and prominent explanations of
the term " Christ." The first mentions of it (after the Prologue)
are " I am not the Christ" " Why baptizest thou, then, if thou
art not the Christ ? " " We have found the Messiah (which is,
being interpreted, Christ)" " I know that Messiah cometh (he
that is called Christ)" "Can it be that this man is the Christ^"
In the first of these, where the Baptist says " I am not the
Christ" in answer to the simple question "Who art thou?"
we are taught that thoughts and expectations of "the
Christ" were in the air 2 ; and in the second we find that "the
Christ" (along with Elias and "the Prophet") was assumed
to have authority to baptize. From the third, uttered by
Andrew, we learn that " Messias " the Hebrew and Aramaic
for "Anointed" was the word in use among the people;
from the fourth, repeating this Aramaic word, we see that
even a Samaritan woman shared in the Messianic expectations
of the Jews, and regarded " the Messiah " as one who was to
settle all disputed questions.

To this Samaritan woman alone does Jesus reveal Himself
(" I that speak unto thee am he 3 "). And why ? The question
is thrust on us because after many more questionings of the
Jews among themselves, as to whether "the rulers" knew
that Jesus was really " the Christ," and as to the " signs " that
" the Christ " was to work, and as to the place whence " the
Christ" was to "come 4 " the Jews at last say to Him "How
long dost thou hold us in suspense ? If thou art the Christ,

1 Jn i. 20, 25, 41, iii. 28 (as i. 20), iv. 25, 29.

2 Comp. Lk. iii. 15 "all men reasoned... whether he were the Christ."
a Jn iv. 26. She then says to the Samaritans (ib. 29) "Can it be that

this is the Christ?'' The narrative describes an ascent of faith from a
somewhat like that of Nathanael (comp. Jn i. 50). The woman had
In licved because Jesus had "told" her "all things that ever" she "did";
and the Samaritans had, at first, believed on her evidence. But finally,
th. Samaritans say to her " Now we believe, not because of thy speaking;
lor we have heard for ourselves and know that this is indeed the Saviour
<>j the world, ."

4 Jn vii. 267, 31,412.

348

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

tell us plainly 1 ." Jesus does not u tell them plainly." He
replies " I told you, and ye believe not. The works that I do
in my Father's name, these bear witness of me."

This answer, difficult in itself, must not be made more
difficult by supposing that " the works " here mentioned were
restricted to Christ's acts of healing. " The works " (doubtless)
included "the words" those words about which Peter had
said, " Lord to whom should we go ? Thou hast [the] words of
eternal life 2 ." And the real reason why the Jews did not
believe in this " Christ," this " Shepherd of Israel," was because
they had formed for themselves a different ideal, an official
Christ, an official Shepherd, so that, if Jesus had said to them
" I am your Christ," He would have said what was not true.
This the next words explain : " But ye believe not, because ye
are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know
them, and they follow me, and I give unto them eternal
life 3 ."

This doctrine seems at first sight to lead to the conclusion
that, for the purposes of " the Gospel," the human race may
be divided into two classes, "sheep" and "not-sheep"; the
u sheep " will " hear " at once ; the " not-sheep " will never
hear ; therefore it is useless to preach. But the Evangelist
means, on the contrary, that all men are, in their higher
nature, sheep of the true Shepherd, or children of the Father
in heaven, in whose image they were created ; and that, if
they will put away their false notions of an official non-human
Shepherd, and an official non-human Father, and recognise

1 Jn x. 24.

* Jn vi. 68.

3 Jn x. 268. Against this view may be urged Mk xiv. 61 2 "Art
thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? And Jesus said, I am (Mt. Thou
hast said)....^ But the parallel in Luke differs in a very remarkable
manner both from Mark and from Matthew, and, when the three come
before us in their order, they will be found (I believe) to confirm the
view taken above as to the reasons for the general (but not invariable)
unwillingness of Jesus to call Himself, or to be called, "Christ."

349

NAZARENE AND NAZORAEAN

that God and Man must be known together, and not the One
without the other, they will be drawing near to that eternal life
which consists in knowing the only true God. Thus perhaps,
if the text is not corrupt, we may explain the final Johannine
mention of " Jesus Christ," in which the Evangelist ventures
to represent Jesus as calling Himself by His own name :
" And this is eternal life that they should know thee, the
only true God, and him whom thou hast sent,fesus CArtst 1 "
Apparently it does not mean that we are to " know " two
distinct Persons. It means that we are to know the First
"and" the Second, that is, not without the Second. This
agrees with the saying in the Prologue, that no man has seen
God, but the Only-begotten who is in the bosom of the
Father has declared Him 2 . It agrees also with the saying in
the Epistle, that whosoever does not love the brother whom
he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen 3 . By
" the brother " who is " seen," is meant Man, as " seen "
through Jesus Christ, " seen " to be divine in spite of all his
imperfections and sins. " Seen " otherwise seen without the
mediation of some such ideal as that which we call "Jesus
Christ " man cannot be sincerely " loved," or honestly called
" brother."

1 Jn xvii. 3. 2 j n i I g > 3 j j n j v 20

350

APPENDIX II

THE DISCIPLE THAT WAS (R.V.) "KNOWN
UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST 1 "

THE Fourth Gospel differs from the Three in representing
Peter's denial as being the result, in part at all events, of an
action proceeding not from himself, but from another an
unnamed person 2 . According to this Gospel, though Peter
followed Jesus to the High Priest's palace, he remained
standing at the door outside :i . It was natural that he should
desire to learn the issue of the trial of Jesus as soon as possible,
and this he could do by waiting probably with others who had
not the right of entry outside the palace. Inside, he could do
Jesus no good, and his presence there (as he must have well
known) would expose him to great peril. It would also, if he

1 See Addendum on p. 371 referring to criticisms by the Rev. J. B.
Mayor, Litt.D., and to my reply, in the Expositor for Jan. and Feb. 1914.

- Jn xviii. 15 16 (R.V.) "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and
[so did] another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high
priest, and entered in with Jesus into the court of the high priest ; but
Peter was standing at the door without. So the other disciple, which
was known unto the high priest, went out and spake unto her that kept
the door, and brought in Peter." R.V. is not quite accurate. See below,
PP- 357 8, n. 6 (adfin.\ and p. 360, n. i.

3 The Evangelist apparently assumes that there was one and the same
av\T) TOV ap^ifpe'coy, "courtyard of the High Priest," for Caiaphas and
Annas the latter having separate chambers from the official chambers
of Caiaphas, but no separate "courtyard." He also makes it clear at the
outset that the proceedings of the trial were irregular, by saying that the
prisoner was taken "first" to "Annas"; who had no official position.
Some early authorities have transposed the text, e.g. SS arranges con-
secutively Jn xviii. 13, 24, 14, 15, 1923, 16 18, 25 &c.

35 1

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

was arrested, prevent him from carrying word to the rest of the
disciples and to the anxious women about the fate of their
Master.

But some one came out of the palace and, in effect, brought
Peter in. Nonnus, one of our earliest authorities for the inter-
pretation of this passage, says that he "took" Peter "by the hand"
and "brought him in." But the present text of the Gospel
says, ambiguously, either that he spoke to the portress and also
brought Peter in, or that he spoke to the portress, and she
brought Peter in. Our Revised Version prefers the former,
Chrysostom the latter. In either case one can see that Peter
could hardly refuse the invitation. Doubtless, to accept it
involved a tremendous future risk; but to refuse it involved
an immediate cowardice. The unnamed disciple said, in
effect, to Peter, " Do you not want to know, as I do, what
they will do to the Master ? You must want it. Then come
in." This almost amounted to "taking Peter by the hand and
leading him m\"

The question for us is, "Who thus, in effect, drew Peter
into the net of temptation?" It is generally taken for granted
that it was John the son of Zebedee. Chrysostom assumes
this. So does Jerome. But Chrysostom, as we shall see,
slightly alters the text of the Gospel so as to favour his view,
and Jerome does not represent the Greek exactly. The reason
for assuming it appears to be mainly this, that, later on, in con-
nection with Peter, "the other disciple ^cvJwm Jesus loved"
undoubtedly means John; and here, in connection with Peter,
the text mentions "another disciple" afterwards referred to as
"the other disciple" It is perhaps natural, at first sight, to
infer that "other disciple" when mentioned with "Peter"
means John in the earlier instance because it certainly means
John in the later.

below, p. 358, n. 3. Nonnus perhaps meant "taking by the
hand" to imply a guarantee that the "other disciple" knew Peter. But
ivtcr might feel the action to be, in effect, coercive.

352

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

But does it not make a difference that whereas, later on, the
"otJier disciple' is called the one "whom Jesus loved" here the
"other disciple" is described as (R.V. twice) "known unto the
high priest"! Will it not make a still greater difference if we
presently find (as we shall) that the phrase rendered by R.V. in
the second instance "known unto the high priest" really means
"intimate friend" and implies "the friend that was in his
counsels"! For the Gospel says, in the very verse that
precedes, "Now Caiaphas was he that gave counsel to the Jews
that it was expedient that one man should die for the people"
Is it likely that a Gospel written in the name of "the disciple
whom Jesus loved " should say, in effect, that that disciple
was "in the counsels of" the High Priest who was plotting
the death of Jesus and this on the very eve of His crucifixion ?

And are there not also some a priori grounds for doubting
whether the action assigned to the unnamed disciple is quite
suitable to John ? We generally think of him as thoughtful,
retiring, and less impulsive than Peter. On the shore of
Gennesaret, John does not swim to Jesus. He merely says to
Peter "It is the Lord." It is Peter who plunges in. But here
what are we to say about the conduct of this unnamed disciple
in the palace of Caiaphas? To bring Peter we may almost
say with Nonnus, to "take Peter by the hand and draw him "
into a crowd of the High Priest's guards and servants 1 , where
he, the single one of the Twelve who had been bold enough
to strike a blow for his Master, could not possibly escape
notice, followed by suspicious questioning, and ultimately
by detection ! It may have been well intended, but was
it wise and thoughtful ? And when it was done, when Peter
was inside, left like a hunted creature at bay amid his enemies,

1 It has been suggested that others, attracted by curiosity, may have
pressed into the courtyard, among whom Peter might have, for a time,
escaped notice. That may be granted as not improbable. And it would
diminish the immediate risk. But even so, the risk would be so great as
to make Peter's entry explicable only by very special circumstances.

A. B.

353 23

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

was it thoughtful or kind to desert him without a word or act
of recorded helpfulness?

It may be said, "John was engaged in a higher duty. He
was in the upper room, watching the trial of his Lord." But
would his Lord have preferred this? Are we quite sure that
He would have called it a "higher duty"? Even if John had
spoken in the Lord's defence, Jesus might perhaps have
preferred that he should be defending his brother disciple in
his struggles with Satan who was "sifting him like wheat."
But to be above and to do nothing, when he might have been
below,' helping the brother Apostle, whom, by his own im-
pulsive conduct, he had plunged into temptation was this the
kind of conduct that we should expect in the disciple whom
Jesus specially loved?

These considerations, it is hoped, may bespeak a patient
hearing for the suggestion not, I believe, quite novel 1 , but,

1 Alford ad loc. says "There is no reason to doubt the universal
persuasion that by this name John intends himself. ...The idea that it
was Judas Iscariot (Heumann), is surely too absurd to need confutation.
The [6] aXXos, o-ui/eto-. ra> 'l^tr., rjv yvuxrros TO> dpx- (as a matter of individual
notice), and the whole character of the incident, will prevent any real
student of St John's style and manner from entertaining such a supposition
for a moment."

Keim (Jesus of Nazara vi. 58) says " Foolish explanations of the
'other disciple' as an unknown person (Aug., Calov, Gurlitt), as a citizen
of Jerusalem (Grotius), even as Iscariot (Heum.)." The sentence finishes
here. I am informed that Meyer's Gospel of John Vol. n. p. 311, adds
" Calovius and Calvin " to Augustine and Grotius, as givers of what Keim
calls " foolish explanations," and as exceptions to what Alford calls " the
universal persuasion."

Westcott, after remarking that the text has another disciple, not the
other, says "The reader cannot fail to identify the disciple with St John."
This may give to some readers, who do not "fail," a sense of their own
superiority to Augustine, Grotius, and Calvin. But others, who do "fail,"
may be consoled by feeling that they fail with eminent men.

I hcse three quotations appear to shew that the Judas-hypothesis has
not >ct iv< rived attention from "any real student of St John's style and
manner" in this country.

See Son of Man 3460 c for an attempt to explain " the High Priest" (in

354

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

as far as I know, not hitherto presented for serious considera-
tion in this country that the unnamed disciple was not
John but Judas Iscariot, and that this subtle, perhaps we must
say this over subtle, Evangelist intended us to distinguish
"another disciple ivho was the friend of tJie High Priest" from
one whom he will describe later on as the "oilier disciple wJiom
Jesus loved" Both disciples are connected in a peculiar
way with Peter. But the former, whatever may have been his
motives, acted as Peter's enemy. The latter acted as Peter's
friend. The first Johannine mention of Judas Iscariot followed
a confession of Simon Peter, and was accompanied by the
word "devil"; and the context implied that Judas was then
acting like an instrument of Satan and endeavouring to lead
Peter and the rest of the disciples astray, following after
Satan 1 . Now, in the High Priest's palace, consistently with
his previous attempt to mislead Peter, Judas attempts again,
and on this occasion succeeds. He actually leads the foremost
of the Apostles to deny his Lord. This is the work of the
" other " disciple u'/to ictis tJic friend of the High Priest.

How different the influence on Peter of the "other" disciple
whom Jesus loved \ He accompanies Peter to the tomb of the
Lord, and outstrips him in the race. Judas drew Peter into the
hall of Caiaphas, the House of Temptation. John indirectly,
by emulation, stimulated Peter to go before him into the tomb
of Jesus, which was the preparatory House of Faith. Later on,
again, it was " that disciple whom Jesus loved " who " saith unto
Peter, It is the Lord," and Peter " girt his coat about him
for he was naked and cast himself into the sea." It seems
to be implied that Peter reached Jesus before the rest of the
disciples reached Him. If he did, it was thanks to "that
disciple whom Jesus loved."

u known to the High Priest ") as a name given in Christian tradition to
Jesus.

1 Jn vi. 68 71, on which see in Introduction p. 146, the section
entitled "Attraction and recoil, Peter and Judas."

355 2 32

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

Reviewing all these facts, can we not imagine that the
Fourth Evangelist may have meant antithesis where we have
taken him to mean identity ? " How could you suppose "-
he might perhaps say to us, complaining of our dulness of
comprehension "that I intended you to identify another
disciple who was the bosom friend of Caiaphas, the murderer of
Jesus, with the other disciple whom Jesus loved?" And this,
at least, might be said in support of such a complaint, that the
Johannine narrative does make the action of the unnamed
disciple responsible for what followed. If the friend of the
High Priest had not taken Peter into the High Priest's hall,
Peter humanly speaking would not have denied his Master.

Passing now to an examination of the Johannine context
mentioning the disciple that was a friend of the High Priest,
we must be prepared to find the text varying a great deal and
possibly corrupt. The points of main interest in it are
emphasized in the early poetic commentary of Nonnus. For
example, he repeats the thought of being "well known," in
three different meanings, in one line thus: (i) "[intimately]
known," (2) "renowned," (3) "accustomed" 1 . A literal trans-
lation of his paraphrase of the passage may perhaps usefully
prepare the reader for the difficulties of the Gospel text.
Usually Nonnus agrees with Chrysostom, but in this passage
they differ widely. The extract covers the ground from Peter's
entrance up to the question that elicits the first of the three
denials 2 :

1 For instances of such repetition called " conflation," see Clue 113 27.

2 Jn xviii. 1517, paraphrased by Nonnus xviii. 6980. The Greek
is as follows :

Kdl Ol O7T Ur6oK (\(vd()S O/JUlpTff TT)\(')0l

K(U vtos AXos eruipos, bs IxQvftoXov irapa
yv<DTi>s (uv dpidrjXos f6r)p.ovos dpxifprjos
\pL<TT(ii OwtopOftOt fjXdfv (era) 6fo8("Yp,rtvos

Herpos cXciVero v6a(pi 6vpaa)v.

356

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

So, bearing Jesus [with them] the spearmen flowed on,

And on His track went with them afar off Simon

And a young [man] 1 another companion [of Christ] who, from

his trade of fishing 2 ,

Being a friend 3 , renowned, of the (?) accustomed 4 high priest,
Running-with Christ, came within the God-receiving courtyard;
And, tardy 5 , there where he was, Peter was left, away from the

portals.
But another [? the other] 6 companion of Christ, moving rapidly

in the covered building,

8' aXXor eraipoy vTra>po(f)iov yovv TraXXcoi/

(K fjLfyapoio KOI dp.<f>nro\(t) TruXacop&J
eiTTf <al fjyayf Ilerpov ecru iro\v\av8(os avXrjs
\ftpos e^coi/. Ko.1 8p.u>\$ fTT<rf36\os op.p.ciTi
8epKO/j.fvr) 7rv\au>pos iivia\f yfirovi
rolnv 7Tos- p.rj /cat trv Tre'Xety Xpioroto

1 "Young." Ne'oy, in this context, might conceivably mean "newly
converted." But if it means "young," Nonnus may allude to the youth-
fulness traditionally attributed to John the son of Zebedee. "Another
companion " is repeated below, with " of Christ," so that we seem obliged
to supply "of Christ" here, and cannot well take the words as meaning,
"and another young man, [his] companion."

2 " Fishing." This apparently refers to the occupation of John the
son of Zebedee. But how Nonnus supposed that this could make him
a "friend of the High Priest" I cannot even suggest. Perhaps, however,
Nonnus is here erroneously applying'to John the son of Zebedee literally
a tradition that was applied to Judas Iscariot metaphorically. Judas had
planned, along with the High Priest, the arrest of Jesus. It might be
said, therefore, that Judas and Caiaphas were united in spreading for
Jesus (Eccles. ix. 12) "the evil net" (comp. Hab. i. 13 15 concerning
" the wicked " who " catcheth " men in " his net " since they are " as the
fishes of the sea").

3 " A friend " (see below, p. 363) ///. " intimately known." The Greek
word might also mean " renowned," and Nonnus adds the latter.

4 "Accustomed" occurs in Nonnus (Jn xxi. 4) " he asked the seafaring
accustomed fishermen (edfaovas t^u/SoX^a?)." Nonnus uses it very fre-
quently, e.g. of " customary " gifts, home, couch, food &c. Perhaps he
means that the High Priest was "familiar" to him like his own home.

5 "Tardy" presumably implies either fear, or the knowledge that he
would be refused admission, so that haste was needless. All he could
do was to wait at the door to learn the issue as soon as possible.

6 "Another" seems to make no sense, and aXXoy "the other" would

357

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

Leapt-back 1 from the palace, and to the attendant porter 2

Spake, and led Peter inside the spacious courtyard,

Holding him by the hand 3 . And a maid, jeering at him, with

suspicious eye,
Beholding him, she [I say] that kept the gate called aloud to

[? her or his] neighbour 4 Peter
Such saying [as this] " Can it be that thou, too 5 , art a disciple

of Christ?"

make good sense. I can find no instance of the latter in Greek. But
COmp. Jn XX. 3 (Nonnus) cb/idpr^cre pafyTrjs "A\\os o/ieos- eVt o^/za, where
the meaning must be " the other" Nonnus does not repeat here, as the
Gospel does, "friend" and " High Priest." Here we may note that R.V.
is not quite right in rendering identically, by " known unto? both xviii. 15
yva><rTbs ro) (dative) and xviii. 16 6 yi/oxn-oy rov (genitive}. The first need
not, the second must, imply intimacy.

1 " Leapt-back," a rarer meaning than " leapt-up," but required by the
sense, and allowable (Steph. T/ies.}. It implies emotion or distraction
in the Disciple.

2 " Porter" (not "portress" which the Gospel text has). This is also
the reading of SS (see below, p. 360, n. 3). The Disciple speaks to the
Porter, and, to make Peter's admission sure, takes him in, as it were,
under his wing. If we may suppose an interval, the Porter's maid-
servant though saying nothing at the moment, in the presence of the
Porter and the Disciple flouts Peter afterwards. Chrysostom expressly
dissents from this view : " Why did not the Disciple himself bring Peter
in ? He was keeping-close to Christ and following close on Him. For
this cause he bade the woman bring Peter in."

" Taking him by the hand " i.e. as guarantee of personal knowledge.
This is perhaps more probable than the view that Peter hesitated, as though
saying: "I can be of no service, inside the Palace, either to my Lord
or to the rest. But I would fain wait outside to learn the issue as soon
as may be and let the others know of it," and as though the Disciple
replied " But come in you must, for I know you wish (as I do) to see as
well as to hear."

4 " Neighbour." Does this mean that she came close to Peter and
sat down near him, so that he was, for the time, her " neighbour"? Or
does it mean that Peter was the "neighbour" of the other Disciple at the
time of entering ?

1 "Thou, too," that is, "thou as well as thy companion." Nonnus
tliis as a jibe (s. fVeo-/3oXoy). Chrysostom does not ; he explains
"thou, too" thus : "Because John was inside" that is, because Peter
had, ai his companion, inside the palace, a friend of her Master, the
I'riest and he adds " So mildly did she accost him."

358

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

In the Gospel narrative there are some variations in the
MSS and Versions, and some also in one part of the (ap-
parently) genuine text as compared with another part. They
necessitate not only a close examination of this passage
speaking of " another disciple " but also a comparison of it
with the passage that later on speaks of " the other disciple 1 ."
The former is said to have been " known to," and " the intimate-
friend of," the High Priest. The latter is said to be the one
"whom Jesus was wont to love." Some inferior MSS and
authorities have altered " another" here, into " the other" con-
forming the former to the latter naturally, but possibly with
the result of completely changing the sense. Also the Syro-
Sinaitic Version, consistently, in both passages, either omits
"other" or alters it into "one" or "that" The similarity
between the Hebrew "one" (sometimes meaning "a certain
person") and "other" is so great as to cause many errors
in the LXX 2 . These facts must be remembered in studying
the Johannine text, which runs thus ; : " Now there was follow-
ing Jesus Simon Peter and another 4 disciple 5 . Now that

1 Jn xx. 2 foil. - See Indices to Diatessarica p. 22.

3 Jn xviii. 15 17 'H*:oAou#ei fie ra> 'irjo-ov 2i/ucoi/ Ile'r^oy *at aXXoy
p.a0r)Tf)S. n fie p.adr)TT]s (Kflvos rjv yvaxrrbs (marg. yvaHrrbs ^v) T6> ap^tfpet,
Kal (rvviarr)\Qtv rw 'l^rroC eiy rrjv av\rjv TOV ap^ifpe'a><>, o fie HtTpos lo~Tr)Kfi
irpbs rr\ 6vpq ea>. fr}\6(v ovv 6 p.aOrjTrjs o aXXor 6 -yvcofrros 1 rov ap\ttptais
Kal fiTTfv rfi Qvpu>p< Kal fl(TT}yayfv rbv Ilerpov. Xc'yei ovv rc3 Ilf'rpa) 17
7rai$io'<r) f) flvptopus Mr) KOI (TV t< TU>V padrjTwv e I TOV avQpanrov TOVTOV ',

4 Chrys., and some inferior authorities, have " the other." Comp. Jn
xxi. 2 "and others of [//'/. from] his disciples two" Why does not John name
the "two"? Is it because he was ignorant ? There are reasons for con-
jecturing that Andrew and Philip are meant. Nonnus expressly mentions
"Andrew" after "Peter," making eight instead of seven. Pseudo-Peter
breaks off thus, 14 "But I, Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother^
having taken our nets went to the sea. And there was with us Levi, the
son of Alpheus, whom the Lord...." Chrys. has, freely, KOI tfo-av Si'/iwi/

6/LioO KOI Qap.as KOI Na6avar)\ 6 viro TOV 4>tXt7r7rot K\rjdels KOL ol viol
Ze/Sefiaiou, Kal aXXoi 8vo.

5 Blass prints xviii. 15 [r)<o\ovOfi fie r<u 'liyo-oi) Si'/icov IleVpoy] <al
fls ex r<i)v p.adr)T<ii)v yvatarbs TJV TW dp^iepet *cat o~vvKrrj\dfv r&i 'Irjaov (is rr)v

359

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

disciple was friend (lit known) to 1 the high priest and entered
in with Jesus into the court of the high priest, but Peter was
standing at the door outside. There came out therefore the
other disciple that was the friend (lit. the known) of 2 the high
priest, and spoke to the portress 3 and brought in (or, she
brought in 4 ) Peter. There saith therefore to Peter the maid-
servant 5 [that was] the portress, Can it be that thou also art
[one] of the disciples of this man ?"

W here, but o yvwo-rbs rou in the next verse, so that the text
leads us perhaps from a possibility of the meaning " acquaintance," to
a certainty of the meaning "intimate friend." The reading yvoxrros
rjv TO) a. was probably intended to separate yvoxrros from a. and to
suggest that it did not mean " friend of," but only " known to."

2 See below, pp. 362 3 for the proof that yvoxrros in this sentence
means " intimate friend."

3 " Portress," but Nonnus and SS "porter" masc.

4 "She brought in." So Chrys., but it is less probable than "(he)
brought in." EtVayw is used in the parall. Lk. xxii. 54 of bringing Jesus
as a prisoner into the palace, and sim. in Acts xxi. 37, xxii. 24, and of the
" leading in " of the feeble and helpless, in Lk. ii. 27, xiv. 21, Acts ix. 8.
So there is something to be said for Nonnus' rendering " led, taking by
the hand." But in a few N.T. instances the word means simply " intro-
duce" (Acts xxi. 289, Heb. i. 6). The only other N.T. use of the
word is in Acts vii. 45, of " bringing in " the tabernacle.

" The maidservant." There were discussions about the Attic and
the Hellenic meanings of TraiSi'o-Kj? (see Steph. Thes.} but there can be no
question about the N.T. use of the word, as always denoting a servant
not free. Comp. Gal. iv. 22 foil, "one by the handmaid (A.V. bondmaid]
the other by the freewoman." In Acts xvi. 16, it means a slave possessed
with a spirit of divination, who brings her masters "much gain." Also
note Lk. xii. 45 TOVS Traidas KOI ras Traidto-Kas (parall. Mt. xxiv. 49 aw-
SovXovs) where A.V. has "maidens," but R.V. "maidservants." So in
Acts xii. 13 A.V. "damsel," R.V. "maid," but probably " maidsewant"
employed as portress, not necessarily young (comp. Lk. xxii. 57
" Woman, I know him not "). All the Evangelists use Traidio-Krj in this
passage. Hut whereas they call her (Mk xiv. 66) pia r&v 7raifi t <r/ci/,
Mt. xxvi. 6<j; pin 7r<u8i<rKr), (Lk. xxii. 56) 7rai8i<rKT) ny, John explains that
she was " the maidservant that was the portress (f) Traidio-KT) rj 0vpa>p6s)."

But, if so, why did not John call her thus at once: "he spake to the
Hiiiiiisi-n'ti/i/ //tat was portress... then saith to Peter the portress" ? Why
untc "the portress (TV 0vpa>pa>y first, and "the maidservant that was

360

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

We pass to the Synoptic narrative, which describes Peter's
entrance as being without any intervention :

Mk xiv. 54 Mt. xxvi. 58 Lk. xxii. 54 5

And Peter had But Peter follow- But Peter follow-

followed him afar off, ed him afar off, unto ed afar off. And

even within, into the the court of the high when they had...

court of the high priest, and entered Peter sat in the midst

priest, and he was in, and sat with the of them.

sitting with the offi- officers.
cers.

It will be observed that Luke (and Luke alone) describes
Peter as being "in tJie midst of 1 " those whom Mark and
Matthew describe as "the officers." Also John (and John
alone) connects Peter's entrance with a "portress" Compare:

2 S. iv. 6 (Heb.) 2 S. iv. 6 (LXX)

And thither they entered even- And behold the portress of

into tJie midst of the house. the house.

Here LXX has the same word as John (Ovpwpos), and
Gesenius prefers such a reading of the Hebrew text as
is implied by the LXX 2 . In Hebrew, "porter'' or

portress (77 Traidio-KT) 77 tfupoopos-) " second ? The order is hardly explicable,
and it suggests that TTJ fi. is an error for r&> #., and that (as Nonnus and
SS say) the disciple first "spake to the porter" and then there followed
the action of "the maidservant that was portress? that is to say, a
subordinate of the " porter." She overheard what had been said to the
"porter" by the disciple of Jesus, and presently came and jested at Peter
about it.

An interval may be supposed to have elapsed after the disciple has
brought Peter in. The disciple leaves Peter, and departs to the upper
chamber. Peter comes into the throng of servants and guards. Then
the maidservant comes and asks him whether he, too like his influential
companion the friend of the High Priest is a disciple of Jesus.

1 Lk. xxii. 55 /neVos. Lk. has used eV p-ta-a in the same verse, " and
when they had (///.) kindled-around (nfpiafydvTtov) (Son 0fMa?t33Q$a)
a fire in the midst of '(eV /zeoro)) the court."

2 Gesen. 1045 a. The interchange of "into the midst" and "porter"
would be easier in Aramaic than in Hebrew (Levy Ch. ii. 561 b],

361

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

"gate-keeper? is identical in consonants with "gate" Hence
there appears to be a similarity between this confusion of
"gate-keeper' and "in the midst" in Samuel, with a confusion of
"gate-way" or "porch" with "in the midst" in Isaiah, where
the Hebrew "in the midst" is rendered by LXX "in the porch*"
This is all the more to the point because Mark alone, a little
later, mentions as the scene of the second denial, "fore-court"
and the parallel Matthew alone mentions "porch-? and the
confusion between these words and "porter? in the LXX, is
very frequent 3 . Since therefore "in the midst'" is confused by
the LXX twice with "portress " or "porch? and since "porter "
and "porch" are still more frequently confused, the question
arises whether this (at first sight) insignificant phrase of Luke,
"in the midst? may not be of crucial importance in guiding us
through the mazes of the narrative of the Denial as told in the
Four Gospels, and also in leading us to some satisfactory ex-
planation of the personality and action of the disciple who, as
our Revised Version says, " was knozvn to the high priest"

But here we must stop to ask whether "known" is an
adequate rendering. The Greek word, as applied to persons,
is extremely rare. It occurs in N.T. only here and in two
passages where the parents of Jesus are described as searching
for Him among their kindred and "acquaintance," and where
"all his acquaintance... stood afar off" round His Cross 4 . The
margin of the latter passage refers us to the Psalms, where the
same Greek word is repeated, "Thou hast put mine acquain-
tancc far from me," repeated thus, "Lover and friend hast thou
put far from me, and mine acquaintance into darkness 5 ." But
even our Revisers have rightly shrunk from rendering it by
"acquaintance? and have retained "familiar-friend? in the

1 Is. Ixvi. 17, LXX (v roTy -rrpodvpois.

'* Mk xiv. 68 rrpoavXiov (not elsewhere in N.T.), Mt. xxvi. 71 irv\o>v.

'I IK- Mime Heb. word means (Tromm. Index p. 127 b) 7rv\d>v (6),

(3) : and in another form TruXwpo? (28), 0vp<*p6s (2), TTV\T} (6).
4 Lk. ii. 44, xxiii. 49, yj/corrrdf.

P . Ixxxviii. 8, 18.

362

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

complaint "It was thou, a man mine equal, my companion,
and my familiar-friend 1 ." In Greek literature it is almost
non-occurrent in this sense, but in the Greek Bible, when
applied to persons and used as a noun, it appears to mean this
and nothing else "intimate-friend," "a person in one's bosom"
or "in one's counsels 2 ." Hesychius places it as parallel to
"brother 3 ."

If the Greek noun is to have the signification that it has
elsewhere in the Greek Bible, it ought here to mean Judas
Iscariot, described first, preparatively, as "known to the high
priest," and then as the "intimate partaker of the high priest's
counsels." Judas had made a covenant with the chief priests
to betray Jesus, and had arranged with them a plan by which
the arrest might be effected without disturbance. His comings
and goings during these negotiations might naturally give him
an entry io the High Priest's palace, and lay him open to the
Christian reproach that he, who should have been the "familiar
friend" of Jesus, had made himself the "familiar friend" of
Caiaphas. That was the way in which Christians might apply
the words in the Psalm "It was \ho\i... my familiar friend"
Concerning this utterance Jerome says "It was the saying of
Christ about Judas"', and Origen assumes it 4 .

1 Ps. lv. 13. rVoxrros- occurs also in 2 K. x. n R.V. "familiar
friends? A.V. txt "kinsfolks? marg. "acquaintance" Ps. xxxi. 11 "I am

become... a fear to mine acquaintance" These are the only instances
where yvcoo-ros represents "intimately-known [friend]." In Ps. Ixxvi. I
yva)<TTos...6 Bfos, and Is. xix. 21 "known to the Egyptians," it means
" renowned," " known as a conqueror." In Prov. xxxi. 23 " her husband
is known in the gates," LXX rrepiftXe-n-Tos, Sym. has yvoxrros. In Nehem.
v. 10 "likewise my brethren and my servants (Heb. lit. youths, lads}"
LXX has yvutvToi which makes better sense. The Heb. for " known "
and for "youths" might be somewhat similar.

2 Used absolutely it might mean "noble" or "renowned." Nonnus
has (i) yvurbs, (2) apidi/W, (3) edrj^ovos, as quoted above, p. 356, n. 2 ;
also see Jerome Epist. 127 5, "John was of noble birth and known to
the high priest."

3 Steph. Thes. also refers to Cyrill. Lex. Ms. : yix<rrovy, d8f\<t>ovs.

4 Ps. lv. 13 (Gesen. 394 b} Vulg. " notus" on which however Jerome

363

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

If Judas brought Peter into the court of the High Priest's
palace, that will explain a difficulty in the following :

Mt. xxvi. 69

Now Peter was
sitting without in the
court : and a (///. one)
maid came unto him
saying, Thou also
wast with Jesus the
Galilaean.

Lk. xxii. 56

And a certain
maid seeing him as
he sat in the light
[of the fire] and
looking stedfastly
upon him, said, This
man also was with
him.

Mk xiv. 66 7

And as Peter was
beneath 1 in the court,
there cometh one of
the maids of the high
priest; and seeing
Peter warming him-
self, she looked (lit.
looking - attentively)
upon him and saith,
Thou also wast with
the Nazarene, [even]
Jesus.

What reason had the maid for bringing this charge ? None
is given by the Synoptists. Mark and Luke suggest one by the
words "looking-attentively" and "looking-stedfastly upon him,"
as though she had seen him before. But they have not told
us when or how she had seen him before.

(inter alia) says, in the person of Christ, " Quia me, per legis mysterium,
cognovcras esse venturum? as though it meant "knowing" and on "dux"
he says ''dux dicit, propter quod Christum tradidit, ditx mortis fuit" It
is quoted by Origen (Lomni. ii. 440 i) to shew that Judas once loved
Jesus (comp. ib. iv. 403).

1 "Beneath," ro>. Comp. i K. vi. 8 R.V. txt "middle? but R.V.
marg. "Sept. and Targ. have lowest" Trommius 3 Index p. 131 gives
consecutively (i) a word frequently meaning KOTO, Karwdfv &c., (2) a word
regularly rendered "middle? pea-os (7 times) but Trfpio-rvXoi/, "portico,"
once, and vrroKdrwde v, " below," once (as in I K. vi. 8). Korco occurs only
9 times in N.T. (setting aside Jn viii. 68). Its use by Mark alone here
affords an additional proof of a Hebrew original. Probably the Marcan
" below" like the Lucan " midst? originated in a poetic thought. Simon
not only in the midst 0/" temptation, but also sunk or sinking in it,
beneath the waters of Sheol, comp. Sir. li. 2 foil., where the writer praises
(,<>(! for deliverance "from flames of a fire not blown," "from cunning
lips, and from temptations in which, he says, "my soul drew near unto
death and my life to Sheol beneath (ca'ra>)." Kara), in N.T., is not used
metaphorically except in Jn viii. 23, "ye are from beneath (*car<o)."

364

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

On the other hand, if this (R.V.) "maid" was really "the
portress" and if she had often admitted Judas before to the
palace while he was arranging his plans with Caiaphas, and if
she now admitted Peter along with Judas, and as a companion
introduced by Judas, then the "maid's" reason is easily
explained, even without Mark's and Luke's "looking-atten-
tively " and " looking-stedfastly 1 ." The " friend " being a
disciple of Jesus, it was natural that the maid should think
Peter, too, a disciple, and perhaps, like Judas, a traitor in
the High Priest's pay. And she says, either when she lets
him in, or, more probably, a little afterwards, "Can it be that
thou, also, (like thy companion) art one of this man's disciples?"

Here we must note that all the four Evangelists have the
significant "also" ("Thou also" or "This man a/so") although
the Fourth Evangelist alone gives us something to explain its
insertion. It means "thou also like thy companion" Without
mention of a companion-disciple, "also" is not capable of any
natural explanation 2 . This favours the Johannine narrative.
But it also favours the view that the companion was Judas
whose comings and goings of late had made him familiar to

1 " Looking attentively (e'/z/3X<f\//-a<ra) " and " looking stedfastly," how-
ever, may not be superfluous if they refer to the action of the portress,
when seeing Peter for the second time. At first, while admitting Peter
under the protection of " the high priest's friend," she may have simply
noted his face, but said nothing. Later on, coming near Peter, she
recognises his face by the light of the fire and addresses him.

2 That is to say, if the portress had not known of the presence of
another follower of Jesus in the palace, she would have said to Peter
simply " Thou art one of the man's followers." But having just admitted
Judas, she naturally says to Peter " thou, also" Origen says, mystically
(on Mt. xxvi. 69) " Forsitan autem et quicunque est in atrio Caiaphae
principis sacerdotum, non potest confiteri Dominum Jesum, nisi fuerit
egressus ex atrio ejus...." Most unfortunately, Origen's commentary on
" the disciple that was the friend of the high priest " is lost. But we may
infer from these words that, in Origen's opinion, " the disciple " whoever
he may have been "could not confess Jesus" as long as he was in the
palace. Is this easily reconcilable with the view that it was " the beloved
disciple"?

365

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

the " portress" and not John, whom we can hardly suppose
to have been recently cultivating the acquaintance of Caiaphas
with special assiduity.

In a previous treatise an explanation has been given of
the prominence given by Luke to the phrase "into the midst"
and of the phrase "lighting the fire around" Luke thinks of
Peter as one "in the midst" of a fiery trial, a "burning" ap-
pointed "to try" the soul 1 .

Historically, it is possible to combine an original "into the
midst" or "in the midst" with an original in which Judas, not
being deemed worthy of any other title, was called "that one
of the disciples who was the high priest's bosom friend*" It
is conceivable that Judas, distracted by contending emotions,
after first leaving Peter at the door of the palace and going
up to watch the trial, rushed back again and brought Peter in
perhaps even, as Nonnus says, taking him by the hand 3
and there left him, in the midst of the guards and servants, to
take his chance. Meantime, Judas hurried back again into

1 See Son of Alan 3369 ^ <?, quoting i Pet. iv. 12 14, and Acta
Petri 7, where Peter says he was "driven mad by ' the devil.' " Comp.
Nonnus (on Jn xviii. 25) aXvav.

2 Comp. the curious phrase in Mk xiv. 10 "Judas Iscariot the one of
the Twelve." Here 6 els robi/ ScbSexa seems to mean " the member of the
Twelve that was unique in betraying Jesus." There is also perhaps an
allusion to Christ's prediction (Mk xiv. 18, Mt. xxvi. 21) " One of you shall
betray me" (comp. Jn vi. 70 " One of you is a devil") so that it might
mean " the one of the Twelve that was pointed out by the Lord." The
parall. Mt. xxvi. 14 drops "the" before "one." The parall. Lk. xxii. 3,
"Judas, who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the Twelve? is
perhaps a paraphrase, meaning that he was that single exception who
though " of the number of the Twelve," was not really to be called thus,
but only " Iscariot." Compare the following parallels (i) Mk xiii. i "one
of /i is disciples? Mt. xxiv. i "his disciples" Lk. xxi. 5 "some" where
"on*" might denote Judas Iscariot impressed by the splendour of the
Temple ; (2) Mk xiv. 4 "some? Mt. xxvi. 8 " the disciples? Jn xii. 4 "Judas

.t, on,- of his disciples, he that was to deliver him up."
I lut sec Indices to Diatcssarica pp. 21 2, shewing that the confusions
between "grasp-with-the-hand (THK)," "one (IRK)," "another (in) " &c.
arc very frequent.

366

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

the judgment-chamber to witness the result of the trial per-
haps still not without some faint and sudden hope that, after
all, Jesus would be forced to resort to His miraculous powers,
or would, at all events, somehow escape death. Matthew
places the suicide of Judas as happening "when he saw that
Jesus was condemned," so that his remorse and death (in
Matthew) closely follow Peter's penitence. According to
Matthew, therefore, the two Apostles if Judas was "the high
priest's friend" were together almost up to the last moment
of the life of the betrayer. The motives of Judas in leading
Peter into a position of sore temptation may not have been
malignant. They may even have been friendly. But, friendly
or not, they turned out badly for Peter.

The same thing must be said, so far as concerns the
result, if the unnamed disciple was not Judas, but that one
of the Twelve whom Jesus specially loved. His action
"turned out badly for Peter." And does that seem an
event likely in itself, or likely to be picked out for record by
the author of the Fourth Gospel though passed over by the
Three? The more we reflect on the consistent conception of
the quiet, thoughtful, and retiring character of the beloved
disciple in the Fourth Gospel, the more difficult shall we find
it to believe that he was an intimate friend of Caiaphas, or
that he was made the instrument of plunging Peter into
temptation by his impulsive conduct, or that the author of
the Fourth Gospel intends us to believe this. Perhaps Origan's
instinct led him right when he said, in his mystical fashion,
that it was " impossible for a disciple of Christ to confess
Jesus while he was in the palace of Caiaphas 1 ." If Origen
really meant this even mystically would he have accepted
our modern view, that, at the very moment when Peter was
in that palace, the beloved disciple was also there, and not
only there, but there in the character of "the friend of the

1 See p. 365, n. 2.
367

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

high priest" who had been, for days past, plotting his
Master's death?

On the other side it may be urged that if Origen had
believed the " other disciple " to be Judas, some record of his
belief would have been preserved by other early commentators.
But why ? The belief of Augustine, that the " other disciple "
was not John, but some unknown person, does not seem to
have been preserved by other early commentators. Jerome's
view that John was "of noble birth and known to the High
Priest " indicates an early and desperate conjecture to explain
an obscure passage that may well have received many early
explanations not all of which have survived 1 . Such as have
survived teem with inconsistencies. Chrysostom first says
that it was " a great moral triumph " that the disciple followed
Jesus when the others deserted ; but then he adds that the
Evangelist said that he was an acquaintance of the High
Priest, " so that no one should wonder at his following, or pro-
claim his praise for his bravery'*?'' Ammonius the Elder says
"John went in with Jesus, along with the multitude in the
character of one unknown \to the High Priest], and then in the
character of one known [to the High Priest], spoke to the
portress and brought in Peter 3 ." The whole of Jerome's
laboured explanation, quoted above, shews that kind of

1 According to Jerome (Letters cxxvii. 5, ed. Wace and Schaff, p. 255)
it was because John "had renounced both rank and wealth" that Jesus
"loved the evangelist more than the other disciples. For John was of
noble birth and known to the high priest, yet was so little appalled by the
plottings of the Jews that he introduced Peter into his court...." Would
not one have supposed that instead of "yet n which I have italicised
Jerome would have written " and consequently " ? And had not John's
elder brother, James, also "renounced both rank and wealth," so that,
according to Jerome's view, Jesus should have loved James "more than
the other disciples"?

2 "A .<,'/<<// moral triumph" p.eya tcaropdapa, but Cramer " a very
'/ 1^'ondcr" ptyio-Tov 0avp.a.

< Miner ad loc. 2vv(i(rr)\6(v 6 'iwcii/i/^y rep 'l?;o-oC p.*Ta TOV o^Xou
*<u TOT* an- yrcooror e^Tre rr/ 6vpu>pq>, KOI fl<rr]V(yK TOV Ilerpov.

368

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

incoherence and inconsistency which vacillates between a
" nevertheless " and a " therefore."

I have not been able to find any references to this passage
in Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. If none
can be found, there is little basis for inference as to what
Alford calls the " universal opinion," so far as concerns the
Ante-Nicene Fathers. But Augustine's dissent from that
"universal opinion," when combined with Origen's remark on
the impossibility for a disciple of Christ to confess Jesus while
he was " in the palace of Caiaphas," appears to me to go some
way toward demonstrating that in the first three centuries the
modern view was by no means " universal," and that Origen
as well as Augustine, dissented from it.

In concluding these remarks on the Johannine account of
Peter's Denial it may be well to add that, although the evidence
rather favours John against the Synoptists, it must not be
inferred that this favourable judgment extends to all the
details and still less to the context. As regards the Johannine
"portress" we are able to point out, not only that her introduc-
tion illuminates the whole of the Synoptic narrative, but also
that there are verbal grounds for preferring it to the parallel
Lucan insistence on the trial of Peter "in the midst" of his
enemies. For we have seen that, in Samuel, modern scholars
prefer the LXX "portress" to the actual reading of the
Hebrew text "in the midst" Yet in the preceding Johannine
context there occurs a detail to which attention will be called
in due course, where John seems to have mistaken the "going
backward" and "falling away" of the disciples, at the moment
of Christ's arrest, for the "going backward" and "falling to the
ground" of the Roman cohort.

In view of the palpable sources of the misunderstanding
A. B. 369 24

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

noted below 1 , comment on this " going backward " is needless.
John appears to have made a great mistake. But it is nothing
more than a mistake. .It is a misinterpretation of two or
three words, every one of which can be shewn to have been
ambiguous. There is no solid ground for basing on his error
the charge of indifference to fact. But there is ground, here
as elsewhere, for concluding that no tradition, of any Evan-
gelist, should be accepted "on the authority of that Evangelist
alone, without examining its relation to Evangelistic traditions
as a whole. These, as being Greek writings or translations,
must of course be criticized as Greek. But this is only a
secondary aspect. Primarily they are to be interpreted as
the product of Hebrew and Jewish thought, and in the light
of that "scripture" to which Jesus constantly refers.

1 Mk xiv. 50 Mt. xxvi. 56 Lk. xxii. 53 4 Jn xviii. 6

And they (i.e. Then the dis- Omits. They (i.e. the

the disciples) all dp les all left him soldiers} went

left him and and fled. away backward

fled. and fell to the

ground.

(1) Mark's words seem clear enough to us. But Matthew, by adding
"disciples," faintly suggests that, in his opinion, some might take the
original of Mark's d^eWe? avrov as "[the soldiers] letting go their
prisoner." Luke, by omitting the whole, confirms the view that there was
some obscurity.

(2) " Left him," dfavres avroi>, is ambiguous, since it might mean
"[the soldiers] letting him go [for the time]," comp. 2 Chr. xxviii. 14,
i Mace. xiii. 16, 19.

(3) " Went backward," d-n-^XOav els ra OTTO, is ambiguous, since it
might mean that Christ's disciples went backward in the sense of falling
away, or deserting Him. It is actually so used in Jn vi. 66 dirrfKOov
fls ra oTTto-oj. Delitzsch has in both places the same Heb. (for o7riVa>) and
it is connected (Gesen. 30 b] with (i) revolt as well as (2) repulse.

(4) " Fell," eTTfo-ai/, is ambiguous, since the Hebrew regularly
rendered TT'LTTTW may mean " fall away," " desert," as in i S. xxix. 3
Jer. xxxix. 9. No doubt Mark's "fled? tyvyov, is clear enough. But
see Jer. xxxvii. 13 "fall-away," //'/. "fall," LXX here, and later on, ^fuy^
Aq. TrtTrro), Sym. oro/oXfo.

(5) "To the ground," x a M m/ > i s added by John to 7ri7rr&> as it is by

370

THE DISCIPLE KNOWN UNTO THE HIGH PRIEST

the LXX in Dan. ii. 46. The LXX adds it merely for emphasis. Here,
in an obscure tradition, John had also motives of clearness.

John, as has been said above, appears to have made a great mistake.
But we shall make a still greater mistake if we suppose that so great
a writer has erred through mere love of such hyperbole as originated the
fanciful legend in the Acta Pilati of the Roman standards bowing before
Jesus. John did his best to interpret what Luke had omitted and what
some early traditions had probably obscured and variously reported.
Biassed by idealism, he nevertheless did not invent, but interpreted a
Hebrew original in a new way. Historically he was not justified. But
he was justified by grammar as well as by conscience. And that is the
great point to shew that this extraordinary and most spiritual Evan-
gelist did not soar above earthly considerations of fact so far as he could
ascertain it.

ADDENDUM

A criticism of this Appendix (as Chapter II of Miscellanea Evan-
gelica (/)) by the Rev. J. B. Mayor, Litt.D., which reached me too late for
discussion in the body of this work, will be found, followed by my reply,
in the Expositor for Jan. and Feb. 1914.

Some of Dr Mayor's remarks appear to me to be based on a mis-
understanding of my view, as though I maintained that Judas really
was or was really supposed by the Evangelist to be the " familiar
friend" of Caiaphas. I had never intended to maintain this. My view
perhaps not expressed with sufficient fulness to be quite clear was that
Judas, at once the tool of Caiaphas and the partner of his plots, was
ironically called "the High Priest's fajniliar friend" with a bitter and
reproachful allusion to the treacherous " familiar friend" in the Psalms.
The Johannine thought seemed to me to be this : " Judas, who was chosen
to be familiar friend of the true High Priest, himself chose to be the
familiar friend of the false one."

I)r Mayor translates Mijpav (see p. 357) "customer" thus : "being,
from his trade of fishing, a well-known acquaintance of his customer,
the high priest (literally, 'the customary high priest')." The Greek
Thesaurus^ Hesychius, and Nonnus himself, afford no instance of this
meaning ; Hesychius explains it by <Tvvij0r}s : and trvvijBris, "companion,"
is used by Symmachus in Ps .lv. 13 " But it was thou...my companion and
my familiar friend" the passage where LXX renders " familiar friend "
by -yi/axrror.

371 242

APPENDIX III

THE INTERPRETATION OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

IN previous volumes of Diatessarica it has been shewn
that Hebrew poetic expressions, passing into Greek prose and
interpreted prosaically, might give rise to serious misunder-
standings. Recently the discovery of the Syriac poems
commonly known as Odes of Solomon, but perhaps better
called Songs of Solomon, has brought before Biblical students
two questions. The first is, " Are we to interpret these
particular poems as originally written in Syriac, or as coming
to us from a Syriac version of Hebrew, or from a Syriac
version of Greek ? " The second is of a general character,
" Will the different hypotheses of origin, in this and other
similar discoveries, make any great difference in the interpre-
tation ? "

In the Ninth Part of Diatessarica, a volume entitled Light
on the Gospel from an Ancient Poet, I gave reasons for
thinking that the Odes came to us from Hebrew. A contrary
view has been recently set forth by Dom Connolly with
great ability, and fortified by definite quotations of Syriac
expressions that appeared to him to correspond exactly
to expressions in original Greek 1 . Although I am unable
to agree with its conclusions, I am heartily grateful to
Dom Connolly who, in response to an appeal of mine for

1 The Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1913, pp. 530 8. Greek
the Original Language of the Odes of Solomon. By the Rev. R. H.
Connolly, O.S.B.

172

THE INTERPRETATION OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

facts, has adduced eight passages, besides repeating one
previously adduced, that seem to him to present " cogent
reasons for concluding not merely that the Syriac is a trans-
lation from Greek, but also that the Odes were composed in
Greek." It appears to me that the discussion of these
passages may be used to throw light on many obscurities
that await us in the interpretation of passages in the Gospels,
when we doubtfully ask ourselves, " Is this or that to be
interpreted, as Greek thought, logically and literally, or as
Jewish thought, poetically and metaphorically ? "

If my readers learn from Dom Connolly as much as
I have learned, they will be grateful to me for presenting his
arguments to them. I proceed to take first Dom Connolly's
eight new quotations, placing after them ( 9) the one pre-
viously adduced, and ( 10) a tenth, previously alleged by
Dom Connolly, but only briefly touched on in his last article.

I . " Without envy "

The argument from this phrase, for a Greek original, is
stated by Dom Connolly thus: "In Ode vii. 4 we read:
* He caused me to know Himself without envy in (or, by)
His simplicity....' Dr Harris notes that the Syriac expression
4 without envy ' stands for afyOoi'ws ; and to me it appears
that it evidently does so."

Later on 1 Dom Connolly quotes Dr Harris as saying "An
interesting example " of the Syriac phrase as a rendering
of d<f)06va)<; " will be found in Ode 1 1 v. 6, where we read
' speaking waters touched my lips from the fountain of God
without grudging' (i.e. abundantly 2 )." It will be observed that

1 Journ. Theol. Stud. p. 536.

2 Dom Connolly is quoting from Dr Harris' introduction to the second
edition, p. 47. In his textual rendering (second ed. p. 105) Dr Harris has
" plenteously." " Fountain of God " should be " fountain of the Lord,"
see p. 398, n. i.

373

THE INTERPRETATION

Dr Harris gets rid of the negation "without," and of the moral
thought of " grudging," by paraphrasing the two words as one,
" abundantly." Dom Connolly adopts this positive paraphrase
by adding, in words that I italicise, " Here the context requires
the really positive idea which afydovws expresses, but which the
Syriac does not express" Now I admit that d<j>06va)$ unless
used in special contexts which we shall consider later on
would naturally mean "abundantly" and nothing more.
Thucydides and Polybius use it of darts showered " abun-
dantly " on the enemy, and Athenaeus of cakes " abundantly "
soaked in honey 1 . That being the case, if I believed that the
Poet himself wrote in Greek using d^Oovws in its ordinary
Greek sense, I should say that " abundantly " (with a footnote
attached) was the best translation, and that "without grudging,"
though a literal rendering of the Syriac, misled the English
reader.

But if the Poet wrote in Hebrew then the aspect of the
phrase is completely changed. For then we shall have to ask
whether this is not one of many instances of Hebrew negative
thought about the gifts of God. They are given " with-not
(i.e. without} money and with-not (i.e. without) price " ; they are
" without repentance"; they are given by One who "upbraideth
not*" Ben Sira also says " Buy her [i.e. the truth] for yourselves
without money 3 ." It is as a climax of this Hebrew negative
contrast that Jesus says " Not as the world giveth give I unto
you 4 ." Philo writes in Greek but thinks in Hebrew when he
says " God is not a tradesman selling his goods at a profit but
a Being that would fain give all things, pouring-up (sic) the
everflowing streams of graces, not craving an exchange 5 ."

When Paul bids the Corinthians give " not grudgingly or
of necessity," he is but carrying on the Hebrew doctrine that

1 See Steph. Thes. 1(2)2651.

2 Is. lv. I, Rom. xi. 29 a/iera/iA7ra, Jas. i. 5.

ri Sir. li. 25 lit. "with-not money." 4 Jn xiv. 27.

'' I'liilo i. 161 "pouring up" =

374

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

God said to the Israelite " Beware that there be not a base
thought in thine heart. ..and thine eye be evil against thy poor
brother.... Thou shalt surely give him, and thine heart shall
not be grieved (lit. shall not be made evil) when thou givest
him 1 ." And all Christians know how Jesus emphasized this
ancient Hebrew warning that the " eye " of the true Israelite
must not be "evil-."

We shall shew, later on, that Philo and the earliest of the
Christian Fathers connect the thought of "grudging" or
"envy" with the thought of the Tree of Life in Paradise,
protesting that God did not "grudge" His best gifts to Man.
Passing over that for the present, we may here note that
" pouring-up streams " refers to the " stream " that " went up "
in Paradise (according to LXX and Philo) to water the earth 3 .
This (said Philo) was the Mind, the Controlling Power in
man, the source through which God dispenses to him His gifts
and graces.

Now a reference to the other uses of "without envy"-
which I will venture to render " without grudging* " through-
out the Odes, suggests that it is used in connection with a
Tree of Life or a Fountain of Life which the Poet regards as
being in the midst of Paradise. This Tree of Life is also the
Tree of Knowledge, the Knowledge of God Himself. As
regards the Tree of the Knowledge of good and evil, God
might be said by sceptics like Celsus to have broken His own
rule against "muzzling" the ox that "treadeth out the corn 9 ,"

1 2 Cor. ix. 7 p.Tj f< XvTrr/?, Deut. xv. IO (LXX) ou AUTI-J^O-// TJ/ Kapdiq
crou.

2 Mk vii. 22, Mt. vi. 23, Lk. xi. 34.

3 Philo i. 249, 573, quoting Gen. ii. 6 R.V. "mist," but LXX and

Philo irrjyrj, Aq. eVi/3Xu(rfior.

4 A different Syriac word is used in Ode vii. 23 "And hatred shall be
thrown from the earth, and together-with envy shall it be drowned (or,
sunk)."

6 Deut. xxv. 4. The Heb. verb for "muzzle" which occurs only there
(see Gesen. 340 , which rejects Ezek. xxxix. n) is identical with the Syr.

375

THE INTERPRETATION

and to have " muzzled " Man. For He placed it in the midst
of Eden and yet forbade him to eat of it. But as regards the
Tree of that higher Knowledge which is Life and which is
also God's Love, there is, for the disciples of the Messiah, " no
muzzling" or "no grudging." "Walk ye," says the Poet,
"in the knowledge of the Most High [that is] without grudging?
This the last instance of the phrase is to be explained by
the preceding one, "Put on [thyself] the good-grace of the Lord
{that is] without grudging, and come into Paradise, and make
thee a crown from His tree, and put it on thy head 1 ." This
is typical of Abraham (who abandoned the worship of idols
and of the stars and was "justified by grace") ; and so, too, is
a preceding instance " I have left the way of error and have
come to Him and have received from Him redemption [that is]
without grudging' 2 '" The same thought is expressed thus
under the metaphor of a fountain, probably regarded as being
in the midst of Paradise, " And speaking water touched my
lips from the fountain of the Lord [that is poured forth]
ivithout grudging*" Passing from these instances to the
earliest one of all, we find in them grounds for believing that in
this, too, the metaphor is somewhat, though not quite, similar.
The Poet seems to begin his poems with a conception of a
Tree of Life or Love, which is the Lord Himself and in which
human souls, the "members" of the Tree, " hang" as branches.
Ode i and Ode iii say " The Lord is on my head like a
crown, nor shall I be apart from Him... Thou livest upon my
head, and thou hast blossomed upon my head. Thy fruits are
full and perfect, full of thy salvation... 4 . I put on. And His

"envy" or "grudge." The noun-form occurs in Ps. xxxix. i R.V.
"a bridle," or, "a muzzle." * Odes xxiii. 4, xx. 7.

2 Ode xv. 6. On "[that is]," see p. 430 foil. In xvii. 12 "I gave my
knowledge without grudging," " without grudging " modifies " gave."

3 Ode xi. 6. Comp. Rev. xxii. i 2 "And he shewed me a river of
water of life...m the midst of the street thereof?

1 Here Ode i ends, probably incomplete. Ode ii and the first words
of Ode iii are missing. But we may infer from Ode xx. 7, quoted above,

376

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

members are with Him and in them do I hang... And I shall
not be a stranger 1 because there is no grudging with the
Lord...."

Dom Connolly then passes to consider the phrase " in His
simplicity" which follows " without grudging!' " Why," he
asks, " is the expression used ? If we translate it literally into
Greek we seem clearly to have the answer : (eV) rf) aTrXor^rt
avTov is 'in His bounty' (2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. II, 13 ; and ,7rX&5?
Jas. i. 5), and this is precisely what the context requires."
Similarly he would render the same Syriac word by " generous "
in Ode xxxiv. I where Dr Harris has " No way is hard where
there is a simple heart."

But even if we accept the hypothesis of an original Greek
ayrXoT?;?, we must not forget that it always implies " singleness "
as opposed to doubleness or duplicity. Dom Connolly refers
to 2 Cor. viii. 2 for the meaning of " bounty," but the context
shews that TO TrXouro? r/J? aTrXoTT/ro? avT&v must be explained
from ib. 5 " they gave themselves first to the Lord, and to us
through f/ie u'ill of God"' Origen explains Rom. xii. 8 6
/ueraStSoi)? ev t r nr\6rrjrt by saying (ad loc.) that a man must
not seem to be benefiting the needy while in his heart he is
seeking praise from men must not " seem to be doing one thing
with his hands, while he is really doing another thing in his
heart." That is to say, he must not be guilty of duplicity.
He must be singlehearted. And so elsewhere. In N.T.,
a-TrXoT??? never means " bounty " or " liberality," in the popular
sense of either word apart from " singleheartedness."

that the object of u put on " is, or corresponds to, a branch, or garland,
from the Tree. There is room, however, for more than one view. It
may be (as in the Pauline Epistles) "putting on" Christ, the New Man
&c., or it may be " putting on " the grace of Christ. And the " branches "
may be the fruits, gifts, or graces of Christ. See Light on the Gospel
3670 foil.

1 Comp. Eph. ii. 19 "no more strangers," where, as here, there is the
thought of "one body" on "the cross." But the Epistle passes on to
liken the body to a building ; the Poem likens it to a tree.

377

THE INTERPRETATION

I have given reasons elsewhere for preferring to render
the Syriac (a form of pshf] by some form of "single'' meaning
" singleness " in the sense of " singlehearted kindness to man or
love to Gocfi" without that latent streak of self-interestedness
which often makes a man "doubleminded." In this sense,
the Syriac /^/occurs in Christ's phrase about the "single eye 2 ,"
where Delitzsch has a form of the Hebrew torn (literally
completeness, soundness). The adjective tdm, applied to Jacob
in Genesis, is rendered by Aquila VXou9 3 . The longer form
of the root torn used by Delitzsch identical, when unpointed,
with what is called in R.V. Thummim is used in God's
precept to Abraham, " Be thou perfect'' and is rendered by
Aquila reXeto? 4 . Onkelos renders torn and tdmim by a
form of shalem. This, both in Hebrew and Aramaic, often
implies " soundness " in the sense of freedom from such
blemish or unsoundness as makes a thing not really what it
professes to be. In the precept, " Be ye therefore perfect*"
Delitzsch has a form of shalem*. In the two instances in
which ti7r\6rr)^ represents a Hebrew word in O.T. it does not
mean liberality, but " singlemindedness 1 ''

1 See Light on the Gospel 3760^, and Test. XII Patr. ed. Charles
pp. 103 5, on "singleness of heart."

2 Mt. vi. 22. 3 Gen. xxv. 27.

4 Gen. xvii. I, LXX /if/x7rro$-.

5 Mt. v. 48, see Son of Man 3482 a.

11 So ed. 1878. I am informed that in ed. 1877 Delitzsch has tdmim.

1 In 2 S. xv. 1 1, it means that the followers of Absalom were honestly
deceived, and had no dishonest purpose. In i Chr. xxix. 17, the LXX
means "in singleness of heart [and without desire to bribe the Lord or
receive reward} I willingly-gave all these things...." The Heb. has
" uprightness of heart." The first part of the verse says " Thou triest the
heart and hast pleasure in uprightness?' Not the "abundance" of the
offering but the "singlemindedness" is emphasized. Comp. the use of
"/''>;/' <"''' (a form of shaleni) in ib. 9 "with a perfect heart they offered-
willingly to the Lord," where Rashi says " With one heart they gave, with
a well-wishing mind, not with two hearts ; for there is a giver that gives
unwillingly (not a well-wisher) or because he is ashamed of others. And
such a man is called by the name of ' two-hearted? "

378

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

In support of his view Dom Connolly alleges Jas. i. 5.
This is rendered by R.V. " Let him ask of God, who giveth to
all liberally (avrXw?) and upbraideth not." Delitzsch renders
r/TrXw? by a form of the Hebrew word (nddab, " incite " or
" impel ") used by David in Chronicles, as above quoted, when
he says, about his preparations for the Temple, " I willingly -
gave (lit followed my own impulse in giving] all these things 1 ."
The Hebrew nddab is applied to those who "volunteer."
Nddib is a name for a " prince," because the profession of
a prince is to be a "volunteer" and take the lead for the
service of his subjects. Accordingly Delitzsch has " He giveth
to all with willingness and with {there-is'} no rebuking'' The
Hebrew used here by Delitzsch, for " rebuking'' occurs
among several instances of rebuking encroachments of various
kinds in Ruth, where Boaz says to his reapers " Pull out
some [wheat] for her from the bundles, and leave it, and let
her glean, and rebuke her not*." The picture of Ruth, the
stranger, amid the reapers of her future husband, treated as
a friend or native, and allowed to do something more than
ordinary "gleaning," and this without "rebuking'' may illustrate
the thought of a passage in the Odes where " no grudging "
occurs for the first time : " Dearly-love I the Beloved, and
[indeed] my soul loveth Him. And where His rest [is], there
also am I. And I shall not be a stranger, because there is
no grudging with the Lord [Most] High and [Most] Com-
passionate 3 ."

In concluding these remarks on the phrases " no grudging "
and " singleheartedness," I by no means go so far as to assert
that the considerations urged above prove that the poet wrote
in Hebrew ; but I do venture to assert that they effectually
meet the arguments alleged from these phrases to shew that
he wrote in Greek. And I think many will feel that the

1 i Chr. xxix. 17, quoted above.

2 Ruth ii. 16, comp. Gesen. 172 a. 3 Ode iii. 5 7.

379

THE INTERPRETATION

hypothesis of a Hebrew original, or at all events of what may
be called an undercurrent of Hebrew allusion, helps us to do
justice to the Odes as poetry. It is a poor thing to say that
God gives "abundantly," as compared with the saying that
He gives like a Father who "grudges nothing" that is for the
good of His children, in spite of their frequent ingratitude.
And to speak of God as " liberal," or as giving " liberally," is
less beautiful (as well as less Hebraic) than to speak of His
" heart " as being " single " in its love for man 1 .

We shall return to this subject later on, when we deal with
" Alleged translation from Greek words with privative alpha,"
shewing that Philo certainly, and the Book of Wisdom probably,
connected God's giving of the highest knowledge with the
thought of " freedom from grudging," in a very definite sense,
meaning a great deal more than that He gave " abundantly."

2. " Thou shalt not acquire an alien the blood
of thy soul" "

[Codex N inserts " by" before the noun interpreted " blood "
(or, by some, " price "). But, as Dom Connolly does not adopt
that reading, I pass it by. I have ascertained, however, that
the facsimile of Dr Harris' MS agrees with Codex N in
inserting " by." Dom Connolly was under the erroneous
impression that they agree in rejecting " by," and four of his
arguments those specified below as from a to d are based
on that error.

After this Section was in type, I heard from Dom
Connolly, to whom I had written on the subject, that his
mistake was caused, in part, by a somewhat obscure footnote
in Dr Harris' second edition. But still, as his allegations

1 See /./-/// on the Gospel 3718 foil, on "God's 'heart' and Man's
'faith,'" and 3999 A </ where it is contended that "The 'way' of 'the
simple heart'" lays an "emphasis on singleness of heart " which " illus-
trates other passages in the Odes mentioning the * heart ' of God."

2 Ode xx. 5 as quoted by Dom Connolly.

380

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

under the four headings are of general interest as bearing on
the relation between Greek and Hebrew thought, I have not
cancelled my observations on them.]

It is alleged by Dom Connolly that (a) " the blood of thy
soul " is merely the Syriac way of saying " thine own blood " ;
that (b) " acquire... soul " is a Syriac "translation of the Greek
oi>% efe^s (or the like) (iXXorpiov TO Ibiov alpa " ; that (c) the
Greek efct? meant " regard " ; that (d) the Greek alfia meant
" flesh and blood " so that the meaning was " thou shalt not
regard as an alien thine own (flesh and) blood" ; that (e) the
passage, with its context, alludes to one in Isaiah " When thou
seest the naked, that thou cover him ; and that thou hide not
thyself from thine own flesh" (R.V.), where "for the second
clause the LXX has /cal diro rwv oliceiwv rov crTrep/zaro? aov
oi>x vTrepo^frrj " ; that (/) a later verse in the Ode alludes to
the same passage in Isaiah; that (g) the Ode and the LXX of
Isaiah both mention l< fatness," where the Hebrew of Isaiah and
the Syriac of Isaiah have a different word. The conclusion is,
" If then the Odist is dependent on Isaiah here, he must have
used the LXX : in other words, this Ode was composed in
Greek."

These arguments deserve careful and separate examina-
tion. If they were sound, they would seem to me to establish
the conclusion that " the Ode was composed in Greek." But
most or all of them appear to me to be unsound.

(a) " Thy blood " occurs, in Hebrew, thrice, in the phrase
" thy blood be upon thy head," and " the dogs shall lick thy
blood," and several times (in different contexts) in Ezekiel.
In not a single one of these instances is it rendered in
Walton's Syriac by "the blood of thy soul 1 ." It is therefore,

1 2 S. i. 16, i K. ii. 37, xxi. 19, Ezek. xvi. 22, xix. 10 &c. See
Mandelkern p. 298. According to my view, the Syriac of the Odes is a
very early and pre-literary rendering of Hebrew, so that the Syriac of
O.T. is peculiarly well adapted to illustrate the Syriac of the Odes.

381

THE INTERPRETATION

to say the least, unsafe to say that the Syriac phrase here is
" merely the Syriac way of saying * thine own blood '."

(b) The Syriac " acquire " is said to be a translation of
the Greek ef ets which meant " have " in the sense of " regard "
but was wrongly taken to mean " have " in the sense of
" acquire." But the Syriac Thesaurus, though it gives multi-
tudes of instances of " acquire " as a rendering of e%o>, gives
none, as far as I can find, where the Greek means " regard."

(c) In the few instances in N.T. where e^'co means
" regard," the Syriac does not use the word " acquire 1 ."
Moreover a later Ode, using a different word for "regard,"
has " I was regarded by them as a stranger" as though to shew
that, if the meaning had been " regard as a stranger" the
translator knew other words to express it 2 .

(d) The Greek al^a may be used in various adverbial
phrases to denote blood-relationship, but the use of the noun to
signify a blood-relation would seem to be rare and highly
poetical. Indeed we should have to pronounce it non-
existent, if we trusted in Stephens' Thesaurus. It quotes no
Greek instance at all, but only Virgil's "projice tela manu,
sanguis meus*"

1 See Mk xi. 32 and parallels, also Lk. xiv. 18, Philipp. ii. 29, Philem.
17. The sentence "[Thou] that possessest things impossible [as]
possible" quoted by Dom Connolly from the Syriac 'Anaphora of
St James' seems to me having regard to the Hebrew use of "possess"
or "purchase" in a sense approaching to "create," "bring into being "-
intelligible as it stands, "Thou that dost call into being things [that
men would have called] impossible." No doubt "create" would be a
more usual and obvious word than "purchase"; but "purchase" has
associations (Gesen. 889 a) with God's victorious redemption that would
make the word appropriate here.

2 Ode xvii. 6. The word there used for " stranger" is a form of ^evos,
different from the word in the passage under consideration.

The Thesaurus wrongly says " Sed tamen et pater filium vocat
Minyjuncin suum, Ut Od. rr. 300 ft ereov y e'/ios eVai KOL at/xaro? r)p.Tepoto." It
;uUls, however, the correct translation " e meo sanguine? and then quotes
Virgil Acnt'id\\. 836, and vernacular Italian, " Sangue inio"

382

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

It is asked, " Does not this phrase in itself involve a
Grecism ? Is there any Hebrew authority for the use of
' blood,' like ' flesh,' in the sense of kith and kin ? " To both
these questions the answer is negative. First, it does not
involve a Grecism ; secondly, there is no Hebrew authority
for the use of blood to mean kith and kin. But the conclusion
should be " Therefore we must render ' tfie blood of thy soul'
here as having nothing to do with ' kith and kin'" It might
allude to some phrase where the shedding of blood is implied
such as that in Genesis, where both the Hebrew and the Syriac
insert "souls," " Your blood, \the blood belonging, or, according}
to your souls, will I require 1 ."

(e] " A general parallelism " is said to be indicated
between Isaiah Iviii and Ode xx. " The unacceptable fast "
and the conditions for an " acceptable fast," in the Prophecy,
are placed as parallel to "the acceptable sacrifice" and the
conditions for it in the Ode. Then it is said that " there is
a good deal more than this general parallelism," and the texts
are put side by side to shew it :

Isaiah Iviii. 7 Ode xx. 5, 6

"When thou seest the naked, 5 "Thou shalt not regard as

that thou cover him ; and that an alien thine own blood, neither

thou hide not thyself from thine shalt thou seek to devour thy

own flesh " (R.V.). neighbour, 6 neither shalt thou

deprive him of the covering of
his nakedness."

Then it is inferred, first, that the Odist is borrowing from
Isaiah, and subsequently (from the context in the Ode and
the context in Isaiah) that he is borrowing from the rendering
of Isaiah as given by the LXX which differs from the Hebrew.

Now of course a very important part of this "general
parallelism" and of these apparent coincidences namely, that
between " thine own flesh " and " thine own blood" altogether

1 Gen. ix. 5. The Syr. omits "to" and has "your blood that [is] of
your souls."

383

THE INTERPRETATION

disappears when we adopt the correct reading in the Ode as
above described, " acquire with the blood of thy soul!' Never-
theless it appears to me that Dom Connolly would have been
safe in inferring that the Poet had Isaiah in view. But I do
not think he is right in making Isaiah alone responsible for
what he calls "a momentary outburst of realism, in vv. 5 and 6,
which is quite unlike the Odist's usual manner."

Because the Poet had Isaiah in view, does it follow that
he had Isaiah alone in view ? There is a passage in Exodus
which Isaiah himself may well have had in view. It forbids
the Israelite to deprive his neighbour of his garment at night,
"for it is his only covering 1 ? And the context in that passage
implies a prohibition to "devour" one's "neighbour" by usury 2 .
I should add therefore that the Poet is probably looking back
to both passages, to the Law as well as to the Prophet. The
Law, in two respects, agrees more closely than the Prophet
with the text of the Ode. For the Law, like the Ode,
mentions sacrifice ; and the Law, like the Ode, is negative, not
positive. It begins by prohibiting sacrifice to strange gods 3 ,
and goes on to prohibit the affliction of strangers, widows, and
the poor. Isaiah makes no mention of sacrifice. But the
first four verses of the Ode (" I am a priest of the Lord... nor
thy soul do violence to soul ") imply that it is on righteous
sacrifice that the Poet bases his prohibitions of unrighteousness.

(/) It is suggested that the words of the Ode " and glory
[cod. N. His glory] shall go before thee 4 " allude to words
in the Prophecy " and thy righteousness shall go before thee."
But the thought is different. Whatever reading we may

1 Exod. xxii. 26 7 " If thou at all take thy neighbour's garment to
pledge, thou shall restore it.. .for that is his only covering? where the
Syr. for "covering" is the same as in the Ode.

2 Comp. Kxod. xxii. 22 " ye shall not afflict any widow," and Mk xii.
40 &<:. " devour widows' houses."

; Exod. xxii. 20 " He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord
only, shall be utterly destroyed."
4 Ode xx. 8.

384

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

adopt, the " glory " is presumably God's. And " God's glory "
is not man's " righteousness." The Poet seems to me to have
in view many passages where the Lord, or the glory of the
Lord, sometimes manifested in a pillar of fire or cloud, is
regarded as going before His people, e.g. "The Lord hath
made bare His holy arm.../^ Lord ivill go before you" and
" the glory of the Lord shall be revealed 1 ."

() A further allusion to the LXX of Is. Iviii is alleged
in the Ode's context, "come into His Paradise... and thou
shalt be fat in [the?] truth in the praise of His name 2 ,"
corresponding to Is. Iviii. IT LXX "and thy bones shall be
made fat (TriavO^aerai) and shall be as a garden well-watered
(fjbeOvwv) " where the Hebrew has " and the Lord shall make-
strong thy bones." From this agreement with the LXX it is
argued, and with great apparent cogency, " If then the Odist
is dependent on Isaiah here, he must have used the LXX : in
other words, this Ode was composed in Greek."

But it should have been added that Walton's literal
rendering of the Hebrew in Isaiah is " impinguabit," "will
fatten" And this is the first of three interpretations of the
word mentioned in Ibn Ezra's commentary on the passage.
Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus give three distinct
renderings. The LXX "fatten" is a fourth. The R.V.
"make strong" is a fifth. Why should not the Odist even
supposing that he was alluding to this passage in Isaiah
alone, and to no other similar passage in Scripture have
adopted that interpretation of the Hebrew which is placed
first by Ibn Ezra and (I am informed) by Kimchi ? Surely,
in the face of these facts, it is unsafe to say " he must have
used the LXX."

1 Is. lii. 10 12 andxl. 5. I should be disposed to add Is. Iviii. 8 "the
glory of the Lord shall be thy rearward."

2 Ode xx. 7 "His Paradise": so Dr Harris' English text, but his
Syriac, and Harnack's German, have "Paradise." Also "His name" is
an error for "His holiness"

A. B. 385 25

THE INTERPRETATION

I do not, however, believe that the Odist is alluding to
Isaiah alone. If that had been the case, I think he would
have given Isaiah's phrase in full, " he shall make fat thy
bones " or " thy bones shall be made fat " expressions found in
Proverbs and Ben Sira 1 instead of " thou shalt be fail'
Moreover, what is the meaning of " fat... in the praise of His
holiness " ? It seems to need some explanation not to be
gleaned from the context of Isaiah.

Now there are only two places in Scripture where the
adjective " fat " is applied to man one, in a neutral sense,
" the fat ones of the earth," but the other in a good sense
applied to the righteous man who is as it were "fat'' and
flourishing, to tJie glory of God : " They shall still bring forth
fruit in old age ; fat and green shall they be, to proclaim that
Jehovah is righteous*-" The latter is applied by several Jewish
traditions to Abraham. His "fatness" was to the glory of
God, and his connection with Paradise is recognised in
Luke's Parable of Dives and Lazarus, as well as in Jewish
literature in general and the Odes in particular 3 . The Psalmist,
then, and not the LXX of Isaiah, may very well have been in
the Poet's mind when he says to the soul, typified by Abraham,
" Thou shalt receive of His kindness and of His grace 4 , and
thou sJialt be fat in [the ?] truth in the praise of His holiness."
In any case the language does not necessitate, or even indicate,
a Greek original 5 .

1 Prov. xv. 30 (xvi. 2), Sir. xxvi. 13.

- r.esen. 206 b, referring to Ps. xxii. 29, xcii. 14 15.

3 See Light on the Gospel 3873 c, 3875 e. Comp. Ps. xxxvi. 8 " They
shall be abundantly satisfied with \\\z fatness of thy house ; and thou shalt
make them drink of the river of thy pleasures "apparently alluding to
Paradise as well as to the Temple (Light 38535).

4 See Light on the Gospel 3822. It is in connection with Abraham
that Clod's " kindness and truth " are first mentioned, and his name is
also closely connected with " grace."

1 Space does not admit of an attempt to shew how the words rendered
above "thou shalt not acquire an alien the blood of thy soul" might be

386

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

3. "And those that were silent became with speech^"

This is Dom Connolly's rendering of a sentence (in
Ode xii) rendered by Dr Harris : " And in the word \inelletha
here] were those that were silent." The Ode treats of the
Word. A previous verse called it pethgdmd, saying "the
swiftness of the Word (pethgdmd} is indescribable." The
present verse says "And by it [i.e. the pethgdmd~\ the worlds
spoke one to another, and " according to Dom Connolly's
rendering " those that were silent became with' 1 speech
(mellethd)." The words that I have italicised he explains
as meaning " acquired the power of speech, became vocal,"
adding " I am now confident that this is the true meaning,

interpreted on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original. I believe, but cannot
at present prove, that the text is corrupt, and that, if it could be restored,
it would imply a prohibition of the worship of "a strange god" (///.
''provoking with a stranger").

The following facts seem to me to point in that direction, (i) The
word used here for "stranger" is found (Thes: 2380) masc. in Deut.
xxxii. 16, meaning " strange [gods\" and fern, in Lev. xx. 2 5, meaning
"Molech" (2) In Dent, xxxii. 16 "they provoked him with strange [gods],"
the Heb. for "provoke" or "make-jealous" is the causative of tfjp. This
is confused with "acquire" (nip) in Ezek. viii. 3 by Theod. "the image of
the jealousy of the acquirer" (Heb. "the image of jealousy which-maketh-
jealous"\ and in Prov. iii. 31 by LXX "acquire not" (Heb. "envy not").
(3) Conversely, in Is. xi. n Heb. "acquire (i.e. redeem)" is rendered by
LXX TJ\OVV " be jealous for" (4) Levy C/i. ii. 372 a gives JOp (as well
as jp) as meaning "acquire" &c. ; and in Deut. xxxii. 6 "He that
possessed thee," where Onk. paraphrases with "thou art His (n^H),"
Jer. I and Jer. II have forms of fcp. (5) The causative of Heb. tfjp
occurs (Gesen. 888 ) only in four passages (Deut. xxxii. 16, 21, Ps.
Ixxviii. 58 and Ezek. viii. 3), and is, in each of the four, associated with
the thought of "strange [gods]," " no-god," "idols" &c. (6) A prohibition
of idolatry would accord with the parallelism noted above between the
Ode and Exod. xxii. 20 foil., which prohibits sacrifice to "any god save
unto the Lord only."

1 Ode xii. 8.

2 Dom Connolly adds, in a note, "The Syriac preposition 'in 3 may
also be translated 'by' or 'with,' as the context requires."

387 2 52

THE INTERPRETATION

and I believe that the Syriac of v. 8 b is merely an attempt at
translating literally /cal rd acfxova e^otva eyevero."

We must carefully distinguish this conclusion from one
that would accept the rendering " those that were silent became
in discourse, or converse" i.e. discoursed or conversed together
taking mellethd to mean Logos, in a somewhat different sense
(it is true) from pethgamd, but still Logos. Dom Connolly
(a) pins himself to <f)0)vij as the ground for (b) an assonance
between e/jb^xova and acfxova. " Similar assonances," he adds,
" emerge in the most obvious way," namely (c) Ode xxi. 3
" grace and joy," which he would trace to an original x fl P LV
KOL xapdv, an d (d) Ode xxx. 6 " And it (the fountain of
living water) came undefined and unseen..." where, he says,
" the italicized words are quite literally aoptcrro^ real aoparo?..."

(a) If mellethd were the rendering of $a>^, should we
not expect to find instances of this correspondence in the
Thesaurus? But in the vast space devoted (coll. 21 10 3) to
the noun, it is said to represent \6yos, pr^a, <f>6eyjj,aTa, \a\id,
and Xe'^49, but not once fywvi]. Now (frcovrj is to be sharply
distinguished from \6yos. The Fourth Gospel says that
John the Baptist is a <t>a)vr}, intending us to distinguish that
(f)a)vrj from the Ao709. Ignatius makes the same distinction.
As a martyr, in Christ, he will be (he tells us) a logos ; outside
martyrdom, he will be a mere " cry " or <f>a)vr) 1 . Except in
very special contexts, <j>a)vr} would not mean " speech " in the
sense of " converse " or " discourse."

What the Poet means is that those aeons which were once
silent, now at last, in the sphere of the redemptive Word, or
Logos, became themselves \oyitcot, or eV \6yw. The Fourth
Gospel says " Whatever is called into existence in Him,"
i.e. in the Logos, "was life." This Ode, distinguishing
between the creative Logos and the redemptive Logos, says
that the silent aeons " became in the Logos " in a new sense,

1 See Son of Man 3628 d.
388

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

namely, " in a harmonious concord or converse" something
very different from a mere fywvr) or " cry 1 ."

(b) As to the alleged assonance between e^tova and
a(f>(ova, it is disposed of, if the preceding paragraph is correct,
because the thought is not concerned with $wvr}. But we may
add that epfywvos, according to the Greek Thesaurus, is not
found in the sound text of any author earlier than yElian
(c. 250 A.D.).

(c) Ode xxi. 3 " grace and joy " is commented on as
being " exactly x<*P LV Kai % a P^-" But are such assonances
characteristic of the best Greek religious poetry ? The LXX,
at all events (which Dom Connolly believes to have been
used by the Odist) though it contains many beautiful
combinations of %pt? and of ^apa with other words, never
combines the two 2 .

4. " / believed, therefore I was at rest* "

On this passage Dom Connolly says " I find it hard to
believe that we have here a purely accidental coincidence
with the LXX." His argument is as follows : " The Ode
says, ' I believed, therefore', in the same Syriac words which
translate eV/o-reuo-a 816 in 2 Cor. iv. 13 (= Ps. cxv. I 4 ); while
in the Psalm neither the Hebrew nor the Syriac version of it
expresses ' therefore '."

1 See Johannine Grammar 2596. And note Rom. xii. i and i Pet.
ii. 2 Ao-ytxoy, and Justin Martyr's frequent assumption that God, through
the Logos, has made men \oyi<oi (e.g. ApoL 10) with a view to their
redemption.

2 Another assonance is suggested, dopiaros <ai doparoy, as the original
of Ode xxx. 6 "[the fountain of living water] came undefined and unseen?
'AO/HO-TOJ is not among the score of epithets of the Spirit in Wisd. viii.
223, and it does not occur in the LXX, the N.T., the Apostolic Fathers
or the Apologists. It is also often used in a bad sense. But I have
found it in Clem. Alex. 857 applied to the love of God as being " unlimited."
Thes. Syr. 2550 gives the Syriac word, with neg., as aircipos and perhaps
dirfpavTOS, but not as ezopioroy.

3 Ode xxviii. 4. 4 Ps. cxvi. 10 in Heb. and R.V.

389

THE INTERPRETATION

But there are special circumstances to be considered. The
Syriac of the Psalm has " I believed and I spoke." Aquila has
" becattse I shall speak." Field renders the Hebrew " etiamsi
dicerem." Rashi has " when I spoke " (as also has R.V. marg.).
R.V. text has "I believe, for \ will speak." These facts suggest
that the writer may be alluding to the quotation, not as being
in the LXX, but as being in an interpretation of the Psalm
one among many interpretations familiar to Christians
through the second Epistle to the Corinthians, as though the
writer said to himself, " The Apostle says that he believed
and therefore he burst forth into speaking ; but ' speaking '
must be under the control of the Holy Spirit which must
rest on the speaker ; so that one might also say ' I believed
and therefore I attained rest 1 '."

It may be argued that a Christian poet, writing in Hebrew,
would not be likely to follow Paul in misquoting Hebrew
Scripture. But he is not " misquoting " ; he is alluding and
deliberately varying. We must try to understand the Jewish
traditions about " believing " and " resting." They are worth
noting here as they bear on other passages in the Odes which
connect "belief" with "a song-of-glorifying," and in which
we find, latent or expressed, the thought of crossing " great
rivers " or passing along a " way " that is " levelled " for
" believers " by the Lord in other words, allusion to the
crossing of the Red Sea and the Jordan 2 . The two acts of
" crossing " were emblematic of a typical " entering into rest,"

1 For an allusion in Ode vi. 17 to a phrase used in i Thess. v. 12 see
Light on the Gospel 3747 h.

2 Comp. Ode xvi. 5 " I am strong in His song-of-glorifying, and there
is to-me belief'm Him" with xli. i " A song-of-glorifying to the Lord [will
be uttered by] all His offspring, and they will (?) pour-out-to-the-utmost
(or, collect) the truth of His belief" Also comp. xxii. 7 "Thy hand hath
levelled the way for them that are-believing in thee" with xxxix. 4 II
" those who cross them [i.e. great rivers] in belief are not shaken. ..and a
way has been appointed... for those who agree with (Harnack, zustimmen}
the Way of His belief."

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

partially accomplished by Moses, but completely by Joshua
(the first Jesus).

The Epistle to the Hebrews, after quoting from the
Psalms " that they should not enter into his rest" says " We
see that they were not able to ' enter in ' because of unbelief!'
Substitute "/" for "they!' a d take away the negatives, and
we have exactly our Poet's thought : "/ was able to enter
in because of belief" or u / believed, therefore I attained-rest^''
Many thoughts like these are collected in the early com-
mentary, called Mechiltha, on the words that precede the Song
of the Red Sea: " And Israel saw. ..and they believed in the
Lord and in his servant Moses. Then sang Moses and the
children of Israel this song unto the Lord 2 ." The Hebrew
" believe " means radically " make firm," " make stedfast,"
and the commentary collects instances where this connection
is indicated, as in Chronicles, " Believe (i.e. make strong) and
ye shall be believable (i.e. made-strong, R.V. established*}'.'
There is the same play in the Ode here: "I believed '; there-
fore (lit. because of that), I attained-rest : because believable is
he in whom / have believed'' This "belief" implies stability,
or " rest " ; and Mechiltha says that, as a reward for " belief"
Abraham " inherited this world and the world to come," and
" the Holy Spirit rested on Israel and they sang unto the
Lord."

These thoughts appear to me to have been in the Poet's
mind, when he wrote the words under discussion, " I believed,
therefore I attained-rest." He was not thinking merely of the
perplexing and disputed passage in the Psalm above quoted,
nor merely of Paul's quotation of it, but partly also of those

1 See Heb. iii. n iv. 10, which deals with "rest" and "unbelief."
Note, too, the Christian allusion to the first "Jesus" in iv. 8 " For if Jesus
[i.e. Joshua] had given them rest"

2 Exod. xiv. 31 xv. i.

3 2 Chr. xx. 20. R.V. finds the same play in Is. vii. 9 " If ye will not
believe, surely ye shall not be established."

39 1

THE INTERPRETATION

deep consequences of "belief" which were suggested by the
Jewish traditions concerning the belief of Abraham before
the birth of Isaac, and the belief of Israel at the Red Sea.
" Israel burst out into song," the Poet might say, " Yes, but
what followed ? The Psalmist says, * Then believed they his
words, they sang his praise, they soon forgat his works 1 ! Let
me rather think of Abraham, who ' believed', but did not
'forget! and who, as a reward, entered into the rest of
Paradise, * / believed, therefore also I entered-into-rest* '."

It may be objected that this is far-fetched : " The Poet
ought not to be supposed to have been consciously thinking of
the Jewish traditions concerning the belief of Abraham. He
was expressing his own inner experience, though naturally
reminiscences of tradition &c. might accompany the sense of
his own experience. To suppose more than this is to suppose
what is not natural." My reply would be : " True, it is not
' natural ' for us now. But it was ' natural ' then for a poet in
the first century, who not only called himself a son of Abraham
but also still, even in the light of the Messiah, looked back on
Abraham as the Rock of the Old Church, and as the first of
the Fathers through whose name God revealed Himself to
mankind, calling Himself 'the God of Abraham 3 '."

5. " Unto thee have I fled, my God*"

It is alleged by Dom Connolly that the Hebrew words for
"flee," and their Syriac equivalent, the word here used, are
not, so far as he knows, " used metaphorically of fleeing for
refuge to, taking refuge in, God ; they regularly denote a real

1 Ps. cvi. 12 13.

2 If it were asserted that, in this world, Abraham did not "enter into
rest," the spiritual Jew would certainly deny this, as he does in Mechiltha.
See Light on the Gospel 3867 "he was at home with God," even when
wandering in Palestine.

! Gen. xxvi. 24.
4 Ode xxv. i.

39 2

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

local flight " ; and he therefore asks " Is not this a translation
of TTpo? ere KaT<f)vyov (cf. Ps. cxlii 9)' ? "

But the Syriac word is used in the Hexapla as a rendering
of "Many nations shall flee (fcarafavgovTai) unto the Lord*."
It does not mean merely "flee," but "flee-away," and is
appropriately used of " fleeing-away " from the prison of a
cruel Master to the House of Freedom 3 .

On the supposition that the Odist is quoting from the
Psalm, we have to remember that the Hebrew "/ have hidden "
is quite exceptionally used with " unto thee." The Targum
paraphrases the clause ; the Syriac omits it. The LXX
tcartyvyov indicates that LXX read T1D3 as TCO " I fled"
The root of the latter (D13) is given by Trommius as meaning
(f>vyw 1 19 times and tcarafavya) 7 times 4 . If this is accepted,
then the Hebrew does here exceptionally use flee " metaphorically
of fleeing for refuge to, taking refuge in, God" and Dom
Connolly's objection falls to the ground 5 .

1 Ps. cxliii. 9, R.V. txt u t flee unto thee to hide me," marg. " Heb. Unto
thee have I hidden." Walton's Syriac omits the clause.

2 Zech. ii. 15(11).

3 The Heb. (Gesen. 530 i) is simply used of strangers "attaching
themselves " to the Lord in Is. Ivi. 3, Zech. ii. 15, Jerem. 1. 5. The Syriac
word used in the Ode, and in Zech. Hexapl., pulls out the notion of
deserting from heathendom. See Thes. 2997 quoting " ethnicos mores
aufugiemus" Jo. Eph. ccxxiv. 19.

4 This reading is preferable to nDH " seek refuge." Gesen. 492 a says
u<i nDD...is error for 'JVpn ace. to LXX <ar^vyov SS." It adds "but

non not constr. \vi. ~?8<." It might have added "and non is never
rendered <f)(vya> or Kara<pfvya>."

6 Comp. Prov. xviii. 10 "The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the
righteous runneth into it and is safe." To me there seems much con-
densed beauty in the Masoretic reading " I hid unto thee," but translators
would naturally paraphrase it.

393

THE INTERPRETATION

6. Why is the Greek word for " harp " always used
in the Syriac version of the Odes ?

This question is asked by Dom Connolly in order to
suggest the answer, " Because the Odes were written in
Greek." But the facts do not suggest that answer, if we do
not bind ourselves to a hypothesis that the Odist adhered to
some rule about the rendering of the two Hebrew words for
stringed instruments, nebhel and kinnor, in the Syriac version
of the Psalms, a rule that varies according as the two words
stand singly, or, as often, coupled 1 . The Odist never couples
such words. He uses but one word for harp, and this four
times, namely, a Syriac transliteration of the Greek KiOdpa.

This Syriac kithra is found in eight instances (or practically
five) in O.T. 2 In the first instance it represents the Heb.
kinnor t occurring in the passage describing Jubal's invention
of the "harp" and "pipe 3 ." There it seems to represent
stringed instruments as " pipe " represents wind instruments.
In Samuel, mentioning "psaltery (iiebhel), timbrel (toph), pipe,
and harp (kinnor)? Syr. has kithra for nebhel*. So it has in
the next instance, " Rejoice in the Lord, O ye righteous.... Give
thanks unto the Lord with the harp: sing praises unto him with

1 It may be added that Aquila and the rest differ both from the LXX
and from one another in their renderings of these words. Trommius
gives nebhel (in the musical sense) as KiBdpa (i), vd^Xrj (13), vav\rj (i),
vf{lf\ (2), opyavov (2), -^a\p.6s (i), ^aXrrjptov (7). In Ben Sira xxxix. 15
(? corrupt) " songs of nebhel and instruments of strings (?)," LXX has ev
tadals xiXe'a>i> <ai eV Kivvpais, Syr. " cum laudibus, gratiarurn actione, et
elata voce," in ib. xl. 21 "nebhel," LXX has ^a\Tijpiov, Syr. epodos from
the Greek cVudof (Thes. 331).

2 Thes. gives Gen. iv. 21, i S. x. 5, Ps. xxxiii. 2, Ixxxi. 2, Dan. iii. 5, 7.
Walton gives it also in Dan. iii. 10, 15. Dan. iii. 5 15 contains verbatim
repetitions, so as to be practically one passage.

3 Gen. iv. 21. The Pesh. Syr. renders "pipe" by kinndr, either mis-
rendering the text, or having a different text.

4 i S. x. 5. Syr. also has kinnor to represent toph, " timbrel."

394

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

the psaltery (nebhel) of ten strings 1 ," and in the next, "Take ye
up the psalm, and give [forth the sound of] the timbrel, the
pleasant harp (kinnor) with the psaltery (nebhel)*" On this
passage, the Mid rash on Te hi Hi in quotes a tradition of R. Asi,
quoted by Rashi as from R. Simeon : " Why is it called
nebhen Because it makes-foolish (i.e. stultifies, or puts to
shame, a form of nbl) all [other] kinds of music." Rashi
quotes this in a context that indicates a belief that the nebhel
represented a fuller and grander music than that of the kinnor.
In both of these Psalms, the music is not that of an individual
worshipper, but that of the nation. They are songs of Israel
full of allusions to the Exodus and to the passage of the Red
Sea latent for Gentiles but manifest to the most degenerate
Jew 3 .

I can see no reason why the author of the Odes should
not have used the Hebrew nebhel and the Syriac translator
rendered it as kithra. The Thesaurus (3613) gives a picture
of this kithra as an instrument with ten strings, and this suits
the general thought of the Odes, though we must not suppose
that the Odist alludes to it literally when he speaks of " a harp
of many voices 4 ."

1 Ps. xxxiii. i 2. A.V. "the psaltery [and] an instrument of ten
strings."

2 Ps. Ixxxi. 2.

3 Comp. Ps. xxxiii. 7 " He gathereth the waters of the sea as an Jieap"
(on which see Rashi) with Exod. xv. 8 "as an heap" and Ps. xxxiii. 17
"a horse is a vain thing" with Exod. xv. I "the horse and his rider"
(on which see Light on the Gospel 3795 a). Also note the reference to the
Exodus in Ps. Ixxxi. 5 " He appointed it in Joseph for a testimony
when he went out over the land of Egypt." See Philo (i. 3745)
who after quoting Exod. xv. i "the horse and his rider," enters into
the allegory of the "lyre" as denoting the harmony of the righteous
soul. And Clement of Alexandria (784) says that " the people that is
in the act of being saved" may be called a "harp," when "under
the inspiration (tir'nrvoiav) of the Word and the recognition of God,
it glorifies [God]."

4 See Light on the Gospel 3792 c. I have said little about the trans-
literation of Kiddpa in the Aramaic of Daniel iii. 5 15 because Levy gives

395

THE INTERPRETATION

7. Alleged translation from Greek words
with privative alpha

(a) The first of these is Ode xii. 5 " for the swiftness of
the Word is indescribable" lit. " without recounting." This
Dom Connolly identifies with aveK&itfyrjTos. But the Syriac
for " without " is really a form of the negative preceded by
the relative (" that not "), a form also frequent in New Hebrew.
The Syriac may sometimes be used, as will be seen below,
to express a Hebrew original like Ps. cxlvii. 5 " To His
[i.e. God's] understanding there-is-not number" though in that
particular passage the Syriac follows the Hebrew. The in-
stances of " there-was- not (or, there-is-not} number" are very
frequent in Hebrew. In very few of these does the LXX
use avaplBfjLrjro^ 1 . So frequent is the Hebraic phrase " there
is no number " that in the present passage we may regard it
as pointing to a Hebrew, as against a Greek, original. And
if it should be urged that "number" is not the same thing as
" recounting? we may reply that the Hebrew verb whence
" number " is derived means " count," " recount," " relate," and
that the noun itself is recognised by Gesenius as capable of
meaning " recounting" or " relation" 1 "

no reason to suppose that it could be used in Hebrew. Nor is there space
to discuss Joseph. Ant. vii. 12. 3 *7 P-* v Kivvpa fiexa ^opdals e^rjp,p.vrj rvTrrerai
7rAr/KTpa>, 77 5e i>a/3Xa 8d>8fKa (pQoyyovs e^owa rots da.KTv\ois KpoixTat. Is
there any difference between ^opSai and (pdoyyot? The Psalms speak of
"ten strings," where does Josephus find "twelve"? "Twelve strings"
would favour Clement's view that the " lyre " meant the " twelve " tribes
of Israel, the whole harmonious " people (Xaos)." But I have found no
such allusion.

1 This may be seen by comparing the numerous instances of "no
number" in Gesen. 7089 with avapiQ^ros and apiQpos in the LXX Con-
cordance. Sometimes the Heb. is preceded by "until" or "to," e.g.
i Chr. xxii. 4 "and cedar trees to there was no number," /cm gv\a Ke'Spiva,
OVK tfv dpitipos, where the LXX makes no attempt to render the preposition.

-' (/esen. 7079, quoting Judg. vii. 15 R.V. "telling," but Gesen.
"recounting," where the LXX has f^rjcriv, Luc. dtrjyrja-iv. This re-
sembles dvfKbiTjyrjTos, when stripped of its negative. On Ps. xix. i "the

396

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

Note the following instances of the Hebrew "there-is-
not " : Deut. xxxii. 4 " a God of faithfulness and there-is-not
iniquity" LXX /cal OVK ecmv aSt/cia, with v,r. additional eV
aura), Syr. et non est iniquus ; Jerem. v. 21 " hear ye this, people
foolish and (lit.) there-is-no heart" LXX a/capSios, Targ. and
Syr. as Heb., but Syr. substitutes the relative for " and" \
Ps. civ. 25 "creeping things and there-is-no number" LXX &v
OVK ea-rw dpiOfjios, Targ. as Heb., but Syr., without tv-riv,
" that-not " the form (" diet ") being the same as in Ode xii. 5 ;
Exod. xxi. II "she shall go out free there-is-no money" LXX
avev dpyvpiov, Onk. " with-not money," Jer. Targ. and Syr.
"that-not money" ; Jerem. ii. 32 "days there-is-no number" LXX
&V OVK ecrnv dptOpos, Targ. dld\ but Syr. rel. (" d") with
negative verb ; Hos. iii. 4 (rep. five times) " The children of
Israel shall abide many days, there-is-no prince, and there-is-no
sacrifice... " LXX rep. OVK oz/ro?, Targ. as Heb., but Syr. dla
^that-not"} as in Ode xii. 5.

These facts shew that the Syriac did \ though it may often
represent the Greek privative alpha in later Syriac literature,
cannot be relied on as representing alpha in any earlier
literature that may reasonably be supposed to be affected
by the Hebrew Bible. The weight of the Greek alpha is
altogether overbalanced by the weight of the Hebrew " there-
is-not"

Nor does the case for the Hebrew stop here. Less than
half of it has been represented. Gesenius (pp. 519 2O) 1

heavens are recounting the glory of God," LXX dnjyovvrai, the Midrash
(Wii. p. 171) implies that it cannot be "recounted," quoting Ps. Ixv. I in
the form "To thee silence is praise." Comp. Ps. Ixxi. 15 "My mouth
shall recount thy righteousness... for I know not the recountings" i.e. the
numbers thereof (Gesen. 708 b).

1 See also Gesen. p. 115 for instances of a preposition connected with
bat, " not," and with the thought of defect or failure, as in Ps. Ixiii. I
" a dry land without water." This word is accountable (Trommius, Heb.
Index, p. 19) for the alpha privative in dyvaxria (l), aKovo-i'eos (l),
aS/Kcoy (i), awdpos (i). In such cases, a detachable Syriac negative is
naturally to be explained as from Hebrew, not from Greek.

397

THE INTERPRETATION

gives a multitude of instances where the Hebrew "not"
either as " /<?' " or as bio 1 (" in-not " or " with-not ") is repre-
sented in phrases that have gone far beyond the limits of
the Greek alpha, e.g. "they made me jealous with a not-God"
"with a not-people" "rejoice in a not-thing" (i.e. a thing of
naught), "a morning not-clouds" (i.e. cloudless), "a waste not-
path" (i.e. pathless). In these cases LXX seldom has alpha
privative and often has a confused rendering. The Hebrew
use is especially frequent when the negative is preceded by
the preposition meaning " in " or " with," " in-not righteous-
ness," " in-not justice," " with-not price," i.e. gratuitously.

(b) Dom Connolly lays special stress on the phrase
"without (lit. that-not) grudging" in Ode xi. 6 translated by
Dr Harris (in the Introduction to his second edition, p. 47)
" Speaking waters touched my lips from the fountain of
God without grudging (i.e. abundantly} 1 ." Here, and in Ode
vii. 3 " He caused me to know Himself without grudging"
and xx. 7 "Put on the grace of the Lord without grudging"
Dom Connolly maintains that the Syriac is " quite inadequate
to express ' liberally,' ' freely,' " which he infers to be the real
meaning " from the requirements of the context and from the
literal correspondence of the Syriac phrase to afyQovws" The
Syriac expression, he adds, " is found as a translation of
a^>^o^09, puf>Q6v(0$, in 4 Mace. iii. 10. (afyOovovs Trrjyds), and
Wisd. vii. 13; and the crudeness of the Syriac in the former
case is paralleled by the passages in the Odes."

This argument appears to ignore the following facts,
(i) In special contexts, the Greek afyOovos, applied to
things, may mean "without grudging." (2) There is probably
such a special context in Wisdom, but not in Maccabees.
(3) Philo, as has been pointed out above, uses a<f>6ovos with
allusion to sayings of Plato about God's freedom from envy.

1 Dr Harris has " plenteously " in his text of the second edition
(p. 105), which also has (correctly) "fountain of the Lord" (not
"fountain of God").

398

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

(4) Philo, in connection with the Tree of Life mentioned in
Gen. iii. 22 " And now lest he [i.e. man] put forth his hand, and
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever," defends
God from the charge of "envy" or "grudging" (5) In Wisd.
vii. 13 " I learned without guile and impart her [i.e. Wisdom]
without grudging (a$Q6vw<s}" the English version, while giving
in its text "liberally," has in its margin, "or, without envy, as
in ch. vi. 23." The reference is to " I will bring the knowledge
of her [i.e. of Wisdom] into light, and will not pass by the
truth, neither will I go along with wasting envy." (6) Irenaeus,
replying to the question " Was not God able to bring forth
Man from the beginning perfect ? " says that He bestows
what is good "ungrudgingly^" (7) Tertullian apparently
following the thought noted above in Philo describes the
devil, in connection with the prohibition to eat of the Tree,
as representing that God "envied men the property of
divinity-." (8) Clement of Alexandria contrasts the Lord,
whom "envy does not touch," with "another," whom he
describes as " the envier" in allusion to God and the devil,
and to the eating of the tree 3 .

These facts should be combined with those in the Odes
where " no grudging" or " no envying" is connected with
"knowing the Lord" with " tlie speaking water from the
fountain of the Lord" with "putting on [oneself] the grace of
the Lord... and coming into Paradise, and making a crown
from His tree," and with " the knowledge of the Most High."
Thus combined, they seem to me to go beyond indication
and to approach demonstration. For the conclusion as to
thought, in this paragraph, must be distinguished from the
conclusion as to word, i.e. the verbal origin, whether Greek or

1 Iren. iv. 38. i 3.

2 Adv. Mar don. ii. 10.

3 See Clem. Alex. 832, on which see Mayor quoting Theoph. Aut. ii.
25 " not as though grudging ($6 ova>v} as some suppose did God com-
mand him not to eat of knowledge."

399

THE INTERPRETATION

Hebrew, of the Syriac negations above enumerated. As to
the latter, the verbal question, I do not assert that Hebrew
origin is proved, but I do venture to assert that Greek origin
is not proved nor even made probable. As to the former
the thought no doubt whatever is left on my mind that the
Poet is not thinking of an "abundant" or "plentiful" fruit of
knowledge, or water of knowledge. Like Philo and the author
of Wisdom, and the early Christian Fathers and like Plato
too he is exulting in the revelation that the All-sufficing
Father not only gives but also gives " without grudging!'

8. The use of the Syriac relative after substantives
to express possession. [See also 14]

(a) It is alleged that " in original compositions by the
best Syriac writers," a suffix would suffice to represent
possession, e.g. " my-right-hand " in one word. But the Odes
have, in at least one passage, " the right-hand that-is-to-me^"
This is a form that " should not be used (in cases where a
possessive suffix is grammatically possible) except to give
some sort of prominence to the possessor or to emphasize the
fact of possession."

(b) It is alleged that "there is no obvious reason for
emphasis ' my own ' here." This " indiscriminate employ-
ment after a noun, and equivalent to pov, avrov, in the same
position, is frequent in translations from Greek (though not in
the earliest) but is hardly met with in native Syriac works."

(c) It is then alleged that this usage in the Odes cannot
be explained from Hebrew : " I cannot think that a Syriac
translation from Hebrew of, say, the third or fourth century,
would have contained these anomalous constructions ; for
Hebrew has no detachable possessive particle and relies
entirely upon suffixes."

(d) Eight examples of this " unidiomatic use " in the
Odes are given by Dom Connolly.

1 Ode viii. 21, on which see pp. 401 2, n. 2, and below, 14.

400

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

(a) First, as to the style of the Odes, no one, I think,
maintains certainly I do not that their Syriac resembles
that of "original compositions by the best Syriac writers."
My view which I held subject to correction from further
evidence was that it is early Syriac of an uncouth and rudi-
mentary character, and not an " original composition " in
Syriac, but translated from Hebrew. The language of the
Syriac Odes appeared to me to present more resemblance to
the pre-literary Syriac Versions of O.T. than to literary Syriac ;
but on this point the reader is referred to 14 below.

(b} Secondly, as to "no obvious emphasis" in the
particular passage quoted above, I should be disposed to say
that the emphasis is as obvious and as characteristic as in
many passages of the Fourth Gospel where Jesus speaks of
" my sheep," " my peace," " my love," " my kingdom 1 ." The
context breathes of God's Fatherly appropriation of men as
His own :

" For I do not turn my face from my own. Because
I know them, and before they came into being I observed
them (or, reviewed them) and their faces [too]. [Yea]
I (empk.) sealed them (cmph.\ I (emph.) framed their
members, and my own breasts did I prepare for them, that
they might drink my own holy milk, that they might live
thereby. I was well pleased in them, and am not ashamed of
them. For my own work are they and the strength of my
designs. Who therefore will rise up against my work, or who
will there be that is not compliant with them ? [It was]
I [that] willed by my good pleasure and [thereby] formed
and fashioned the understanding and the heart ; and they are
verily my own ; and on my own right hand have I set my
elect 2 ."

1 Jn x. 26, xiv. 27, xv. 9, xviii. 36. In O.T. comp. Cant. i. 6 " Mine
own vineyard," better rendered in viii. 12 "Mine own vineyard, [the
vineyard] that is mine" It is appropriate in Songs of Solomon.

2 Ode viii. 15 21, as translated in Light on the Gospel 3797 817.

A. B. 401 26

THE INTERPRETATION

(c) In the next place, the statement that " Hebrew has
no detachable possessive particle and relies entirely upon
suffixes," though true, is liable to mislead if it causes us to
ignore the influence likely to be exerted on translations from
Hebrew by the Hebrew use of the relative with the dative
pronoun to denote possession. The Hebrew " qui [erat or est]"
with dative ("'as/ier-/'") is represented in New Hebrew by
shel, which corresponds in some respects to the Aramaic
and Syriac forms in which the relative d corresponds to the
relative s/i. The full Hebrew phrase is very widely used.
The instances given by Gesenius under the heading of the
Hebrew datival preposition all refer to sacred things appro-
priated to Jehovah, or to Aaron His priest, or to His altar, or
to Jehovah's people for whom a sacrifice is to be offered 1 .
Hence it might well be used in Hebrew Songs to express

" My own right hand" is capable of meaning " my own right hand which
is not like that of an earthly king." Somewhat similarly a distinction of
royalty is indicated by this construction of the relative in Hebrew, Targum,
and Syriac, but not in LXX, in the instructions given by David for the
coronation of Solomon (i K. i. 33) "Set him upon the mule that is mine
(lit. that is to me}" Here the LXX has (as one might expect) the redupli-
cated article, not the relative. But the Syriac follows the Hebrew, as also
does the Targum, only substituting for the Heb. 'asher-l respectively the
Syriac and Aramaic equivalents.

1 See Gesen. 513 b referring to Exod. xxix. 29, xxxix. i, 39, Lev. vii.
20, 21, xvi. 6, 15. In these cases, however, the ordinary possessive suffix
could not be used, so that the relative phrase was necessary. For others
see Gesen. 83 a, noting the correspondence of the Biblical ^asher-l to shel
which is "in habitual use" in New Hebrew, "as a mark of the genitive."

Schlatter, on Jn i. 41, r<w aSeX$6i/ rw iSioi/, calls attention to the
emphatic use of shel ("his own son and not another's") in Mechilt. (Wii.
p. 277, on Exod. xxi. 31 (Schl. by error xxi. 28)). In Aboth (ii. 2) " Rabban
Gamliel (lit.) his son [the son] that [belongs] to R. Jehudah ha-Nasi" is
perhaps unique (instead of the usual ben followed by the name of the
father). Has it anything to do with the fact that R. Jehudah (Taylor) "is
said (Kethuboth 103^)" to have nominated his own son to succeed him as
Nasi ? See below ( 12) for further details on shel, also Gesen. 979 on the
relative sh-, as being probably not an abbreviation but "an original
demonstrative particle," but "in usage, limited to late Hebrew" (not used
in the Prophets, exc. Jonah and Lamentations).

402

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

divine appropriation or possession as above mentioned, and,
if so used in Hebrew, it would naturally be retained in an
early literal Syriac translation 1 . Shel, with various suffixes,
occurs no less than thrice (e.g. shelli, " quod [est] mihi ") in the
short Song of Solomon, and probably once in the Song of
Jacob 2 . There is also an instance elsewhere of shel with 1st
pers. pi. suffix, meaning "[eorum] qui [sunt] nobis 3 ." It is
true that the use of shel in Solomon's Song is not an exact
parallel. For it supplements, and is not a substitute for, the
possessive suffix. Nevertheless it may prepare us for finding
in a first-century Hebrew original of the Odes of Solomon
somewhat strange combinations of Old and New Hebrew with
Aramaic idiom. But in any case the evidence of the LXX,
so far as it goes, points to the conclusion that in the Syriac
version, the use of the detachable possessive particle would be
in accordance with a development of Hebrew precedent, and
not derivable from anything correspondent in Greek 4 .

(d) I pass to Dom Connolly's eight instances of the
unidiomatic expression.

(i) Ode viii. 21 "and at my right hand." This has been
shewn above to mean " my own right hand," and therefore to
be in accordance with Syriac idiom. [But see p. 432 foil]

1 Besides i K. i. 33 quoted above, note 2 K. xvi. 13 " the peace offer-
ings that were his own," i.e. his own idolatrous invention, wjiere the Targ.
and the Syr. follow the Hebrew, but the LXX has the reduplicated article.
So, too, in Cant. i. 6, viii. 12 "my vineyard, that which is mine" (where
the Hebrew has the shorter form shel} the Syr. also has the relative and
dative, but the LXX has (i) e/nor, (2) /tou e/idy.

2 Cant. i. 6, iii. 7, viii. 12, Gen. xlix. 10 (on which see p. 428).

3 2 K. vi. ii " Who of [those] that [belong] to us [is] on-the-side-of
(//'/. toward) the king of Israel?" (Gesen. 513^).

4 Gesen. 980 , comparing Heb. shel with the corresponding Syriac,
quotes Lk. vi. 42 " my words," as having the emphatic possessive " my
words that are to me." This must be an error for Lk. ix. 26. But there
Walton gives only the ordinary suffix, and Burkitt gives "ashamed of me,
before men, and of them that are mine'' In the parall. Mk viii. 38 Burkitt
gives the ordinary suffix. In Jn x. 26, xiv. 27 c. SS has the detachable
suffix, but omits it in other places where the emphasis would justify it.

403 26 2

THE INTERPRETATION

(ii) Ode xi. 18 "in thy land." The right rendering is
" in the land that is thine own'' There is a contrast, through-
out the Ode, between " the folly that is diffused over the earth"
man's abode, and the fruitfulness of the abode prepared above
by God, God's own abode, or "Paradise" called "thy Paradise,"
"His Paradise." This contrast finds expression here. It is
said of the evil and corrupt, " They have changed from dark-
ness into light. . .from wickedness to the pleasantness that is thine
own ; and they turned away the bitterness of the trees from
themselves as soon as they were planted in the land that is
thine own 1 ."

(iii) Ode xii. 4 " of thy beauty." " Thy " is an error for
"his," and Dr Harris's rendering "His own beauty" appears
to me to express the Poet's emphasis on the contrast between
the beauty above and the beauty below, and also the feeling
that all true beauty comes as God's " own " gift.

(iv) and (v) Ode xvii. 12 13 "in my love" and "my
blessing." The Messiah is here speaking describing Himself
as "the door of everything," and as going to "loose" the
"bondmen" whom He calls "His" ("my bondmen"). In
such a context, both of the alleged phrases appear to be
parallel in their emphasis to Johannine emphatic phrases,
such as " the peace that is mine " and " the love that is mine,"
which might be rendered by the emphatic Syriac form in
question 2 . Ought not these parallelisms to lead us to reflect
that perhaps the same reason that makes the emphatic

1 In Jn xvii. 17 '''thy word (6 \6yos 6 o-os) is truth," Syr. Walton (but
not SS) has "thy word [the word] that [is] thine."

2 Jn xiv. 27 elpTjviyv rfjv /i^v, SS and Walton "peace [the peace] that
[is] mine." So Jn xviii. 36 (Walton) "my kingdom [the one] that [is]
mine" (SS missing). But in Jn xv. 9 (Walton) "my love [the love] that
[is] mine," SS has "my love." Jn uses e'pir in these passages with the
article. But it is without the article in Jn iv. 34 f^v /Spw/ua, where SS and
Walton have " my food [the food] that [is] mine." 'E/xds occurs but twice
in the whole of the Epistle to the Romans, whereas it occurs thrice in the
brief Epistle to Philemon.

404

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

so frequent in John, who uses it nearly four times as often as
all the Synoptists taken together, may also make the emphatic
possessives frequent in the Odes ? The Odes, like the Fourth
Gospel, are pervaded with the thought of personality the
close personal relations between Man and his Redeemer.
The Lord is regarded as saying to those whom He has
redeemed " Ye are my own" and each redeemed soul as
echoing back to the Redeemer " my own yes, thou, too, art
my own 1 ."

(vi) Ode xxv. 2 " and my helper." The context appears
to justify us in finding emphasis here : " I was rescued from
my bonds and unto thee, O God, did I flee ; for thou art the
right hand of my Salvation and the Helper (lit.) that is mine
own" i.e. the Helper that will never desert me, but will be
mine for ever. It has been pointed out above 2 that the words
may imply that the redeemed soul is closely united with the
Redeemer.

(vii) Ode xxvi. 2 "His holy song." The context implies
that the mouth of the Poet can sing the song that belongs to
God because the Poet himself is God's : " I poured out praise
unto the Lord, because I am His own, and I will speak the
holy psalm that is His because my heart is toward Him"
Moreover the passage resembles passages like those that
speak of " the holy garments of Aaron" where Hebrew,
Targum, LXX and Syriac, might all naturally have the
relative 3 . Either of these causes would suffice to defend the
relative here on the supposition that the passage is translated
from Hebrew.

(viii) Ode xxviii. 9 " but my [suffering of] wrong." This
instance differs from all the rest and admits perhaps of

1 Compare the first verse of the first Ode, " The Lord is on my head
like a crown, nor shall 1 be apart from Him," with the last of the last Ode,
" They are free men, and they are mine."

2 See 5 above.

3 Comp. Exod. xxix. 29 where all have the relative, see above, p. 402,
n. i.

405

THE INTERPRETATION

a different explanation. The Thesaurus alleges no instance
where the word is used with a genitive or possessive suffix,
but gives the impression that " my wrong" if expressed by the
mere possessive suffix, would mean "my wrong-doing" (like
dSi/cla fjiov in Greek) 1 . For this reason the Poet may write
exceptionally "the wrong that [is] to me," meaning "the
wrong done to me 2 ."

These instances do not necessarily point to a New Hebrew
original, although the Syriac idiom is more like New Hebrew
than Greek ; but on the other hand they do not indicate that
the original was Greek. Other instances may perhaps be
alleged in future studies of the Odes proving Dom Connolly's
conclusion. But these, in my opinion, do not prove it 3 .

9. " Until it was given in the midst 41 "

Dom Connolly argues that these words " could not be
a translation from Hebrew, since they contain an unsemitic

1 See Thes. 1478. It gives a feminine form of the word, with a 3rd
pers. pi. possess, suffix, as meaning " eorum fraudes," i.e. the wrongs they
had done.

2 Fora similar Hebrew use of shel to denote the objective genitive,
see Jebam. xi. 7 (Mishna) (lit.) " For his-striking and for his-cursing that
[belongs] to (shel} this [man] and that [belongs'} to that [man]," meaning
"For striking and for cursing this man or that." The "his" refers not
to the striker but to the stricken (see Jezvzsti Qit. Rev. July 1908, p. 728).

3 I have confined myself to Dom Connolly's instances, and am far
from asserting that all the detachable possessives in the Odes can be
explained on the ground of emphasis. But many can, that do not at first
seem emphatic, e.g. Ode xvii. 13 "and I sowed my fruits in hearts, and
transformed them in myself" (see Light on the Gospel 3874 b] "and
they received the blessing that is mine and lived." Here it may be said
that there is no more emphasis on "my blessing" than on ll mv fruits."
I differ. There appears to me to be climax as regards emphasis on
personality. In the first clause there is some emphasis on "fruits," which
(Light 3874 b} means " my fruitful sted." The meaning is " I first sowed
my fruitful seed in hearts. Thus I transformed them in myself into
my own nature. And thus they received the blessing that belongs to my
nature, and passed into life eternal." [See p. 432 foil.]

4 Ode xxx. 6.

406

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

idiom, viz., e/? TO [jiecrov rtQevai, in medio ponere" and he adds
" Dr Abbott adduces from Numb. xxx. 5 the phrase * in
the middle ' ; but there a real local ' middle,' of a carefully
specified area, is in question 1 ." But besides Numb. xxxv. 5,
there are other instances of the Hebrew " in the midst" (which
corresponds to the Syriac 2 ) used absolutely, in such a way as
to indicate that it could be employed in New Hebrew abso-
lutely, in a context where a locality is not expressed but only
implied 3 . And the Ode does imply locality. It begins with
the words " Fill ye waters for yourselves from the living
fountain of the Lord. ..and come. ..and rest by the fountain of
the Lord... it gives rest to the soul." Now "rest," in the
Odes, implies Paradise that place of beauty and fruitfulness
about which it is said in Revelation that " in the midst of the
open-place thereof (vrXareta?) . . . there was a river of water of
life 4 ." Unfortunately the text in Isaiah about idolaters, and
" gardens," and " in the midst? is disputed ; but in any case it
is an instance of the absolute use of "in the midst 6 " Rashi
takes it as meaning " in the midst of the garden," and Ibn Ezra
either thus or as " in the midst of the idolaters." Either inter-
pretation would, by antithesis, illustrate the present passage.
In New Hebrew, this word for "midst" may mean "the
inner" as distinct from "the outer" nature 6 , so that there
may also be an undercurrent of meaning. Not only is the

1 Journ. Theol. Stud. p. 531. I adduced Numb. xxxv. 5 (not xxx. 5).

2 The Syriac word is derived from /ieoror, which also exists as a form
of New Hebrew as well as Aramaic.

3 In the midst" is used absolutely in Gen. xv. 10, Numb. xxxv. 5,
Josh. viii. 22 (///. "to Israel in the midst"\ Judg. xv. 4, Is. Ixvi. 17. Of
these, only Numb. xxxv. 5 and Is. Ixvi. 17 point to locality. But they are
sufficient to shew that the absolute use of the phrase in New Hebrew must
have been very early. Delitzsch uses it absolutely in Mt. xiv. 6, Mk iii. 3,
Mk xiv. 60, Lk. vi. 8, for t v ra> /xo-a> and els TO /xeVoi/ and els /ze<roi/.

4 Rev. xxii. 12. For the connection between "rest" and "Paradise*
in the Odes, see Light on the Gospel 384783, and especially 385964.

6 Is. Ixvi. 17.

6 Levy iv. 631 b, 641 b, and i. 256 b.

407

THE INTERPRETATION

" fountain " set as God's gift, " in the midst 1 " of Paradise so that
it flows forth to all therein, but it also flows " undefined and
unseen," like the Spirit .in the "heart," "midst," or "inward"
man so that " until it was given in the midst [of the heart]
they did not know it 2 ."

This is perhaps too subtle. But an interpretation without
any play on words and simply taking " in the midst " to mean
" in the midst of Paradise," seems to me far more likely than
one that bases itself on an original et9 TO pea-ov TiOevai of
which the usual meaning would be " set a prize before all, for
all to contest," " propose," " bring forward in public," " make a
public contribution." And the use of "give" for " ponere"
would in itself favour Hebraic origin.

10. "He was known from before the (lit.)
casting-down of the aeon "

I pass to a tenth instance, previously alleged by Dom
Connolly from Ode xli. 16, which he renders "from before the
constitution of the world 9 ." The words are, he assumes, a
Syriac translation of TT/OO Karaf3o\ris fcoa/j,ov used by the Odist
writing in Greek. KaraffoXr) KOO-^JLOV occurs ten times in N.T.
In seven out of ten cases the Peshitta renders it by the phrase
used in the Ode here, " the casting-down of the aeon'' It is
not a phrase used in Hebrew. Hebrew prefers "founding, or
establishing, or creating, the earth, or the habitable-world."
Nor is the phrase used by Syr. vet. " Syriac," we are told, "has
other words, corresponding to the Hebrew ones, to express

1 Comp. Jerem. xxxi. 33 " I will give {i.e. set as a gift] my law in their
inward parts," where the LXX also has " give," but the Syr. has not.

2 See Son of Man 3362 (\}a c for ambiguities and plays of words on
"midst" and comp. Origen (Comm. Joann. vi. 15 on Jn i. 26) "there
standeth one in the midst of you whom ye know not," that is, "invisible in
His divine nature (aoparoy rfi Bfiorr^n avrof)), being present with every
human being and coextensive with the whole universe in its every part."
Also note the saying in the Oxyrhynchian Logia " I stood in the midst of
the world."

:I The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. XI v, p. 315.

408

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

* foundation '." The conclusion is thus put : " How then does
it come into the Odes ? Obviously as a Syriac translation of
irpb fcara/3o\f)s Koa/uLov by one who was familiar with the
usual Peshitta version of this phrase."

This seemed to me, at the first reading, irresistible. And
it still seems to me stronger than any of Dom Connolly's
other instances. But in view of the fact that those other
instances (in my opinion) point to a Hebrew rather than to a
Greek original, and that they include no other alleged instance
of allusion to the Peshitta, I was led to examine the subject
more thoroughly, and to ask whether we could find any
passage in Scripture that represents or suggests a picture of
the Creator as preparing for the foundation of the world by
some kind of " casting-down." If we could, it appeared to me
that we should be justified in concluding that this alleged
single instance affords no proof of a Greek original, or of
a translation taken from the Peshitta.

A fallacy seems to me to lie in the assumption that a
Christian writer in Hebrew at the end of the first century
could not be aware of the Christian use of a remarkable
phrase like /cara^o\rj KOC/JLOU, which, as we shall see, was
variously interpreted in early times. The Greek might be
rendered literally, " casting-down " in connection with God's
"casting-down? or "laying-down" of the ground-plan of
Creation or "the aeon." That is what /carafioXrf means here.
But Kara/3o\i] may mean " casting-down " in the sense of
" destruction," and it is so rendered, in the only instance in
which Justin Martyr uses it, in T. & T. Clark's translation
(" destruction of the Tower "). There was therefore a tempta-
tion to paraphrase it. Latin translators called it constitutio.
Early Syriac translators paraphrased it in various ways, and
conformed the phrase to the thought of Biblical Hebrew.
But the Greek phrase might be taken in a poetic and allusive
sense, and our Poet (I contend) took it thus, and used it
literally, poetically, and allusively. Some centuries afterwards

409

THE INTERPRETATION

the translators of the Peshitta took it literally, and (probably)
not poetically. That is to say, they resorted to this Syriac
word merely as a safe and literal translation of a term that
they knew to be variously interpreted (as it was for example
by Origen and others). Perhaps they regarded it as meaning
"established" or "founded." But our Poet apparently does
not. This appears from the fact that, when he means " estab-^
lished " or " founded," he uses other words 1 .

The following facts shew that the phrase probably attracted
attention in early times :

(1) There is no passage in the Gospels where two
Evangelists agree in assigning this phrase to Jesus.

(2) Where Matthew quotes it as part of a Psalm, Matthew
has "from the casting-down" and some readings of Matthew
have "from the casting-down of the world (cosmos) " ; but the
Psalm, in the Hebrew, has "from beforetime" and, in the
Greek, "from the beginning*?

(3) Where Luke speaks of blood " shed from the casting-
down of the cosmos" Matthew has "shed upon the earth" which
suggests that an original "from the casting-down" was
misunderstood by Matthew as meaning " from the casting-
down [on the earth] of Abel's blood " and expanded by Luke
by adding " of the cosmos " so as to make the meaning clear 3 .

1 Odes xxii. 12 (Harnack) " Grundlage," xxxv. 5 "Fundament," xxxviii.
17 "Fundament," use a word (Thes. 4348) that has no connection with
the word we are considering, viz. "casting-down." Our word is used also
of(T/tes, 3928) "casting" or "depositing" seed in the earth (and also in
Heb. xi. ii VHh).

2 Mt. xiii. 35, quoting Ps. Ixxviii. 2. Why did Matthew use this para-
phrase ? Perhaps because, in view of various renderings of the Hebrew,
he wished to express the thought of what Jerome calls, not "funda-
mentum " but " initium fundamenti." Horace might think of it as the
rubble, so to speak, cast into the depth of the waters, to prepare a basis
for a foundation (comp. Hor. Carm. iii. i. 34 5 "jactis in altum molibus,
hue frequens caementa demittit redemptor").

3 Lk. xi. 50 ; Mt. xxiii. 35 eVi rfjs yfjs. Matthew would no doubt be
influenced by the repeated mention of 7?) in Gen. iv. 10 12.

410

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

(4) The Hebrew kedem which means " beforetime" is
rendered in LXX once " before the aeons " ; and, when " from "
is added, " from beforetime " is once rendered " before \the\
aeon (sing.) 1 ."

(5 ) Epictetus bids us regard man as our brother, "who has
Zeus for his ancestor, and is, as it were, son from the same seed
and from the same casting-down from above 2 ." There is a
similar connection certainly in the Epistle to the Hebrews
(Kara/3o\rj cnrepparos), and perhaps in Clement of Rome 3 .

(6) Origen and Chrysostom take /caTa/3o\ij as "casting-
down*'" Jerome 5 explains it from the phrase "cast (jaciunt)
foundations," and points out that the Latin " constitutio " does
not exactly express the meaning, which is (he says) not " funda-
mentum," but "initium fundamenti." This is a very different
thing from " constitutio."

(7) Before the first century Kara/3o\ij seems to have been
used to mean the " putting down " of ready money, the
"casting" of seed, the "descent" of fever, disease &c., but
not "foundation," except (i) in the phrase "from the bottom,"
i.e. de novo, (2) in special contexts implying foundation 6 . The
Thesaurus gives no instance (apart from N.T.) of "before the
casting-down" in the sense of " before the foundation of the
world."

1 Ps. lv. 19, Ps. Ixxiv. 12.

2 Epict. i. 13. 3, where the Latin has " Coelesti satu editus."

3 Heb. xi. 11, Clem. 57 OITTJV KarafioXrjv (but \A^\.i. foundation) rr^s

Tronja-avres (the only instance in the Apostolic Fathers (exc. Barn,
v. 5 quoting Gen. i. 26 as uttered by God to "the Lord" "from the
casting-down of the world"))- In Justin Martyr Tryph. 102 eV rfj
tir\ TOV trvpyov KaraftoXf), it prob. means God's " descent" (and not, as
in T. & T. Clark's translation, "destruction"). Comp. Gen. xi. 7 "let
us go down ."

4 Origen on Jn xvii. 24, and Chrys. on Eph. i. 4. They are thereby
led into strange interpretations.

5 Jerome on Eph. i. 4.

6 See Steph. Thes. quoting (i) phrases with and (2) Polyb. xiii. 6. 2,

eVoietro /cat Bfp.f\iov vnefiaXkeTO TroXvxpoviov TvpavviSo?.

411

THE INTERPRETATION

(8) An earlier Ode connects God's design " of Re-
demption with " casting-down " under the term " shooting."
It is described as being like an arrow that is " shot" and also
as " like a letter " ; and this letter, which has a divine " seal "
upon it, is "a great tablet" "wholly written by the ringer
of God 1 ." This "seal" is apparently "Truth 2 ," and the
vision is connected with the revelation of " the Son of Truth
from the Father, the Most High," who " inherited and took
possession of everything."

(9) Of the two scriptural passages that describe in poetic
detail the creation of the world, one, in Job, expressly
mentions God as " casting-down (or throwing, or shooting) the
corner-stone," just before He "shut up the sea with doors 3 ."
The other, in Proverbs, mentions " the sea " first, and says
"When he gave to the sea its bound... when he marked out
the foundations of the earth 4 ." The former passage suggests
the thought of God as " casting down " into the waters a
living and growing Stone, the Stone of Truth and Order,
which might be regarded by a poet as an " earnest " or
" instalment (/caraftoXij) " of the ultimately developed Cosmos,
or Harmony of the universe.

(10) According to a tradition in Joma, "The Holy One,
blessed be He, threw a stone into the sea, and from this the
world was founded 5 " Such a tradition accords with the

1 Ode xxiii., see Lighten the Gospel 3887 91.

2 See Light on the Gospel 3891 b quoting Bab. Talm. on a "paper"
or " tablet " falling from heaven, with "Truth 53 inscribed on it, whence
the inference is drawn "Truth is God's seal."

3 Job xxxviii. 6 R.V. "laid," but Heb. "shot" or "threw" The
Hebrew for "shoot" in Job is rendered in Targ. and Syr. by the word
used in Ode xxiii. 5 "violently-shot." The Hebrew has, as derivatives
(Gesen. 435 foil.) the well-known Torah, "teaching" or "law," as well
as fertilising " rain " so that its associations are far more exalted than we
might suppose. Jerome ad loc. interprets the "corner-stone" as the Son
and the "shooting" as referring to the Incarnation. 4 Prov. viii. 29.

6 Joma 54 b, quoting Job xxxviii. 6. The thought of God the Redeemer
"casting down" the substratum for a foundation is quaintly illustrated by

412

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

thought of Job, and of the Odes, especially if we add, from
the Ode about the Arrow, the sign of a " seal," and, from the
Talmud, that " Truth is God's seal," and, from the Ode again,
" He was known from before the casting-down of the aeon that
He might save souls for ever by the truth of His name 1 "

(n) It may be worth adding that the Greek word
/cara/3o\rj occurs abundantly in New Hebrew. Its meaning
is said to be generally, " mattress," or " covering on which
something rests." No instance is alleged (so far as I know)
of a metaphorical use 3 . But it may have influenced the use
of the term in the earliest Christian literature.

(12) " The foundation of the world" that is to say, the
Greek phrase thus rendered in our Authorised Version of
Matthew is rendered very variously in various English
Versions of the Gospels. And the variations have a direct
bearing on our investigation. For they indicate a danger in
such a conclusion as we are now considering, which is, in effect,
" Since the Poet here uses a phrase that occurs in the later Syriac
version of N.T., and not in the earlier Syriac versions known to
us, meaning ' the foundation of the world} it follows that he
wrote after that later Syriac version"

In Mt. xiii. 35, for example, we might infer, that an
English author quoting "from the foundation of the world"
(as A.V. A.D. 1611) and not "from the begynning(e) of
the world(e)" (as Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva, A.D. 1534
57) wrote after A.D. 161 1. But he might be quoting from the
Rheims Version (A.D. 1582).

Again, in Mt. xxv. 34, if we inferred from a mention of
"foundations " that he was quoting, with a slight variation, the

the above-quoted Horatian " caementa demittit redemptor," i.e. the con-
tractor.

1 It must be admitted, however, that the "shooting" of the "stone" or
the " arrow" is not the same word as the "casting-down" in the Ode.

2 See Levy iv. 279^. Krauss (pp. 523 and 566) gives more than
a dozen instances. He adds (p. 524) one instance of Heb. KaraftXijTov as
meaning "payment of a fine."

413

THE INTERPRETATION

Rheims Version (A.D. 1582), we might be wrong again, for
"foundations" in the plural occurs in the Geneva Version
(A.D. 1557).

Lastly, if we inferred from an author quoting Luke xi. 50,
"from the making of the world" (as in the Rheims Version)
that he wrote after 1582, we might be once more wrong.
For he might be quoting from Wiclif (A.D. isSo) 1 .

In view of these facts it appears to me quite reasonable,
as well as charitable to our Poet, to suppose that when he
spoke of "the casting-down of the aeon" he did not mean
what he speaks of elsewhere as "foundation" "founding" or
" establishing." The conclusion that the expression is to be
taken " obviously as a Syriac translation of Trpo KaTa(3o\r)<$
Koafjbov by one who was familiar with the usual Peshitta
version of this phrase " is also open to this objection, that not
one more instance of such " translation " is even alleged in the
very able paper to which this Section calls attention. The
other nine alleged instances of Greek influence appear to me
to point either to Hebrew, or at all events not to Greek.
And though this, the tenth, points to Greek, it is perfectly
compatible with the belief that our Poet wrote in Hebrew.
Writing in Hebrew did not preclude him from borrowing
thoughts from the Greek of the Gospels any more than from
the Greek of Philo 2 .

1 Compare also Jn xvii. 24, where "before the making of the world"
is not only in Wiclif (using " making," as he always does in the Gospels)
but also in Tyndale and Cranmer.

The argument in the text is this, that in early times there may have
been other renderings of the Scriptures beside those that have come down
to us, and that the author of the Odes may have followed one of these,
which anticipated the Peshitta in using the phrase under consideration,
though not quite in the sense in which the Peshitta uses it.

2 See Light on the Gospel (Index "Philo"). It may be added that
a poet writing in Hebrew, but versed in Greek, might be influenced in
word, as well as in thought, by the flexibilities of the Greek language, so
as to strain Hebrew to the utmost in order to express them, e.g. in the
matter of emphasis and emphatic possessives discussed above in 8.

414

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

II. " The babe leaping"

After writing as above, I received from Dom Connolly, in
the course of an interesting correspondence, the following
observation, which he has authorised me to quote : " I wish
some one would deal with the N.T. echoes in the Odes.
There seem to me to be a number. Perhaps the most
striking is that in Ode xxviii. 3 'as a babe that exults in
the womb of its mother ' (see the Syriac versions of Lk. i. 40)."
This alleged " echo " well deserves investigation. I also believe
that it is an " echo " but not an " echo " of anything that is
peculiar to the New Testament.

Let us first do justice to the similarity. It is enhanced by
the contexts. Luke says " When Elisabeth heard the salu-
tation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb ; and Elisabeth
was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she lifted up her voice
with a loud cry and said " Blessed art thou... 1 ." The Ode in
question says " As the wings of the doves over their nestlings,
and the mouth of their nestlings toward their mouths, so also
are the wings of the Spirit over my heart. My heart is delighted
and leaps [for joy], like the babe that leaps in the womb of his
mother 2 ."

I admit that this is very " striking." The obvious inference
obvious at all events to those who assume a Greek original
for the Odes is that the Odist wrote in Greek, and copied
from Luke, who says that John the Baptist, as an unborn
babe, " leapt in the womb " at the approach of the Redeemer
who was in the womb of Mary.

But what about the source of Luke's narrative itself?
Grant that it is historical, and that every word of it is exactly
true. Still, we may fairly say, " If this experience of Elisabeth
is found to be in accordance with something in Jewish tradi-
tions about other mothers of Israel, we ought first of all to

1 Lk. i. 41 2. 2 Ode xxviii. I 3.

415

THE INTERPRETATION

examine those traditions. We are all the more bound to
do this because the Greek phrase ' leap in the womb ' occurs
nowhere in the Bible except as an obvious misrendering of
' push-against-one-another in the womb,' applied to Jacob and
Esau 1 . If this 'leaping' or 'exulting' which really implies
an ' exulting ' to the glory of God can be found in fairly
early Jewish tradition, applied to unborn babes, glorifying
the Lord their Redeemer in return for a special act of His
redeeming power, then we ought not to commit ourselves to
Luke, or at all events to Luke alone, as the source of our
Poet's utterance."

Now we do find language of this kind in very early and
widespread Jewish tradition. It is extant in (inter alia) the
commentary of Mechiltha on the Redemption of Israel at the
Red Sea. Mechiltha was mentioned above ( 4) to shew that
the very next words in the Ode to those we are now con-
sidering (" I believed, therefore I was at rest ") probably
implied an allusion to the connection between "rest," "stability,"
and " belief." According to Mechiltha it was as a reward of
" belief " that " the Holy Spirit rested on Israel and they sang
unto the Lord." Now we can go still further in the illustra-
tion of our Ode with the aid of Mechiltha, applying it to the
" exultation " or " leaping " of the unborn child. For Mechiltha,
on Exod. xv. I (Wii. p. 116) "I will sing unto Jehovah,"
quotes Rabbi Meir (whom Schiirer places among the Rabbis
of "the Third Generation," about 130 60 A.D.) thus:

1 Gen. xxv. 22. The LXX has mistaken pyi, "crush," for a redupli-
cated form of pi (found as a v.r. in Levy Ch. i. 165 V). The Heb. pi
occurs only in Job xli. 22 (14) where the LXX has mistaken it for pi, and
consequently rendered it "run," instead of "dance." On Gen. xxv. 22,
Rashi says " Rabbini nostri exponunt...ut significet nVl i- e - cursum"
because whenever Rebecca passed by a Schoolhouse of Shem, Jacob
"ran" (i.e. " currebat...\& egrederetur "), and Esau did the same when she
passed a place of idol-worship. But the Talmuds and Midrashim are not
alleged for this view. Tehillim (Wii. i. 327) adopts the usual interpreta-
tion " crushed," which Rashi gives as an alternative.

416

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

" R. Meir says, Even the babes unborn (die Embryonen), which
were in the wombs of their mothers, opened their mouths and
uttered the song before God." This is not the eccentric and
unsupported suggestion of a single Rabbi. It is repeated
in both the Talmuds, and Rashi assumes it 1 .

It may be urged that " opened their mouths and uttered
the song" is not the same thing as "exulted" or "leapt" But
we find the Targum on the Psalms using this word " leap " as
a rendering of the Hebrew for " psallere 2 ," and it was a very
natural way of paraphrasing a word that might raise objection,
if taken literally. Indeed, objection is actually raised and
answered in the Babylonian Sofa (" How could the babe see?") 3 .
It is worth noting how Origen combines the "leaping" of the
unborn babe in Luke with an utterance of praise by his
mother : " The voice of the salutation of Mary coming-to-pass
in the ears of Elisabeth filled John with itself. Therefore
John 'leaps,' and his mother becomes as it were her son's mouth,,
and also a prophetess. . . V

I cannot recall anything in Greek profane literature that
would induce an early Christian poet writing in Greek to liken
his soul to " a babe leaping in his mother's womb," because it
" exults " in the motherly love of the Holy Spirit. The poetic
tradition attributed to Rabbi Meir about the mothers of Israel
at the Passage of the Red Sea sounds genuinely Jewish. It
is difficult I should call it impossible to believe that R. Meir
borrowed " the exultant song of the unborn babes " from Luke ;
but it is quite intelligible as part of a whole series of what would
in English be called ballads, but would be better called, among
the Jews, school-poetry unwritten poetic amplifications of the
poetry of the Old Testament, current in the first century and

1 See b. Sota 31 a, /. Sota v. 4 (Schwab vii. 287), Berach. 50 a, and
Rashi on Ps. Ixviii. 26 (as also Tehillim ad loc.).

2 Ps. xxi. 13.

3 Also see Wagenseil on Sota, pp. 617 9.

4 Origen, Comm. Joann. vi. 30 (Lomm. i. 254).

A. B.

417

THE INTERPRETATION

later concerning that notable Deliverance which was stamped
on the Jewish mind by the institution of the Passover. There
are other passages in this Ode, that seem to allude to the
Exodus or the Wandering in the Wilderness, such as " I have
been set on His incorruptible pinions 1 " and " I was persecuted
and they supposed that I was swallowed up, for I seemed to
them as one of the lost 2 ." Others shew us how a Jewish Poet
might merge the thought of Israel in the thought of Moses or
the Messiah, just as Matthew applies to Jesus part of the
saying of Hosea concerning Israel, " Out of Egypt have I
called my son.... I taught Ephraim to walk," "he took them
in his arms 3 ." Into these we cannot enter 4 , but they combine
to convince us that we have in the composer of the Odes
a man saturated with Jewish tradition, Christianized but not
Hellenized, and much more likely to borrow the phrase we
are discussing from prevalent first-century Jewish tradition,
represented for us in the second century by Rabbi Meir, than
from a single Greek instance in Luke of an apparently non-
Greek phrase 5 .

1 Ode xxviii. 6. Comp. Exod. xix. 4 " I bare you on eagles' wings."

2 Ode xxviii. 8. Comp. Exod. xiv. 3, xv. 9 "they are entangled...,"
" my hand shall destroy them."

3 Hos. xi. 13, Mt. ii. 15.

4 One of them is Ode xxviii. 13 " But I was carrying water in my
right hand, and their bitterness I endured by my sweetness." This looks
like a Christian view of the much discussed "tree? which God (Exod.
xv. 25) u taught" Moses not "shewed" but "taught? says Mechiltha,
in effect, ad loc. Wii. "lehrte ihn" near the waters of Marah. See
Indices to Diatessarica p. xxxv. foil, on the various Jewish and Christian
traditions as to this "tree" which Origen interprets as the Cross.

By " apparently non-Greek," I mean that the Thesaurus, under
0-Kipraa>, not only gives no other instance of cV/up-njo-e (3pf(pos except
Lk i. 44, but also gives another word (do-icapifa) as the word used by
Hippocrates in this sense. As for o-Kt/jraco, it has been shewn above
that, as applied by the LXX to Jacob and Esau, it had a meaning
alien from Luke's purpose.

418

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

I have only space for a few words on another similarity, to
which Dom Connolly called my attention between Ode viii.
3 " to bring fruits to the Lord, living, holy/' and Rom. xii. I
" to present your bodies, a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to
God." He added that " bring? not " bring forth? was the
meaning of the Syriac.

If we could be certain that the Syr. " bring" (the causative
of ct/ia, familiar to us in Maran-atha) did not mean "bring
forth? but " bring as an offering? I should then suggest that
the Poet had in view a contrast between (Gen. iv. 3 5) the
first two sacrifices the " bringing" of " the fruit of the ground"
(by Cain) and the "bringing" of living animals (by Abel).
The Syriac " bring " is the same there as here. Cain's act is
traditionally regarded as what one might call " a dead work " ;
Abel's, as an act of faith by which as Philo (i. 200) says
" though dead he still lives" The hypothesis of an allusion
to Genesis would enable us to paraphrase the passage in the
Ode with its preceding context thus : " Let your worship
spring from your heart and from the leaping up of love from
the heart to the lips, so as to bring unto the Lord an offering,
not of selfish and dead works (like Cain's) but one that is holy
and lives for ever (like Abel's)."

But the Thesaurus 416 7 gives many instances where
Syriac Versions use the causative of ctha with " fruit," to mean
" bring forthr Among these are (in Pesh., Palest, and SS)
Jn xv. 8, 16, where the "bringing forth" of "fruit" by the
disciples is described as tending to the "glorifying" of "the
Father," and Jesus says (SS and Pesh.) " I have chosen you
and set you that ye should be going [on] bringing forth fruit,
and your fruit should remain^" " Remain " implies that their
"fruit" will be "living." Also it must needs be "holy," for
they (Jn xv. 4 6) " remain " in " the Vine" ; and the Vine is
(Didach. ix. 2) "the Holy Vine of David," the Vine of the
Spiritual Israel.

1 Jn xv. 1 6. The Palest. Syr. does not include this verse.
419 272

THE INTERPRETATION

There is no reason, however, why a true Israelite should
not be regarded by a Jewish poet as a fruitful tree in
two aspects. He not only " brings forth " fruit, but also
" brings " fruit to the Lord as an offering. For these reasons,
instead of saying that the Poet is echoing the Apostle, I
should be disposed to say that both the Poet and the Apostle
are going back in thought to Abel's sacrifice, with Cain's in the
background. Cain was the type of those who tithed mint,
anise, and cummin. Abel was the type of those whose hearts
cried out and whose hands expressed (Ps. xl. 8) " I delight to
do thy will, O my God." Concerning this heartfelt sacrifice
of penitence and praise Isaiah represents God as saying " I
create the fruit of the lips," and Hosea represents penitent
Israel as saying " we will duly-offer bullocks, [namely] our lips "
thoughts echoed in the Epistle to the Hebrews (which
speaks of " the fruit of lips that make confession " to God's
name) and also in the present Ode 1 .

12. Evidence from the Anaphora of St James

Dom Connolly's inference from what appeared to him the
indiscriminate use of the Syriac detachable possessive in the
Odes led me to investigate the matter, in the following circum-
stances, after most of the preceding paragraphs were in type.
In a letter, full of suggestive observations which I would
most gladly discuss did space allow he asked me to look
at some proof sheets of the Syriac Liturgy (Anaphora) of
" St James," which he was kind enough to enclose for my
inspection. In these, he had underlined passages where the
detachable possessive occurs. He pointed out how, in this
Syriac, " translated from the Greek (mostly extant) probably
in the second half of the 5th century," this detachable possessive
" came to be employed almost to the exclusion of possessive

1 Is. Ivii. 19 " fruit," Theod. <ap7r6v, but not the usual Heb. for "fruit" ;
Hos. xiv. 2 (on which see Jerome and Joma 86 b\ Heb. xiii. 15.

420

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

suffixes," illustrating his remark by a comparison of such a
translation with the Peshitta version of the Psalms where the
detachable possessive could hardly be found. He added that
even the Peshitta version of the Gospels would shew nothing
to parallel the use of the possessive in the document he
enclosed, so that the facts confirmed his conclusion that " the
Syr. text of the Odes is a relatively late one."

These remarks appeared to me to deserve the most careful
consideration, and I have endeavoured to do justice to them.
They may lead my readers, as they have led me, to a quite
new appreciation of the variations of Christian hymnology in
the earliest times, if they will have the patience to go back as
tar as possible to the original authorities, and the courage to
face detailed fact. For of course the first step was to go back
to the Greek of the Anaphora. If the Greek contained nothing
but unemphatic possessive expressions where the Syriac con-
tained the detachable possessive, then Dom Connolly had
proved his point. I therefore turned to Swainson's The Greek
Liturgies, where the Greek of the Anaphora is printed in four
parallel columns, and compared the Greek with the Syriac 1 .

I found that the instances underlined by Dom Connolly
began a little before the words " This is my body " and were
very numerous indeed. Moreover, as to the sacred formula
itself, Dom Connolly pointed out that, whereas the Peshitta
uses the unemphatic suffix " my-body" the Syriac Anaphora
has "the body that-is-mine" (as also "the blood that-is-mine").
Here, however, we have to note that the Greek does not follow
the tradition of the Three Synoptists, TO crapd pov, but that of
Paul, rovro ^ov tarw TO aufjia*. Now although the possessive
pov, when placed before its noun and the article, ought to be
unemphatic and to throw the emphasis on the noun, yet

1 The Greek Liturgies, by C. A. Swainson, D.D. (Cambridge : At the
University Press, 1884), to be hereafter referred to as Liturg.

* I Cor. xi. 24 adds ro vrrep vp.wv. Anaph. adds TO virep vpwv K.\a>p.(vov
(Is a<f)<Tiv ap.apTi&v.

421

THE INTERPRETATION

there appeared reasons for thinking that the author of the
Anaphora or at all events the writers of some texts of it-
might regard it as emphatic l .

One reason was this, that all through the Anaphora, where
there is an antithesis (as there often is) between the goodness
and kindness of God and the imperfections and necessities of
Man, the Greek writer rarely, if ever, uses the unemphatic
expression to signify "His" or "Thy." Even where there
was no such antithesis, I have failed (so far) to find the un-
emphatic form, in Greek, to signify divine possession. In the
Pauline tradition there was a reason for the unemphatic " my"
applied to " body," because Paul meant to emphasize " [body]
that is for you" reserving the personal emphasis for " my own
commemoration " and " my own blood " in the following
context 2 . But the Greek writer of the Anaphora, who blends

1 See Johannine Grammar 2776 84 on " The Possessive Genitive."
When the genitive pronoun comes between the article and its noun, it is
emphatically reverential, Liturg. p. 260 TWV dxpavrwv <rov fivo-r^ptW, ib.
TO ayiov o-ov...dvo-iao-TT)piov. But see below for variations in the texts
indicating that the Greek possessive, even when preceding the article,
may have been regarded by the scribes of the Anaphora 'as emphatic.

In Dom Connolly's Syriac text of the Anaphora, the order of the
words is " This that-which-is-mine is the body," representing exactly the
order of the Pauline formula, ToCro /xou ea-nv TO o-w/ia. I am informed
by Rev. G. Margoliouth that this is the order of the Syriac in the Liturgy
of St John the Evangelist (e.g. Brit. Mus. MSS Or. 2293 and 2295), but
that in the Anaphora of St James the Brother of the Lord, the reading in
the MSS referred to is "This [is] my-body that-is-for-you," and that, in
the printed texts (Rome, 1592 and 1843) a unified form of the words has
been employed, the reading in every Anaphora being : " This is the-body
[the body] that-is-mine* (apparently influenced by the Harklensian version,
in which the Syriac " that-which-is-mine " comes last) not only in the
Gospels, where fiov comes last, but also in the Epistle to the Corinthians,
where /uou does not come last.

2 i Cor. xi. 24 5 may be paraphrased as meaning " This is the body
that-I-give-you (TOVTO fj.ov earn/ TO o-eo/ia) which [is offered] in your behalf
(TO virfp v[*.a)v) : do this with-a-view-to (els) the commemoration of me
(emph.) (TTJV tp.r]v ava/zi/j;o-tv)....This cup is the new testament (or, covenant)
in my-own (emph.) blood (ei> TO> e/x

422

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

the Pauline with the Synoptic tradition, has not " my own (TO
fj,bv) blood," but TOVTO ^ov earl TO al/jua 1 . It is not improbable
that the Greek writer in both cases regarded the JJLOV as
emphatic. It is at all events highly probable, if not certain,
that the Syriac translator would regard it as emphatic, and
would represent it by the Syriac detachable possessive which
represents our reverential " Thy," " His," and (in modern
hymnology) " My."

There is all the more excuse for the Syriac translator (if
he is wrong) because, even as regards the sacred formula, the
different MSS of the same Liturgy sometimes vary. For
example, in the Liturgy of Alexandria, one Codex has TOVTO
eari TO aco/jid /AOV (with the Synoptists), but two others TOVTO
/JLOV eo-Tiv TO cro)jj,a (with Paul) 2 . A Liturgy of Saint Basil
also has the Synoptic form 3 . Both these Liturgies, in all the
MSS, add some version of the clause TO virep VJULOOV, which is
not in the Synoptists. Both also have the same possessive
form, in their various MSS, for "the body" and "the blood."
But the Liturgy of Saint Chrysostom has the Pauline form
for "the body " and the Synoptic form for "the blood 4 ."

The unemphatic Greek possessive in the Anaphora occurs
in such expressions as " Purify my lips and heart " and
" Sanctify our souls and bodies and spirits 5 " ; but a cursory
glance at several pages of Swainson's edition has revealed no
other instances. For the most part, even when the Greek
writer is using " our " or " my " about men, he uses the
emphatic form where there is contrast (as there often is)

1 Liturg. pp. 2745.

2 Liturg. pp. 523. They also vary as to alpa similarly.

3 Liturg. p. 82.

4 Liturg. p. 129. So also has a " Liturgy of Saint Basil " on p. 160.

5 Liturg. pp. 256, 262. That is because there is an emphasis on the
nouns as distinct from the possessive. In the former sentence, egaXei^ov
IJLOV TO. 7rapa7rrd>/j.ara is the reading of two MSS, but a third omits /J.QV and
a fourth has it at the end of the clause.

423

THE INTERPRETATION

between Man and God, or else the neutral form 1 . In Eucha-
ristic Liturgies there must needs be a pervasive emphasis of
pronouns in contrasts between God's kindness and helpfulness
and Man's unworthiness and helplessness 2 .

It is quite true that in the Syriac Version of the Old
Testament the detachable Syriac possessive is extremely rare.
But there is good reason for the rarity. The Hebrew Scripture,
even where it emphasizes the contrast between what is God's
and what is Man's, does not use shel, which might have
enabled the Psalmist to express emphasis. The Biblical
Hebrew, therefore, leaves it unexpressed. The LXX follows
the Hebrew. The Syriac follows the Hebrew or the LXX.
The result is that in the Old Testament and its most ancient
versions the contrast of thought is left unexpressed by gram-
matical inflexion.

But when the first century brought into Jewish literature
the thoughts that gathered round the belief in the Incarnation,
then the contrast between the love and kindness that came
down from God to Man, and the helplessness and sinfulness
that went up in appeal from Man to God, would require
altogether new forms of expression. .And these would
naturally spring into greatest prominence in Christian Litur-
gies. We have above noted one phase of this development,

1 Liturg. pp. 262 and 265 ras voepas rj[J.a)v O\^(LS TOV dncpiXtjTTTOV (J>a)Tos
ir\r]p<a<rov may at first sight be regarded as emphatic without contrast.
But that contrast is implied may be seen by comparing p. 264, where the
same expression occurs, only with aov inserted before $o>r6s (iTroTrX^paxrov.
There is a contrast in all the passages expressed or implied between
"our" and "Thy."

2 Comp. Liturg. p. 256, "Reject not my (rfjv e/i^f) unworthiness...
according to thy great mercy (TO /j-tya f\e6s o-ov, Paris MS 476 TO p,ya rrov
t'Xtos)," ib. p. 258 " Not in our righteousness (rats- diKaioo-vvais ijfj.a>v) do
we trust but in thy good mercy (Vt ra> Ae' arov ra> aya#a>)," ib. p. 264
"having deemed me, thy sinful servant, worthy to stand at thy holy
altar," where Rot. Mess. hasroi/...o-ou8oi)Xoi/, but Paris MS 476roi/...5oi)Xoi/
(Tov } ib. p. 276 " Requite us not according to our iniquities (TOS d

but according to thy kindness (*ara TTJV crrjv r'irtKtay)."

424

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

when comparing the brief and original form neither em-
phatically personal nor yet unemphatic of the sacramental
words of Institution, as recorded by the Synoptists, with the
newer and amplified form given in the Pauline tradition.
The latter, we found, emphasizes, first, the sacrificial nature
of the gift of "the body," and then the personal nature of
the " commemoration." The Greek Anaphora carries further
this development. We may take, as a verbal test of Eucharistic
emphasis as a kind of Eucharistometer the use of the em-
phatic personal "Thy" (o-o'?) applied to the Lord. It occurs
less than a dozen times in the LXX version of the Psalms 1 .
But it occurs twice or thrice in the first few lines of most
MSS of the Anaphora 2 . This confirms the conclusion that,
in the Anaphora, the Syriac emphatic rendering springs, not
from an indiscriminate use of the detachable possessive, but
from a desire to render literally the original Eucharistic
thought.

With such thought the thought of Eucharistic contrast
the Odes of Solomon are from first to last imbued. We are
therefore safe in saying that in a very great number of cases
the Syriac detachable suffix is no more indiscriminate in the
Odes than in the Anaphora. But can we go further and
conclude that the Syriac Translator of the Odes, when using
these possessives, may be literally translating from Hebrew ?
On that point more evidence is necessary, not only as to the
usage of what is generally called Mishnaic Hebrew 3 , but also

1 This includes all uses in the Psalms.

2 Liturg. pp. 2567. The texts vary slightly. (One MS has iro\\T]v
for a-T]v.} It occurs also once or twice on pp. 2589 (where again the
texts vary), thrice on pp. 270 i c. In the Apostolic Fathers apart
from Hermas (who uses it in precepts about "one's own wife" &c.) aos
occurs (as an adjective with noun) only in Clem. Rom. 60 r^s 0-779
aXr)dias (a quasi-Eucharistic prayer), and Didach. ix. 4, x. 5 (rep.) els
TTJV crr)v fta(Ti\(iav (in the actual Eucharist).

3 We have to bear in mind that, even after the exile, Biblical Psalms
and some of the most beautiful of them were still composed in

425

THE INTERPRETATION

as to the kind of Hebrew that would be written in the first
century by a Jewish poet writing in the name of Solomon, and
in a tone very different indeed from that of the extant Psalms
of Solomon, and resembling in some respects the tone of
Solomon's Song in the Bible.

If we were to trust merely to the evidence of the Prayers
of ancient post-Christian Rabbis recorded in the Talmud, it
would appear that even in contrasts between God's kindness
and Man's need, the Rabbis contented themselves with the
ordinary Hebrew suffix without using the detachable particle 1 .

But in the Jewish Thanksgiving after Meals which (I am
informed) is of very great antiquity the divine " His " is
expressed by a form of she I thus : " we have eaten of that-
whick-is-His z " And Levy quotes, from the Jerusalem as

Hebrew, not in Aramaic. What is called " Mishnaic Hebrew " was not
invented by those who uttered the earliest of the sayings known to us as
Mishna. It was merely one form of literary Hebrew namely, that form
which had come into use, by the second century, among Rabbis teaching
in the schools. Even in the Talmuds there are great differences of style.
The prose of legal discussion may be found intermixed with the poetry
of a soaring imagination or extravagant fancy. The Hebrew of the Odes
of Solomon (if they were composed in Hebrew) may have been as
different from the Hebrew of the more prosaic parts of the Mishna as
the English of Marlowe from the English of Bishop Burnet.

1 See the Prayers in Berach. i6 foil. They contain (as far as I have
seen) no instance of a reverential "Thy" &c. represented by anything
more than the possessive suffix. Several of them begin with " May there
be a will (or, good-pleasure) from-bef ore- thy -face" (Goldschmidt and
Schwab "thy wiir\ In the prayer of " Rabh " for "a life of peace,
a life of good, a life 0/ blessing...," "of" is represented in each case by
sheL

2 Jewish Prayer Book, ed. Singer, p. 279 " Blessed be (our God) He of
whose bounty we have partaken," but ///. " Blessed be He [as to] whom

(>) we have eaten from-that-which-is-His (I'X'IO)." The form in the
Mishna of Berach. vii. 3, repeating the grace several times with
variations adapted to the numbers present does not contain the
italicised words, except partially at the last two repetitions, where it
has "for that which we have eaten."

On the use of shel with suffix as a possessive pronoun, a few remarks

426

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

well as from the Babylonian Talmud, words ascribed to God
as follows " Slay [the sacrifices, or beasts] that-are-mine in
tkat-which-is-mine [i.e. in my Temple] and that-which-is-thine

may be found in Albrecht's Neuhebrdische Grammatik, 1913 (pp. 567),
but the subject is much more fully treated in an Article in the Jewish
Quarterly Review, 1908, Vol. XX, No. 80, pp. 647 737 on Mishnaic
Hebrew, by the Rev. Moses H. Segal. He gives abundant instances of
Hebrew " circumlocution of the genitive," with and without "anticipation,"
and speaks (p. 724) of the use of shel as very ancient. Of Mishnaic
"circumlocution with anticipation" he says (p. 728) " generally the con-
struction has an emphatic force"; but (p. 731) "gradually the idiom
began to be used more frequently, and then regularly whenever any
stress was to be laid upon a noun, and, in the course of time, even where
no emphasis was intended."

"In about forty passages in the Mishna," he adds (p. 732), "and
frequently in the Midrashim, circumlocution by ^ w ith the appropriate
suffix is found in the place of the possessive suffix attached immediately
to the noun itself. This construction is used (a) on grounds of grammar,
where, namely, the noun cannot take the suffix through being indeclinable
or consisting of a compound expression, and (b] on grounds of style,
where it is desirable to leave the noun unchanged for the sake of lucidity
or emphasis."

Almost all Mr Segal's instances are taken from the Mishna, where we
cannot expect poetic expression. The impression left by his laborious
research is that if it had extended to the poetic and mystical portions of
the Midrashim, it might have given us instances like that in Sabbath 104 a
(Goldschmidt) "He, Vay, das ist der Name des Heiligen...," where the
literal Hebrew has "He, Vaw, this is His name [the name} that [belongs]
to (shel} the Holy One.... : ' In Gen. r. (on Gen. xxviii. 11, as quoted in
Levy iii. 219^) where reasons are given for calling God PLACE shel
is used with "the Holy One," and with "His world": "Why do they
form [as they do] His Name [the Name] that {appertains} to the Holy
One and call Him PLACE ? Because He is its-place [the place] that
[appertains} to His world." That is, the world is included in Him ; He,
though in His world, is not included in it. But shel is not used with
" Him" in what follows : "We should not know whether the Holy One
[is the] place of His world, or whether His world [is] His place; but,
from that which is written (Exod. xxxiii. 21) 'See, [there is] place with
me,' it follows that the Holy One [is] its-place [the place] that [appertains'}
to [the] world, and not [that] His world [is] His place? The antithesis,
to be exact, would require at the close instead of " His place" "His
place [the place} that [appertains} to Him" But, either as being too
lengthy, or for some other reason, it is avoided.

427

THE INTERPRETATION

in t hat- which-is- thine [i.e. in thine own house] 1 ." We have
seen above that shel occurs thrice in the short Song of
Solomon which is written in Hebrew. Moreover in the
Song of Jacob instead of "until Shiloh come" most
ancient authorities agree in reading some form of shel, mean-
ing "that [kingdom] which \is reserved^ for Him" or " He for
whom \the kingdom &c. is reserved^" Is it unreasonable that,
in attempting to account for the very numerous emphatic pro-
nominal contrasts in the Odes of Solomon, expressed by the
Syriac relative, those who are taking a Hebrew original as
their working hypothesis should say that an explanation
may be first sought at all events in some instances in
the Hebrew shell

It must be admitted, however, that as to some phrases,
hallowed by old Hebraic usage, it is difficult to believe that
a poet writing in later Hebrew would resort to the form shel,
as for example in the phrase " Thy right hand " even when
it was emphatically contrasted with the feebleness of " the
right hand " of Man. But what follows ? Grant that the
Poet, in a phrase of contrast, wrote, in Hebrew, " thy right
hand " with the simple Hebrew suffix. Would not a trans-
lator, whether into Greek or Syriac, feel that the emphasis on
"thy," though manifest to Jews, required to be brought out
distinctly in a translation for Gentiles ? Some of them, being
idolaters, might even think of " thy right hand " as being
distinct from " thy left hand " or " thy foot " or some other
member of their God. Even by the more intelligent the full

1 Levy iv. 556 quoting/ Abod, sar. V, 45 b and Kidd. 57 & It is
interesting to note that in the Prayer of Jesus represented differently in
Mark xiv. 36 ov rte'ycb $f'Xoo..., Mt. xxvi. 39 ov% tor eyo> $e'Ao>..., Lk. xxii. 42
p.}) TO 6(\r)p.d fjiov.... SS has "Not jny will, that-vuhich-^s^-mine...^^ that-
Tvhich-[is]-thine," in all three Gospels.

2 Gen. xlix. 10, LXX and Theod. TO. diroK(ip.va aurai. But al. exempl.
to aTToxftrat, as Onk. " the Messiah whose is the kingdom? and the Peshitta
" He whose it is:'

428

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

force of the Hebrew suffix would probably not be felt.
A Syriac translator, faithful even to baldness in other
respects, might well deviate in this one respect from a
Hebrew original, expressing faithfully with his pen what the
writer of the Hebrew would expect his readers to express
with their voice 1 .

When the preceding sections of this Appendix first ap-
peared, as Chapter III of Miscellanea Evangelica (l), Dom
Connolly sent me some valuable comments on them, all of
which 1 should have liked to quote here in full, had space
allowed. But as some of them entered into minute details
of Syriac idiom, and as I trust he will himself publish the
substance of them hereafter, I will deal merely with one or
two, the full consideration of which seems to me to lead to two
conclusions. The first is (in accordance with Dom Connolly's
view), that the Syriac text of the Odes is a translation later
than the early Syriac translations of the Gospels. The second
is (contrary to Dom Connolly's view), that the composer of
the Odes, whatever may have been the language in which
he composed, did not use the LXX version of the Scriptures.

No apology need be made to students of the Odes of
Solomon for quoting authorities and facts fully as well as
numerously. For facts, and not opinions facts supported
by full quotations in which the context as well as the text
has been verified are what is most wanted in the present
stage of the study of these profoundly interesting but difficult
poems.

1 On this point, however, see Dom Connolly's remarks below, which
indicate that an indiscriminate use of the detachable possessive in a
Syriac translation though leaving the original language an open
question would prove the translation to be late.

429

THE INTERPRETATION

13. "Without grudging"

In Ode xxiii. 4, which I rendered "Walk ye in the know-
ledge of the Most High that is without grudging," the literal
Syriac for "tJiat is without" may be expressed by "quod-non?
meaning " as-to-which [there is] not" e.g. "a land as-to-which
[there zs] no\f\ inhabitant." But, in effect, this "quod-non"
has come to mean "sine'' " without." Hence Dom Connolly
maintains that " without grudging," and not "that is without
grudging" would have been the correct rendering.

This would have been, no doubt, strictly and grammatically
correct. But would it not have been misleading ? Take such
an instance as Job xxxviii. 26 (Syr.) "that the rain may fall on
a land without (quod-non) man 1 ." Is it not obvious that in
this passage, even if, according to strict Syriac idiom, "without
man" is adverbial and ought to be connected with "fall," it
would make nonsense to connect it thus? It is, in effect,
adjectival and connected with "land 2 ." The sense determines

1 Walton " ut cadat pluvia super terram absque homine." The Heb.
lit. is (Walton) " \A\\ere... super terrain non vir, desertum non homo in
eo" " In eo," which may apply to both Heb. clauses, is not rendered in
the Syriac. The Syriac appears to be influenced by, but not identified
with, the Hebrew.

2 We might illustrate the point from English use in (i) "He gave me
a book (or, the book) withoiit a cover? and (2) " He gave me a book (or,
the book) without hesitation." The sense determines the connection.
A precise writer might write (i) fully, thus, " He gave me a book that was
without a cover? or " the book that he gave me was without a cover"
But it would not be terse. And the author of the Odes is very terse. So
far as 1 have noted, he never uses, after a noun, the full Syriac form
(" quod-quod-non ") which would correspond to the full English form
" that-is-without " ; and Rev. G. Margoliouth, who has examined the
whole of the Odes, informs me that he has been unable to find an
instance in any of them. It might often conduce to clearness, after
pronouns (e.g. "they that are without sin do this," as distinct from
"they, without sin, do this"), and it occurs once somewhat similarly in
Ode xxviii. n ("those that ignornntly att;ick," where '-''that ignorantly "
is lit. " qui-in-quod-non (ddld} scientia"}.

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

the connection. And if we appeal to the sense in the Ode
under consideration, and ask who is supposed to be the person
that is " without grudging," the answer seems fairly clear.
There is no thought of the recipients of God's gift, as being
warned "not" to "grudge" the extension of the gift to others.
The Poet is thinking of the Giver's ungrudgingness and is
urging us to respond to it : "Walk in the knowledge of the
Most High [His gift] as-to-whick [there is] no grudging"

This will appear still more clearly if we follow the reading
of Codex N, which inserts a clause about "grace" in the above
quoted Ode (xxiii. 4) "Walk ye in the knowledge of the Lord,
and ye shall know the grace of the Lord without grudging''
"Grace," in such a context, implies a gracious gift, and a
gracious gift implies that there is "no grudging" in the giver.

This is a very different thought from that of "no lack"
in the receiver, and we shall miss the Poet's meaning in several
of his poems if we confuse the two. For example, in "Put on
[thyself] the good-grace of the Lord without grudging, and
come into Paradise 1 ,'' the Poet seems to use " without grudging"
for "as-to-which [there is] no [question of '] grudging" or "[given']
without grudging" For this he has prepared the way, a little
before, by connecting the adverbial "without grudging" with
God's "giving": "I gave my knowledge without grudging*"
And for the thought of God as the Giver without grudging he
has prepared the way at the very outset of his poems, "Thou
hast blossomed on my head... there is no grudging with the
Lord... 3 " The same thought extends to such expressions
as "I have received from Him redemption without grudging"
and "Speaking water touched my lips from the fountain of the
Lord without grudging*"

When the Poet wishes to say merely that a gift of God has
been given "abundantly" so that the recipients have "no lack"

1 Ode xx. 7. 2 Ode xvii. 12.

3 Odes i. 3, iii. 7. Ode ii. is missing.

4 Odes xv. 6, xi. 6.

431

THE INTERPRETATION

of it, there is another scriptural phrase for it, identical in Hebrew
and Syriac. And this he actually uses on at least one occasion,
"Life... hath been given without lack to all that trust in Him 1 ."
But the thought connected with " not grudging" in the Odes is
of quite a different character. It goes back to old traditions
about the tree of knowledge in Paradise, and back to old
questions about the purpose of the Creator in saying to Adam
"Thou shalt not eat of it." Did He "grudge"! Or did He
11 not grudge"! Man's "not lacking" is the effect of God's
" not grudging" But the effect must not be confused with
the cause.

1 4. The detached possessive in Syriac

I now pass to a point on which the evidence f adduced by
Dom Connolly has compelled me to change my views namely,
the use, and the inferences from the use, of the Syriac detached
possessive instead of the possessive suffix. Contending against
the inference that the Syriac translation was late, I have
endeavoured to shew (in 8 of this Appendix) that in all the
instances alleged by Dom Connolly, there is an emphasis that
would justify the detached possessive, even in early Syriac.
And, so far as concerns the instances there alleged, I retain my
opinion, that they might be explained by emphasis. But my
investigation did not cover the text of all the Odes. And
even in those that had come under my notice, I had been
obliged to confess that such an instance as "the right hand
that is thine own" could not be satisfactorily accounted for on
my hypothesis of literal translation into early and rudimentary
Syriac from an original Hebrew composition.

Moreover, against my hypothesis of early Syriac, Dom
Connolly informed me that the style of the Odes as a whole
about which I am not competent to speak is "particularly

1 Ode xv. 1 1. Comp. Exod. xvi. 18 (concerning the manna) " He that
gathered little had no lack" where the same word as that in the Ode is
used in the Hebrew, the Targums, and the Syriac.

432

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

poor in distinctive Syriac idioms that so frequently occur in
the Old Syriac of the Gospels," and that it "has no archaic
forms." In particular, as to the use of the detachable posses-
sive, he called my attention to the contrast between its rare use
in early Syriac translations of the Gospels, and its indiscrimi-
nate use in the Syriac translation of Revelation, which is
comparatively late 1 . I accordingly proceeded to examine
that translation, rendering the detachable possessive experi-
mentally, by " that-is-my-own, thine own &c.," as I have
rendered it in the Odes 2 . Here are some of the results,
taken all from the first chapter: "The Revelation of Jesus
Christ, which God gave to him, that he should shew to the
servants tkat-were-kis-own... sending through the angel tJiat-
was-kis-own to the servant that-was-his-own [namely] John,"
" Who loveth us and loosed us from the sins tJiat-are-our-own
through the blood that-is-his-own" "I, John, your brother,
and the partner tkat-is-your-own" " The mystery of the seven
stars which thou sawest in the right hand that-is-my-own*?

There is nothing in the Odes that comes up to this
indiscriminate use of the detachable possessive. In the whole
of the poems, there are probably no more than sixteen in-
stances of it*, while there are fourteen in the first chapter of
Revelation alone. Nevertheless my impression is that in
the Odes, taken as a whole, there is at all events a some-
what super-abundant use such as cannot be explained com-
pletely by what I have above ventured to call the emphasis of

1 I am informed that the Syriac rendering of Revelation (Walton) is
to be dated A.D. 616.

- It would have been safer to have omitted " own " in the Odes. But
having inserted "own" in the Odes, in the belief that emphasis was
intended, I insert it here in Revelation, for consistency (though no
emphasis can be intended) to shew that perhaps I may have been wrong
in some of my renderings in the Odes. As to many of them, I retain the
belief that "own" was justified because emphasis was intended.

3 Rev. i. i, 5, 9, 20. I have not given all the instances, but only
specimens of its use with ist, 2nd, and 3rd person.

4 For this information I am indebted to Rev. G. Margoliouth.

A. B. 433 28

THE INTERPRETATION

"eucharistic contrast." Although that still seems to me a partial
cause, I now think we must add to it another cause, namely,
the lateness of the Syriac. And, if the Syriac of the Odes is
admitted to be of late date, as compared with the date of the
Old Syriac of the Gospels, another inference follows. It be-
comes increasingly probable that the Syriac is a translation, not
from Hebrew even though the poems were written originally
in Hebrew but from a Greek version of the Hebrew. For it
is not likely that early Hebrew poems of such beauty, perhaps
composed (as I have endeavoured to shew 1 ) about the beginning
of the second century, would remain for two or three centuries
untranslated into Greek, the common language of the Empire,
and yet be remembered and valued enough to be translated
into Syriac at the end of that period.

15. "Danger" in Greek, corresponds to "strait"
or "straitening" in Hebrew

We pass now to a more important question, namely, whether
the composer of the Odes did, or did not, use the LXX in
referring to the Scriptures. The evidence, at first sight,
seems too frail to justify a voyage of discovery. But even
if the object of the voyage remains undiscovered, there are
discoveries to be made on the way. Moreover a careful
examination of the evidence, viewed in its environment, will
shew that there is much more substance in it than a brief
glance could shew.

Taken by itself, however, the evidence consists of a single
brief phrase to which among other facts that seemed to
point to a translation from Greek Dom Connolly called my
attention. The phrase contains the Greek kindunos, "danger,"
in Syriac letters. Kindunos is not among the very long list
of Greek words, such as nomos, "law," adopted from Greek

1 See Light on the Gospel 392337.
434

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

into late Hebrew, or Aramaic, or both. It is in Syriac alone 1 .
Occurring in one of the Odes not translated in my volume, it
had escaped my notice ; and Dom Connolly asked me how
I explained it on the hypothesis of a Hebrew original, and
what I regarded as the Hebrew equivalent.

Acknowledging the fairness of this challenge I proceeded
to investigate, first, the uses of the Syriac kindunos, and
especially its uses in versions of the Scriptures ; then the
uses of the Greek noun kindnnos and the corresponding verb
in the Scriptures, and the Hebrew words or thoughts to which
they corresponded. Lastly, I analysed the context of the
Ode, and the thoughts in it, and compared them with thoughts
and contexts suggested by the Hebrew equivalent in its various
Hebrew forms. The investigation led me to two conclusions:
1st, that Dom Connolly was certainly right in suggesting that
the word was a sign of late Syriac, and not improbably right
also in suggesting that it was a sign of translation from Greek ;
2nd, that I had been right in suggesting that the composer of
the Odes composed in Hebrew, because, in this particular phrase,
there were indications that, although alluding to Scripture, he
did not allude to the LXX but to the Hebrew, where the LXX
and the Hebrew exhibited a remarkable divergence from each
other. I now proceed to give the detailed facts through which
these conclusions were reached.

In the first place it can speedily be shewn that neither the
Syriac nor the Greek kindunos exactly expresses any Hebrew
thought. When Luke, using the Greek corresponding verb
(kinduneuein)^ says that the disciples, during the storm on
Gennesaret, " were-in- danger \pf perishing}" one Syriac version,
it is true, has kindunos, but the earlier versions have "they
i^cre (or, the ship was) near to sink" very much as in the
Hebrew and Greek of the corresponding passage in Jonah 2 .

1 Dom Connolly subsequently informed me that it is the only word of
the kind that he has found in the Odes.

- Lk. viii. 23 (SS, Curet., and Walton) " near to sink." Comp. Jon. i. 4

435

~ 2

THE INTERPRETATION

It is true that Delitzsch translates Luke literally " they were
in hazard" \ but he uses a noun of which the corresponding
verb, though frequent in New Hebrew and Aramaic, occurs
only once in Scripture 1 . The other two instances of the verb,
kinduneuein, in canonical LXX, confirm the view that the
meaning of risk or hazard, often connected with kindunos, is
not exactly expressed by any single word in Hebrew 2 . The
Syriac Thesaurus confirms the inference suggested by the
non-adoption of the word into Aramaic, and shews that,
although frequently used independently in later Syriac, and
as a rendering of the Greek kindunos in N.T., it does not
occur as a faithful rendering of any one Hebrew word in O.T.,
but is used loosely to express danger of being drowned, snared,
condemned to death, &c. 3

We now pass to the only instance where the Greek noun
kindunos represents a Hebrew word : " The cords of death
compassed me and the kindunoi of Sheol gat hold upon me 4 ."
The Hebrew root in various forms implies "[extreme and
painful] pressure" "pressing [almost to death]." It may be
" pressure " from surrounding enemies, or from anxieties, but it

R.V. " the ship was like to be broken? Heb. lit. " navis putabat conteri?
Syr. " navis in ilia volutabatur adfracturam patiendam? Targ. " adeo ut
navis quaereret conteri." But Thes. 3605 quotes VHh. Lk. viii. 23, and
Hex. Jon. i. 4 as using masc. and fern, forms of Syr. kindunos.

1 Eccles. x. 9 "he that cleaveth [logs of] wood hazards himself by
them." Uelitzsch (1878) uses the corresponding noun, "hazard" But
I am informed that Delitzsch (1877) had np1VD3 i>e. (Gesen. 848 a)
"in straitness."

2 Is. xxviii. 13 (Heb.) "and be snared? Dan. i. 10 (Heb.) "so should
ye inculpate my head," Theod. KoraSi/cao-^re (Gesen. 295 a], "Danger"
in R.V. is mostly legal "danger," i.e. liability, as in Merck, of Venice
iv. i. 1 80.

3 See Thes. 3605. There is no Syr. verb corresponding to Kivdvi'fiu.
In Sir. xxxi (xxxiv) 13, LXX ecos- Bavdrov eWSiWutra, Hex. Syr. has
u I incurred kindunos? to express fKiv8vvcv<ra, where Walton's Syr. has
" ad mortem usque perveni"

1 1's. cxvi. 3 (R.V.) "the/az;/.? of Sheol."

436

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

may also express the " anguish " or " straitening " of "travail 1 ."
The form used here occurs only twice elsewhere: (i) "All
those that pursued her [i.e. the Chosen People] overtook her in
the straits" (2) " Out of my straits I called upon the Lord ; the
Lord answered me [and set me] in a large place 2 ." The last
of these passages, with its threefold reference in the context to
" all nations " that " compassed " Israel " around," illustrates
well the general Hebrew conception of the "pressure," or
" hemming in," that constitutes Israel's " danger 3 ." And the
preceding one, with its mention of "pursuing" and "over-
taking" may contain a particular reference to that danger
above all other dangers which befell Israel at the Red Sea,
when Pharaoh said of Israel " The wilderness Jiath shut them
in" and " I will pursue, I will overtake*" If it does, there is a
play on the word " straits" and the meaning is that, whereas
in " t/ie straits " of old, between the mountains and the sea, the
Lord had frustrated the boast of Egypt, He had not done
the same in the case of Assyria. By Assyria, though not by
Egypt, Israel had been "overtaken in the straits*?

1 See Gesen. 865 a on m, "specif, of travail, Jer. xlix. 24 (simile), cf.
iv. 31 " on which see below, p. 438, n. 2. In Jerem. xlix. 24, LXX om.
"anguish... travail." The root is -nv (I) "bind," from which comes -|VD,
the participial form used in Ps. cxvi. 3. The adjective, or noun, "itf, is far
more common, meaning "strait," "straits," "distress." The noun IV,
from -m (II) " be-hostile," means "adversary." Hence ambiguity.

2 Lam. i. 3, Ps. cxviii. 5.

3 For the threefold repetition of " compassed me about," see Ps. cxviii.
10 12, where the context implies the pressing nature of the peril, and
the imminence of death, but for the Lord's intervention (jib. 17 18)
"I shall not die. ..he hath not given me over to death."

4 See Exod. xiv. 3, and also xv. 9 " The enemy said I will pursue,
I will overtake? where the Heb. is identical with that of Lam. i. 3.
Rashi, on Lam. i. 3, gives as his first explanation, the literal one of a
defile ("hinc atque illinc altitude (montium) ") from which there is no
escape, and, as a third, one that makes "straits" refer to times of
affliction. The LXX has "in the midst of those who put [her] to
tribulation (TO>V 0Xi/3<Wa>i>)."

See Exod. xiv. 23 "Speak unto the children of Israel that they...

437

THE INTERPRETATION

It remains to add that the Greek kindunos besides an
unimportant and erroneous use of it by Symmachus in Genesis
to mean "disaster" or "mischief 1 " is used (to represent a
form of the above mentioned Hebrew tsrr) by Aquila in
Jeremiah, " the anguish (R.V.) of her that bringeth forth her
first child 2 ." The rendering ascribed to Aquila is "danger
(kindunos) [and tribulation (tklipsis)]" This reminds us of
a Johannine saying, using the metaphor of "travail," and
conveying the assurance to Christ's disciples that although,
" in the world," there is in store for them thlipsis (i.e. tribula-
tion), as for a "woman in travail," yet they may be "of
good cheer" because Jesus has been "victorious over the
world 3 ." This means, in effect, "There is in store for you
pressure but not pressure to death, tribulation but no real
' danger* '."

Now if we ask how this " pressure of tribulation " is ex-
pressed in Hebrew we find that by far the most frequent
equivalent is a short form, tsar, or tsarah, of the Hebrew root
above mentioned ; and tsarah is the word in Jeremiah rendered

encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-
zephon...? where Jer. Targ. and Mechilt, ad loc. imply, or declare, that
Israel was surrounded by hostile idols, and mountains, and the sea, and
the Egyptians (Jer. Targ. "the idol. ..hath shut them in close upon (or,
before) the desert," Mechilt. p. 81 " R. Joshua says ' Hachiroth was on
this side, Migdol on that side, the sea before them, the Egyptians behind
them'"). Also Josephus (Ant. ii. 15. 3 foil, and ii. 16. i) repeatedly
mentions the "small space' 1 ' 1 into which the fugitives were forced, being-
surrounded by the " mountains," the sea and the Egyptians (as also does
Philo ii. 108, only that he omits "mountains," perhaps not seeing much
meaning in " Pi-hahiroth," for which LXX has eVavXeoos, but "AXXoy has

1 Gen. xlii. 4.

2 Jerem. iv. 31 m, Aq. nlvbwov [ai dXtyii/], Symm. 6\fyiv, LXX TOV

3 Jn xvi. 21 'H yvvr)...\V7rr)v \i...oi>KfTi p.vr)p.ovfVi rrjs QXfyfws (R.V.
anguish}..., ib. 33 'Ei/ T&> KOCT/MO) 0Xn//-ti/ (R.V. tribulation] fx crf -> ^
$ap<reiTf, (ya) vfviKrjKO. TOV Kotr/xoi/.

4 Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 8 0Xi/3o/Afi>oi aXX* ov

438

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

kindunos by Aquila 1 . Having therefore the authority of Aquila,
as well as that of the LXX, for supposing that, in the rare
event of the occurrence of the Greek kindunos in a translation
from Hebrew, it might represent the Hebrew tsar or tsarah^
and might represent, literally or metaphorically, the " straits "
of Israel, encompassed by enemies, we now turn back to the
phrase with which we started, "without danger" in Ode
xxxix. 7, in order to consider its context.

1 6. " Without danger" in Ode xxxix. 7

The Ode might be entitled " On the Crossing of Mighty
Rivers." It begins thus, " Mighty 2 rivers are the power of
the Lord, and they carry away, head downwards 3 , those who
despise Him 4 ." In the poetry of Israel, celebrating the de-
liverances of the nation by Jehovah, the Euphrates would be
one of the " mighty rivers," and the Nile, or the Red Sea,
would be the other. Strictly described, the Red Sea is not

1 Its frequency is disguised by the fact that our English versions
render it by many different words, "anguish," "distress," "sorrow,"
"strait," "tribulation." Comp. I S. xxviii. 15 with 2. S. xxiv. 14 (rep.
i Chr. xxi. 13), where Saul is made to say "I am sore distressed," but
David " I am in a great strait." Yet, in the Hebrew, both use precisely
the same words, and in the same order.

2 The Syr. "mighty," as verb or adj. (Thes. 3003) is used of the
"overpowering" waters of the Deluge in Gen. vii. 18 (and Wisd. x. 18),
and then of the cry of Sodom, of famine, and of crushing task-work, in
Gen. xviii. 20, xliii. i, Exod. v. 9, &c. It is used of the waters of the
Euphrates in Is. viii. 7, and of '''mighty rivers" in Ps. Ixxiv. 15. See
below, p. 440, n. 3.

3 "Head downwards" is a phrase used (Thes. 626) to describe the
crucifixion of St Peter. Here it seems to mean sunk deep, and past
helping.

4 Ode xxxix. 12. Comp. Rom. ix. 22, "Willing to shew his wrath,
and to make his power known" with the refrain in Exodus about
Pharaoh's being forced to "know" the Lord. It begins in Exod. vii. 5
"the Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord," rep. vii. 17, viii. 10, &c.
Pharaoh had "despised" the Lord and said (ib. v. 2) "I know not the
Lord." The " mighty river " was " the power of the Lord " upon him, in
return for his "despising," and it "carried him away."

439

THE INTERPRETATION

a " river " ; but, being " the tongue of the Egyptian sea," it
may be treated poetically as one with the hostile Dragon of
Egypt, the Nile, and it is so treated in Scripture 1 . Moreover
the same passage of Isaiah that describes the Nile as "the
tongue of the Egyptian sea," also speaks of the Euphrates, as
being preeminently " the River*- " the mightiest of " mighty
rivers" the crossing of which was the emblem of Israel's
return from captivity in Babylon, as the crossing of the
Egyptian Sea was the emblem of Israel's release from
bondage in Egypt. In an earlier passage Isaiah contrasts
this " mighty river " of God's wrath and judgment with His
own gentle waters : " Forasmuch as this people hath refused
the waters of Shiloah that go softly... therefore, behold, the
Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the River, strong
and many (Syr. mighty] [even] the king of Assyria 3 ."

The Ode proceeds to shew how these " mighty rivers " are
to be crossed. There is to be a "sign (or, ensign*)" in them,

1 See Is. xi. 1516 "The Lord shall utterly destroy the tongue of the
Egyptian sea [i.e. the Red Sea]... and shall shake his hand over the River
...and there shall be an high way.. .from Assyria, like as there was for
Israel in the day that he came out of the land of Egypt." Also comp.
Is. xix. 5 "the waters shall fail from the sea" where Field has " de mart
[Ntlo]? and where R.V. marg. refers to Ezek. xxxii. 2 "Thou [/.<?. Pharaoh]
art as a dragon in the seas and thou brakest forth in thy rivers..."

There appears to be an allusion to the Dragon of Egypt, sending
forth a pursuing stream after Israel, in Rev. xii. 15 " The serpent cast out
of his mouth, after the woman, water as a river" " The earth " saves
Israel, (ib.) " The earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the river?
So in Exodus (xv. 12) "Thou stretchedst out thy right hand ; the earth
swallowed them [i.e. the Egyptians'}"

2 So the Targum and Rashi. And so R.V. marg. which refers to
Is. vii. 20 "with a razor.. .in the parts beyond the River, [even] with the
king of Assyria." On "the River" meaning Euphrates see Gesen. 625 b.

' Is. viii. 7. Comp. Wisd. x. 18 "much (TroXXov) water" (of the Red
Sea which drowned the Egyptians) Syr. mighty.

4 The Syriac for "ensign" corresponds to Heb. "banner "or "ensign"
{The s. 413) in Is. v. 26, xxx. 17, Jerem. iv. 6, Ezek. xxvii. 7, to which add
Ps. Ix. 4 " thou hast given an ensign to them that fear thee." The radical
meaning of the Heb. is (Gesen. 651) " raised-up-as-a-signal."

440

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

and it is said, " The ensign in them is the Lord, and the
ensign is the way of those who cross in the name of the Lord.
Put on, therefore, the name of the Most High, and know Him."
And now come the words for the discussion of which we have
been so long preparing ourselves : " And ye shall cross without
danger, for the rivers will be subject to you 1 ." And the question
arises, Are we to infer from the context in the Ode, and from
the illustrative passages adduced from Exodus and Isaiah, that
this phrase, unique in the Odes, alludes to some phrase con-
tained in the Hebrew poetry that describes the Crossing of
the Sea by Israel, or does it simply mean as it almost
certainly would, if the Poet thought in Greek, and probably
would if he composed in Greek " in safety," " without the
slightest risk 2 "?

The answer appears to be that zprimafacie case has been
made out for supposing that the Poet thought, even if he did
not write, in Hebrew because the conception of "mighty
rivers" as God's chastising instruments is much more promi-
nent in Hebrew than in Greek but that he may very well
have regarded the Red Sea as being passed over by Israel,
as Isaiah says, "dry shod 3 ," i.e. without the slightest risk, so
that the Greek kindunos, with a negative, would suit his
meaning. It is true that Aquila renders the Hebrew "strait"
by kindunos. But where (it may be asked) can we find in
Scripture the Hebrew "strait" used in a negative phrase? It
occurs abundantly in positive phrases, such as David's " I am
in a great strait," but nowhere do we find in Scripture such a
phrase as "no strait" meaning "no extreme peril!'

This is true, so far as concerns the text of our English
versions of Scripture. And, if it were also true of Hebrew
Scripture, we could go no further in our attempt to explain

1 Ode xxxix. 7.

- That would be the natural meaning of dxivdwos, see Steph. T/ies.
quoting Eurip. Iph. A. 17 where the word goes with dyvws and a
:] Is. xi. 15.

441

THE INTERPRETATION

" no danger " in the Syriac before us from a similar phrase in
Hebrew. But we shall now shew that the Hebrew " no strait "
occurs in the following circumstances, (i) It is used in the
written Hebrew text (as distinct from the Hebrew oral version)
of a passage in Isaiah. (2) Although this rendering is rejected
by the text of our Revised Version, it is retained (in some
form) by the Targum, the Syriac, and Theodotion, and is
supported by Rashi. (3) It is connected in Isaiah's context
with the name of " Moses," and with the crossing of the Red
Sea. (4) The context in the Ode mentions an " ensign " for
those who cross, and also a " way " made for them through the
deep ; and Isaiah, in a previously quoted passage, where he
describes the two rivers namely, " the tongue of the Egyptian
Sea" and "the River [Euphrates]" also mentions an "ensign"
of " the peoples " and for " the nations," and a " high way for
the remnant of his people 1 ." (5) " No strait" does not occur
anywhere in the Bible except in the passage of Isaiah above
mentioned and now to be commented on 2 .

17. "No\f\ strait" in Isaiah (Ixiii. 9, Heb.)

This passage according to the tradition called Masora,
which (in, or about, the eighth century) aimed at fixing the
correct reading of the Scriptures 3 was one of fifteen where
"not is written by error for to him*" The word for "strait" is
the above-mentioned tsar, and the feminine tsarah occurs
in the context thus: "In all their straitening (tsarah} [there
was] no\f\ strait (tsar) 6 " This may be interpreted as meaning

1 Ode xxxix. 6 "ensign" (twice), ib. 6, 11 "way"-, Is. xi. 10 "ensign
of the peoples," ib. 12 "ensign for the nations," ib. 16 "a high way"

2 This appears from Mandelkern, p. 1005.

3 Gratz, Eng. transl. iii. 114. Etymologically, "Masora" means
" tradition." But it has come to mean the peculiar " tradition " described
above.

4 Gesen. 520 . "By error" represents the view of the Masora, not
the fact (see Gesen.).

6 So Walton " In omni angustia eorum non angustia."

442

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

"In all the straitening of Israel there was no [real] strait"
that is, no cause for despair, "because God, while allowing
them to suffer tribulation, could not allow them to be de-
stroyed 1 ." But this interpretation, it must be admitted, assumes
a bold, brief, and obscure paradox, which might well deter
some from accepting the negative ; and the Targum and Rashi,
who retain the negative, dilute the poetic paradox into prosaic
and unsatisfactory paraphrases 2 .

The result has been that in Rabbinical and in modern
times the alteration of "#[/]" into "toJiiin" has prevailed, "In
all their straitening [there was] to Jiim straitening" or, as in
R.V. text, "In all their affliction he was afflicted*?' This ren-
dering expresses a very beautiful thought, beautifully expressed
in several Jewish traditions 4 . Jerome, calling attention to the

1 Comp. 2 Cor. iv. 8 drrnpnvp.evoi aXX' OVK ega.7ropovp.evoi, i.e. "resource-
less yet not quite (or, not really] resourceless? OVK OVTVS airopov^evoL.

2 Targ. (Walton). " In omni tempore quo peccaverunt coram eo ut
adduceret super eos tribulationem, non tribulavit eos," i.e. "in all the
time wherein they tempted Him by their sins to straiten them, He did
not straiten them" (perhaps using Aram, "straiten" (Levy Ch. ii. 2134)
as "bring to destruction"); Rashi "In omni angustia eorum quam
induxit super illos, non affecit angustia illos juxta eorundem opera,"
i.e. "in all the straitening that He brought upon them, He did not
straiten them in proportion to their [evil] works."

Jerome has, in his text, " In omni tribulatione eorum non est tribulatus "
which he explains by adding "ut parumper eos desereret, et nudatos
auxilio suo cogeret ad rogandum," i.e. (seemingly) "God did not share
their straitening, but departed from them that they might miss and
seek Him." But he adds with a "vel certe" denoting preference
"Nequaquam tribulavit eos, sed contrario, caeteris persequentibus, adjutor
fuit," i.e. " He did not {really} straiten them, but on the contrary was
[really] helping them." In all these passages "tribulare" is not the
right word. It should have been " angustiare," which is distinguished
from the former in 2 Cor. iv. 8 (Vulg.) "tribulationem patimur sed non
angustia mur. "

The Syriac has the negative, thus : " In cunctis calamitatibus eorum
non afflixerit eos."

3 But R.V. marg. has the negative, thus : " In all their adversity he
was no adversary."

4 See Son of Man 3518/, 3550 a foil., to which add Mechilt. on Exod.

443

THE INTERPRETATION

twofold reading of the Hebrew, either as negative or as pro-
noun, illustrates the latter from Isaiah's description of the
Suffering Servant 1 ; and the similarity would naturally pre-
dispose Christians after Jerome's time to accept the pronominal
reading.

But we are dealing with an Ode of Solomon, a poem sup-
posed (according to our working hypothesis) to have been
written about as early as the end of the first century; and we
do not find the LXX, or Theodotion, or the Syriac Version, or
the Targum greatly though they diverge from one another
supporting the alteration of the written Hebrew negative.
Theodotion ("no besieger") is somewhat like our R.V. margin,
"no adversary*" The LXX has "From all their tribulation
no ambassador*" which needs special note, for two reasons.
First, it comes as a climax to the evidence upholding the early
date of the negative reading. Secondly, it shews that the
author of the Odes, if he was alluding to this passage of Isaiah,
did not allude to the LXX, w/iick has "no ambassador" but to
the Hebrew, which has "no strait!'

That he was alluding to this passage of Isaiah appears
to be made additionally probable by the notoriety attaching
to its various interpretations in early times. And that he
would prefer the terse paradoxical negative reading is con-
sistent with his characteristic brevity. The paradox was

xvii. 15, xix. 2 (Wii. pp. 178, 193), and Exod. r. on Exod. iii. 2 (Wii.
pp. 33 4) quoting Ps. xci. 15 "I am with him in straitness," as well as
Is. Ixiii. 9, and implying that God spoke "in the thorn-bush" as being
"in straits." But Sota 31 a leaves the reading in Isaiah an open question.

1 Jerome (on Is. Ixiii. 9) " in omni tribulatione eorum ipse est tribulatus,
id est, Deus, ut non solum ' peccata ' sed et ' tribulationes ' nostras ipse
portaret. Ipse enim ' infirmitates nostras portat et pro nobis dolet'"

a combination of Is. liii. 4, Heb. " languores nostros ipse tulit, et dolores
nostros ipse portavit," LXX "iste peccata nostra portat, et pro nobis
dolet."

2 Theod. ov 7ro\iopKT)Tr)s, i.e. " no one pressing them to extremity."

3 This is explicable on the supposition that LXX read tsir (Gesen. 85 1 b}
for tsar, comp. Is. xxi. 2 R.V. "besiege? LXX "ambassadors"

444

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

illustrated above by the Pauline expression " resourceless, yet
not utterly resourceless"; but it is still more like u as deceivers
and [yet] true, as unknown and [yet] well known, as dying
and behold we live... as sorrowful but always rejoicing... as
having nothing and [yet] possessing all things 1 ."

1 8. The context in the Ode and the contexts in Isaiah

Parallelisms between the Ode and Isaiah have been pointed
out above, all illustrating the picture of Crossing the Deep.
In the West, this metaphor did not spring out of the national
history of the Greeks or Romans. But it was widely known
in connection with the conveyance of the souls of the dead to
the banks of the Styx under the guidance of Hermes with his
magic wand. With Israel, the Crossing was not only national
being nationalised at the Red Sea and the Jordan but also
ancestral, since "Abraham the Hebrew" meant "Abraham the
Grosser of the Euphrates 2 ." The Christian Church accepted
the Jewish Messiah as being all, and more than all, that was
implied in the wand-bearing Hermes of the West, conveying
the dead to the abodes of judgment. They also accepted Him
as being all, and more than all, that was implied in the rod-
bearing Moses of the East, parting the waters of the Red Sea,
and leading his people from slavery into the Land of Promise
and of Freedom. What, therefore, to Christians, would the
Messiah's "wand" or "rod" naturally become? Above, we
noted that both the Ode and Isaiah speak not only of "mighty
rivers" and of a "way" across them, but also of an "ensign" in
connection with the Crossing. And here the question arises
as to the nature of this "ensign."

In the passage where Isaiah connects the Crossing with the
name of Moses, he makes no mention of "ensign" but only of

1 2 Cor. iv. 8, vi. 8 10.

2 See Light on the Gospel 3948, quoting Philo on Abraham the Perates,
and also on the Nile and the Euphrates in connection with Abraham.

445

THE INTERPRETATION

the "spirit" or "arm" as representing God's presence: "Where
is he that put his holy spirit in the midst of them? that caused
his glorious arm to go at the right hand of Moses ? that divided
the water before thenrL.. 1 ?" Elsewhere, as interpreted by
Aquila, Isaiah says "He shall come as a river [that is] straiten-
ing, the spirit of tlie Lord is an ensign in zV 2 ." With this we
must compare the Song of Moses which says, according to the
Hebrew, "Thou didst blow with thy spirit (or, wind}, the sea
covered them," but according to Onkelos, "Thou didst speak
by thy Word, the sea covered them 3 ." Here it seems that the
invisible "spirit" acting through the invisible "wind 4 " for the
deliverance of Israel, and clearing a way for them through
the waters, might be regarded as being the "spirit" and the
"arm" at the right hand of Moses. But the visible repre-
sentative of "the spirit" would naturally be that "rod" of which
God said to Moses "Lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thine
hand over the sea and divide it 5 ."

It may be objected, however, that the Ode makes no
mention of a " rod." And further, against the hypothesis
of allusion to the Crossing of the Red Sea, it may be urged
that there is an apparent incompatibility between the picture
in the Ode and the picture in Exodus, as to the nature of the
"way" across the deep. Alluding to Exodus, the Psalmist
says, "Thy way [was] in the sea, and thy footsteps were not
known*" But the Ode says "And His footprints stand [firm]
in the water, and are not destroyed', but they are like a tree
(or, beam) that is firm-set in truth" a thought repeated, though

1 Is. Ixiii. ii 12. For the earlier context mentioning "ensign," see
p. 442, n. i.

2 Is. lix. 19 (Aq.) 6\it(TfTai <us Trorapos crrevos (tsar), Trj/eC/za nvpiov
avo-o-TjfMov ev aurai, R.V. txt " He shall come as a rushing stream, which
the breath of the Lord driveth," marg. "when the adversary... standard
against him." 3 Exod. xv. 10.

4 Comp. Ps. civ. 4 (R.V. marg.) "Who maketh his angels winds."

1 Kxod. xiv. 1 6.

(i 1's. Ixxvii. 19 A.V. "are not known," R.V. "were not known."

446

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

varied, in the next verse, which says that, in spite of the waves,
" The footprints of our Lord tJie Messiah remain firm and are
not effaced and not destroyed, and a way has been appointed for
those who cross after Him\"

But in truth there is no incompatibility ; there is only de-
velopment. The Poet does not deny that, in the old days,
the " footsteps " were " not known." But he asserts that now,
in the new days, the " footsteps " remain " firm-set," and con-
stitute a permanent " way " for those who will follow the Lord.
We may illustrate the difference by the difference of the
language of Mark about the momentary "rending" of the
heavens on the occasion of Christ's baptism from the language
imputed afterwards to Jesus by the Fourth Gospel, "Ye shall
see the heaven opened [once for all] and the angels of God
ascending and descending upon the Son of Man 2 ."

No doubt, the metaphor of planting implied in "firm-set
as a tree " seems very far away from anything in the picture of
Israel's passage through the waters. But it would be better to
say "seems to us!' For it happens that a Jewish tradition on the
Levitical precepts as to " planting," quotes in connection with
them this very verse from the Psalms about the " foot-prints " of
the Lord. " How can we possibly 'follow' God," asks the Rabbi,
" as Scripture bids us ? For ' His way was in the sea 3 .' " The
reply given is, in effect, that we can "follow" Him spiritually,
by imitating His "planting" in Eden 4 , that is, by cultivating
a life that brings forth good fruit. Nor is this so far-fetched
as it seems. It is only a superficial or childish view of the
Path through the Waters to regard it as merely "the great
work which the Lord did upon the Egyptians 5 ." That was

1 Ode xxxix. 9 11.

- Jn i. 51 ui/ewydra, on which see Son of Man 3376, comp. 3136.

Comp. Mk i. lo

3 Lev. r. (on Lev. xix. 23, Wii. p. 167) quoting Deut. xiii. 4 and
Ps. Ixxvii. 19.

4 Gen. ii. 8. 5 Exod. xiv. 31.

447

THE INTERPRETATION

but the means to an end. The fuller and maturer view regards
the end, and is positive, not negative : " Till the people pass
over which thou hast purchased ; thou shalt bring them in
and plant them in the mountain of thine inheritance^" The
" great work" of "swallowing up 2 " or eradicating the evil is
but a small part of the infinitely greater work of " planting "
the good.

Why does not the Ode mention the Messiah's " rod " as
dividing the waters of Sheol, and as the " sign " in the new
Exodus corresponding to the " rod " of Moses in the old one ?
Perhaps because having regard to the aspect of " the rod of
God " as " a rod of iron " the. Poet preferred the metaphor of
the "tree." He has previously mentioned the "rod" in con-
nection with the Lord's "sign*" But he appears not to
mention it again in the whole of the Odes. And there, it is
as an emblem of "power" an inferior attribute : " He led me in
His light and gave me the rod of PI is power" This is the
western and perhaps the cosmopolitan view of the " rod " or
" sceptre " of kings. But the story about Aaron's rod, which
brought forth leaves, flowers, and fruit, might naturally help
to establish in the minds of devout Jews a connection between
"a rod of God," or "sceptre of God," and a "tree," not
prominent and perhaps not existent in western literature 4 .

To add to the multiplicity of metaphors, open to a Jewish
poet of the first century singing of the Rod of Moses as the
type of the Cross of Christ, Isaiah, in one and the same

1 Exod. xv. 1 6 17.

2 Exod. xv. 12, see p. 440, n. i.

3 Ode xxix. 7. See Light on the Gospel 3958 as to the reading, and
the allusion, and the traditions about " the rod of God." Harnack's Index
gives no other instance of "rod" in the Odes. The context mentions
"subduing" and "overthrowing." Comp. Light 3913 "It was character-
istic of Hebrew thought to assume that WORD or NAME had more power
over the forces of evil than the rod, mace, or sceptre, of a king. If rod
was to be used, it must be as Isaiah says (xi. 4) 'the rod of his mouth'."

4 Numb. xvii. 8 (Heb. 25).

448

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

passage that predicts a Messianic " rod," uses two words, the
first of which might suggest, at least to readers of the Greek
versions of the Scriptures, the thought of the " wand " of
Hermes, the Conductor of departed souls : " There shall
come," he says, " a rod (or, shoot) out of the stock of Jesse,
and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit," and then
" he shall smite the earth with the rod (or, sceptre, or, club) of
his mouth," and later on, concerning " the root of Jesse," that
it " standeth for an ensign of the peoples," and, " unto him shall
the nations seek 1 ." Now here both Rashi and Ibn Ezra take
the rare Hebrew word meaning " rod (or, shoot) " as " sceptre "
or " rod " (not, as " shoot ") ; and Aquila renders it by the
diminutive "wand-ling" (rabdion). This, though it might
mean "twig," is applied both by Epictetus and by Babrius
to the wand of Hermes by which he " calls forth souls from
Orcus'V' and is applied by them in such a way as to indicate
a customary or proverbial application 3 .

1 Is. xi. i, 4, 10. "Rod (or, shoot)" is "IDPI (LXX pdpdos), which
occurs only here and Prov. xiv. 3 (LXX /3a<r^pia); " rod (or, sceptre, or,
club*)" is B2>, rendered by LXX pd(38os (24), a-K^Trrpov (15), but here,
because of the metaphor ("rod of his mouth") \6yos. A third word,
HOD, " rod (or, staff} " is rendered by LXX pdfidos (48), CTK^TTTPOV (2), and
this is used of Aaron's "rod." A fourth word, *?pD, "rod (or, stick)" is
rendered by LXX ftanrripia. (4), pdfibos (14), and is used of the travellers
"staff" with which Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 10) "passed over Jordan."

2 Virgil Aeneid iv. 242.

3 'Pa/SSiW does not occur in LXX, nor again in translations of the
Bible exc. Prov. xiv. 3 (Theod.). Gesen. 310 gives the Heb. word as
occurring elsewhere only in Prov. xiv. 3 (R.V. txt) "rod" marg. "shoot"
Steph. Thes. quotes Babr. 117, 9. Epictet. iii. 20. 12 says "This is the
\true\ ivand (rabdion] of Hermes." It is not an outside "wand," he adds,
that turns dross to gold, it is an inside "wand" by which we can turn
calamities to blessings, "all these things will be made profitable by the
[true] wand of Hermes." Cicero De Off. \. 44. 158 "virgula divina, ut
aiunt" indicates that the diminutive was used in Latin also, proverbially,
to mean "magic wand."

Since Hermes is called xP v < r PP a7rls > there may be an allusion to his
"golden wand" in the saying of Epictetus about turning anything, at
pleasure, to gold. But the epithet also invites illustration from the

A. B. 449 29

THE INTERPRETATION

Thus, by Christians, one and the same emblem, the Cross
of Christ 1 , might be regarded as a Wand of Power dividing
the waters of Sheol, and also a Sign or Standard for Christ's
saints following in His footsteps, and also as a Bridge or Way
from death to life appointed for future ages, and lastly as a
Tree of Life set up in the very depth of the sea of sin. This
last is indeed a bold metaphor. Israel was " baptized " (Paul
says) in the Red Sea; and Barnabas speaks of the "tree
planted by the courses of waters" as meaning the Cross
and Baptism 2 . But the Ode seems to mean more than this.
Perhaps it looks forward to a time when the waters of Sheol
are to be dried up, and, as Revelation says, " The sea is no
more 3 ." It prepares the way for the picture brought before
us in one of the versions of the Descensus ad Inferos : " And
the Lord set His Cross in the midst of Hades, which is the sign
of victory, and which will remain even to eternity 4 ."

Golden Bough, which was a passport across the Styx (Aeneid vi. 140 4,
where perhaps "vtrga? "branch," is used allusively in "...aureus, et
simili frondescit virga metallo"). The Caduceus of heralds is said to
have been (Lewis and Short) "orig. an olive-stick with o-re'^pzra."

1 See From Letter to Spirit 928 (i) (x) on " taking up the cross," where
the conclusion is that " it was not a Roman custom to bear the cross "-
i.e. the massive vertical post fixed in the earth and "at least 13 ft. long"-
"but only to bear the patibulum, furca, or i yoke.' > " The Jewish phrase
" take the yoke upon thee " would prepare the way for the interpretation
"take the cross upon thee." Thus the old Roman word "furcifer" would
prepare the way for the new Christian word "crucifer." It is obvious
that the upright part, and the transverse part, of the Cross would lend
themselves to different metaphors. The former would suggest (among
other things) a standard or tree ; the latter, a way-mark.

2 i Cor. x. 2. Barn. 11 (quoting Ps. i. 3). He says that the Psalm
means " Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the Cross, have gone
down into the water."

3 Rev. xxi. i "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth. ..and the sea
is no more."

4 Descens. ad Inf. (Lat. 2nd Vers.) 10 (26). The Greek Version
represents Jesus as apparently bringing the Cross into Hades, when
Jesus says 8 (24) "For I, behold, am again raising you all up through
the tree (uXou) of the Cross."

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

1 9. Conclusion

These details have led us away from the merely verbal
question as to the explanation of the Syro-Greek kindunos in
one of the Odes. But they have led us back to the subject of
this Appendix, which is the Interpretation of Early Christian
Poetry. And on that subject they will have thrown light if
they have helped us to discern, in the Odes as a whole, a
transition of Jewish thought passing from a pre-Christian into
a Christian atmosphere. We may see something like it in
Justin Martyr's view of the "rod 1 ." But Justin piles type on
type, not always accurately, and never with any sense of
poetic symbolism, proportion, or development 2 . The author

1 See Tryph. 86, where the text, unaltered, can be explained as follows.
Justin says he will shew that, "after Christ was crucified, He had with
Him the symbol of the Tree of Life," i.e. the Cross, "and [the symbol] of
those things that should come to pass for all the righteous," i.e. for their
redemption. This might refer to Jesus, after death, carrying His Cross
into Hades. Then Justin mentions the "rod" of Moses, and the "tree"
that Moses cast into the waters of Marah, and the "rods" that Jacob put
into water-troughs, and the "rod" with which Jacob "boasted that he
had crossed the river," and Aaron's "rod" which blossomed, and the
"rod" that (according to Isaiah) was to "come forth from the root of
Jesse."

2 After mentioning the "rod from the root of Jesse," Justin ( Tryph. 86)
passes to (Ps. i. 3) the "tree planted by the courses of waters," and to
God's appearance " from a tree to Abraham " in Mamre, and to " seventy
willows and twelve springs" found by Israel "after crossing the Jordan"
Here "Jordan" is an error for "Red Sea." He goes on to quote, as
types, not only the " rod and staff" with which " David affirms that God
comforted him," but also the "tree'" or "stick" (2 K. vi. 6, gv\ov) which
Elisha cast into the river Jordan, in order to recover the axe-head, " even
as our Christ, by being crucified on the tree, and by purifying [us] through
water, redeemed us, though sunk OSe/SaTrriayxeVovy) in the most grievous
sins...."

Justin's substitution of "Jordan" for "Red Sea" raises the question
of the similarity, and the dissimilarity, of the two narratives of Crossing,
regarded symbolically. Comp. Light on the Gospel 3965 " It \_i.e. the rod]
is a sign-post, or way-mark, that not only points out the way, but also is
'the Way' the way across the waters of temptation and death, our Red

45 i

THE INTERPRETATION

of the Odes, on the other hand, here as elsewhere, in dealing
with the Christian " sign " or " ensign," appears to be poetically
developing the two ancient types (i) of Moses "stretching
forth " his hand or his rod, and (2) of Moses " spreading forth "
his hands 1 . The former may be regarded as an attack on
sin ; the latter as an intercession for sinners. By a slight
alteration of the former 2 , the Poet includes both in the Cross
of Christ, where the hands may be regarded as "stretched
forth " in victory and " spread forth " in prayer. As compared
with the thoughts of Justin concerning the Cross, the thoughts
of the author of the Odes appear not only more poetic and
more consistent, but also closer to what would probably be
the transitional Jewish-Christian conceptions of the first
century.

It is peculiarly important for those students whose pasture
in ancient literature has been mostly " classical " to recognise
that every thought in the New Testament, and every verbal
association, for which no parallel or illustration has been
alleged from the Greek and Latin authors with whom they
are familiar, should be examined with the flrima facie assump-

Sea and our Jordan" I am now disposed to believe that the thought of the
passage of the Jordan is overshadowed in the Odes by the thought of the
Red Sea. Origen (Lib. Jesu Nave Horn. \. 4) draws a striking contrast
between the two. But a Christian development of the Passage of the
Red Sea might borrow from the Passage of the Jordan the setting up of
the twelve stones (Josh. iv. 5 21) as a permanent memorial, and might
apply it to " the sign," " the rod," or " the tree."

1 Exod. ix. 22 33. In ix. 33 " spread forth his hands," the LXX has
" stretched forth the hands," erroneously. See Notes on N.T. Criticism
2926 34, on the Christian use of eWea/co ^flpar (as compared with the
Hebrew use of exreiVo) x *P a ) an d its bearing on Jn xxi. 18 "thou shall
stretch forth thy hands? Also see Light on the Gospel 395482, on
"sign" in the Odes, and on u sign" and "spreading out." In Odes xxvii.
i 3, xlii. i 3, the "spreading-out" and the "stretching-out" are men-
tioned close together, with the apparent purpose of distinguishing them.

2 I.e. substituting "hands" for "hand." In LXX, "stretch out the
hands" plural, is very rare (Notes on N.T. Criticism 2928) and never
a legitimate rendering of Hebrew.

45 2

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

tion that the thought or verbal association is derived from
Hebrew or Aramaic literature with which they are unfamiliar.
They may not succeed in tracing such a derivation. But they
are bound to make the attempt. Common sense, as well as
common modesty, demands this.

Take, for example, the first clause in that Pauline list of
the " dangers " of a Christian Missionary. It follows the
statement that he is " in journeyings often " a word used
twice out of four times in LXX concerning the Exodus of
Israel 1 . Then the "dangers" are enumerated, and it will be
seen that the first of them bears on the subjects the "mighty
rivers " and the " danger " that have been brought before us
in the Odes of Solomon : " Dangers from (lit. of} rivers,
dangers from (lit. of} robbers, dangers from [my own] nation,
dangers from Gentiles, dangers within city [walls], dangers in
wildernessfes] [outside], dangers at sea, dangers among false-
brethren... 2 ." Origen twice quotes clauses from this passage,
including the first clause ; but on neither occasion does he
place it in the Pauline order ; Heliodorus, apparently imitating
the Pauline passage, omits the first clause; and Wetstein,
while illustrating from Plutarch "dangers at sea" and "in
wildernessfes]," gives no ancient illustration of " dangers from
rivers " 3 . The Greek Thesaurus gives no instance of the

1 Wisd. xviii. 3, xix. 5 (the other instances are Wisd. xiii. 18, i Mac.
vi. 41). In N.T., it occurs elsewhere only in Jn. iv. 6 "wearied by his
journeying? 2 2 Cor. xi. 26.

3 Comm. Rom. i. 3 (Lomm. vi. 18) "...in frigore et nuditate, periculis
\&\.r<m\im,pertculisjluminum) periculis maris," ib. iv. 8 (Lomm. vi. 289 90)
"qui in periculis saepe versetur, periculis maris, periculis fluminum,
periculis latronum, periculis in falsis fratribus."

Wetstein illustrates from Plutarch's De Exilio, p. 603 E, " going-astray
(irXdvas) in wilderness[es] (e'pq/u'a) and dangers at sea (eV daXdao-r})," and
from Heliodorus ii. 4 KIV&VVOLS 6a\acr<Twv, Kivdvvots TT aparepiW... \rja-rais
where note that Heliodorus, if he is imitating Paul, drops " dangers from
rivers." Comp. Epict. iii. 13. 13 e/not acio-pos OVK eorii>...7rao-a oddy, iraaa
7rdAi?...a/3Aa/3ys where there is no mention of "rivers" in the long list of
things from which most people anticipate harm.

453

293

THE INTERPRETATION

phrase. Why does Paul not only use it but also place it first
in the list of all his " dangers " ?

The answer is probably this. Paul is thinking not only of
himself as the recently appointed apostle, or missionary, to
the Gentiles, but also of Israel, the spiritual Israel, as the
Missionary appointed from of old represented by the Messiah,
but also bound to serve the Lord nationally and individually
as His missionaries receiving the promise of divine protection :
"Fear not, for I have redeemed thee...W/ien than passes t
through the waters, I will be with thee ; and through the rivers,
they shall not overflow thee ; when thou walkest through the
fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle
upon thee 1 ." He is thinking also of Abraham, the " Hebrew,"
or Perates, or Grosser, and of Jacob, and of Moses, all of whom
received, in various ways, the protection of the divine Presence
when they " passed through the waters," or " through rivers " 2 .
Hence, with a Jewish instinct, he places " dangers from rivers "
first. No Gentile writer would have naturally written thus,
and the phrase does not come to Gentile readers without some
sense of strangeness.

It is futile to urge, against these arguments from Hebrew
history and literature, that Paul was referring to literal fact,
and to say " he had been actually endangered in his missionary
journeying, by swollen streams and floods." Who denies it ?
So had Gentiles, many a time, been similarly endangered,
when journeying under pressure. But no Gentile in the
whole of the vast region of extant Gentile literature, is alleged
to have given to such a " danger " the Pauline prominence.
Until such instances or at least one instance is alleged, we

1 Is. xliii. 2. Rashi explains " waters" as " Red Sea" (" quando transi-
visti per mare Suph, tecum fui ") and "rivers" as the nations among
which Israel sojourned and yet was not destroyed ("commoratus es inter
yEgyptios atque populos [alienigenas] qui multitudine similes fuerunt
aquis fluminis ; nee tamen te consumere potuerunt."

2 See Light on the Gospel 3948.

454

OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

ought in fairness to say : " Paul appears to be thinking as
a Jew. The Jews were given to proselytizing. They com-
passed sea and land so we read in Matthew to make one
proselyte. When their preachers went forth, trusting in the
divine protection, and came to any obstacle or danger, literal
or metaphorical, that checked their advance, it was natural for
them to think of it as a river. Sometimes it might be an
actual river or a sea ; but whether it was or was not, it was
natural for them to think of their prospective proselytes as
calling to them and saying, not ' Come' but ' Come across, and
help us 'V

The study of this Pauline passage supports the conclusion
that the language of the version of the Odes from which the
present Syriac was translated is less important than thecharacter
of the Scriptures, and the traditions about the Scriptures, from
which the author derived his knowledge of Hebrew literature.
Even supposing the Odes to have been composed in Hebrew,
the present Syriac may have been translated, not from the
original Hebrew, but from a Greek translation of it. This would
be analogous to the now generally accepted explanation of
II Esdras (4 Ezra). That work dates from about the same
period as I have ventured to assign to the Odes, namely,
ioo A.D. or a little later. That the Latin text of 4 Ezra
is a translation from Greek is (I believe) now regarded as
certain, and that the Greek was a translation from an original
Hebrew text is made probable if not certain by recent

1 Comp. Acts xvi. 9. The phrase " pass through (or, across) rivers " is
used by Rabbi' Jochanan about a zealous and audacious teacher of what
the Rabbi regarded as heretical doctrine, imported into Jerusalem from
Babylon : " O Babylonian, thou hast passed through three rivers and
spoken fiction," (Levy i. 193) "du reistest durch drei Strome und sagtest
Erdichtetes," referring to j. Jeb. VIII. 3. 9 <:, and /. Schabb. VII. i. 9 a.
Schwab iv. 81, vii. 121, translates somewhat differently ("tu as su
passer a pied sur trois fleuves," " tu as eu le courage de venir jusqu'ici,
en traversant trois fleuves ").

455

THE INTERPRETATION OF EARLY CHRISTIAN POETRY

investigations 1 . It is, of course, possible that the author of
the Odes, while composing them in Greek, followed a Greek
translation of the Scriptures that deviated from that of the
LXX ; but on the whole it appears to me probable that the
author wrote in Hebrew, and certain that he thought in Hebrew,
that is to say, like a poet saturated with the Hebrew Scriptures,
as interpreted and amplified by Jewish traditions.

1 See The Ezra-Apocalypse, by G. H. Box, M.A., London, 1912,
pp. i xxxiii.

45 6

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

PUBLISHED BY ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK, SOHO SQUARE, LONDON, W.

CLUE : A Guide through Greek to Hebrew

Scripture (Diatessarica Part I).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price -js. 6d. net. (post free JS. lod.)

THE CORRECTIONS OF MARK (Diatessarica Part II).

Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price \$s. net. (post free i^s. $</.)

FROM LETTER TO SPIRIT (Diatessarica Part III).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price IQS. net. (post free IQS. d.)

PARADOSIS (Diatessarica Part IV).
Demy 8z^, Cloth, Price -js. 6/. net. (post free "js. lod.)

JOHANNINE VOCABULARY (Diatessarica Part V).
Demy 8v0, Cloth, Price \y. 6//. net. (post free 13*. lod. )

JOHANNINE GRAMMAR (Diatessarica Part VI).
Demy &vo, Cloth, Price i6s. 6d. net. (post free i6s. lid.)

SILANUS THE CHRISTIAN.

Demy 8v0, Cloth, Price ?s. 6d. net. (post free is. lod.)

APOLOGIA: An Kxplanation and Defence.
Demy 8z'0, Cloth, Price is. 6;l. net. (post free is. lod.)

NOTES ON XK\V TESTAMENT CRITICISM
(Diatessarica Part VII).

I^emy 8vo, Cloth, Price -js. 6d. net. (post free - ( s. lod.)

INDICES TO DIATESSARICA.

Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price is. 6d. net. (post free is. lod.)

THE MESSAGE OF THE SON OF MAN
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price 4^. 6d. net. (post free ^s. \od.)

PUBLISHED BY THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS.

THE SON OF MAN (Diatessarica-Part VIII).
Demy %vo, Cloth, Price 16^. 6d. net. (post free 17^.)

LIGHT ON THE GOSPEL FROM AN ANCIENT POET

(Diatessarica Part IX).
Demy Kvo, Cloth, Price us. 6J. net. (post free us. nd.)

THE FOURFOLD GOSPEL, INTRODUCTION

(Diatessarica Part X, Section I).
Demy 8vo, Cloth, Price is. 6d. net. (j>ost free is. lod.)

MISCELLANEA EVANGELICA (1).
Demy 8vo, wrappered, Price is. net. (post free is. id.)

457

PRINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

SELECTION FROM THE GENERAL CATALOGUE

OF BOOKS PUBLISHED BY

THE CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

The New Testament in the original Greek, according to

the text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations
adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A.,
D.C.L., LL.D. Crown 8vo. Cloth, 35 6d net ; printed on India Paper,
55 net. Fcap 8vo. Cloth, 3* net; printed on India Paper, 45 6d net.
(Both editions may also be had in leather bindings.)

The New Testament, Greek and English, being the

Authorised Version arranged in parallel columns with the Revised Version
and with the original Greek, according to the text followed in the Authorised
Version with the variations adopted in the Revised Version. Edited by
F. H. A. SCRIVKNKR, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D. Demy 8vo. Cloth, 95 net.
Leather, Persian grained, -2 is. Turkey Morocco, 255. The Revised Version
is the Joint Property of the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford.

The Greek and English Testament. 'H Ka/r) Ataft/ja;, ex

editione Stephani Tertia, 1550. The New Testament of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Authorised Version. The Greek and
English texts arranged in parallel columns. Edited by J. SCHOLEFIELD, M.A.
New edition (with the Marginal References taken from the Paragraph Bible
edited by F. H. A. SCRIVENER, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D.). Small 8vo. Cloth,
red edges, 75 6d. Paste grain, los 6d. Also in Morocco. Student's Edition,
on large writing-poper. 410. 75 6d net.

The Fourth Gospel and some recent German Criticism.
By HENRY LATIMER JACKSON, B.D. Crown 8vo 35 6d net.

Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel. By F. WARBURTON
LEWIS, B.A. Crown 8vo. 25 net.

The Parables of the Gospels in the Light of Modern

Criticism. Hulsean Prize Essay, 1912. By LAURENCE E. BROWNE, M.A.
Crown 8vo. 2s 6d net.

The Gospels as Historical Documents. By VINCENT HENRY
STANTON, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Ely Professor of Divinity. Demy
8vo. Part I. The early use of the Gospels. 75 6d net. Part II. The
Synoptic Gospels. los net. To be completed in four parts.

An Atlas of Textual Criticism. Being an attempt to show the
mutual relationship of the authorities for the text of the New Testament up to
about 1000 A.D. By EDWARD ARDRON HUTTON, M.A. , Vicar of St Michael's,
Hargrave. Crown 8vo. 55 net.

Continued overleaf

SELECTION FROM THE GENERAL CATALOGUE, continued,

The Apostles' Creed : its relation to Primitive Christianity. By
H. B. SWETE, D.D. Third edition. Crown 8vo. 35.

The Song of Songs. Edited as a dramatic poem, with introduc-
tion, revised translation, and excursuses by WILLIAM WALTER CANNON.
Demy 8vo. 75 6d net.

The Odes and Psalms of Solomon. Published from the Syriac

Version. By J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. Second edition, revised and en-
larged, with a facsimile. Royal 8vo. 125 net. Syriac text separately.
Royal 8vo. 55 net.

The Story of Ahikar, from the Aramaic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian,
Ethiopic, Old Turkish, Greek and Slavonic Versions. By F. C. CONYBEARE,
J. RENDEL HARRIS and AGNES SMITH LEWIS. Second edition, revised and
enlarged. Demy 8vo. 155 net.

Boanerges. By J. RENDEL HARRIS, M.A. Demy 8vo. 155 net.

Primitive Christian Eschatology. The Hulsean Prize Essay
for 1908. By E. C. DEWICK, M.A. Demy 8vo. IDS 6d net.

Paganism and Christianity in Egypt. By PHILIP DAVID

ScOTT-MoNCRiEFF, M.A. Cantab. Crown 8vo. With a frontispiece.
6s net.

Church Life and Thought in North Africa, A.D. 200. By

STUART A. DONALDSON, D.D., Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
Crown 8vo. 5 plates. 35 6d net.

The Extinction of the Christian Churches in North Africa.

Hulsean Prize Essay, 1895. By L. R. HOLME, B. A. Crown Svo. $s.

Forgiveness and Suffering. A Study of Christian Belief. By
DOUGLAS WHITE, M.D. Crown Svo. 33 net.

The Interregnum. Twelve Essays on Religious Doubt. By
R. A. P. HILL, B.A., M.D. Crown Svo. 35 6d net.

Evolution and the Need of Atonement. By STEWART A.

M c DowALL, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge, Assistant Master at
Winchester College. Crown Svo. 45 6d net.

The Origin and Propagation of Sin. Being the Hulsean

Lectures delivered before the University of Cambridge in 1901-2. By
F. R. TENNANT, D.D., B.Sc. Second edition. Crown Svo. 35 6d net.

The Sources of the Doctrines of the Fall and Original

Sin. By F. R. TENNANT, D.D., B.Sc. Demy Svo. 95 net.

The Concept of Sin. By F. R. TENNANT, D.D., B.Sc. Crown Svo.
45 6d net.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS
FETTER LANE, LONDON C. F. CLAY, MANAGER

PQ O

10
Oi
>_

M3i 03;

* to;

-Pi Q)i

-pi -P!

-P c* cr!;

a ^ -Hi

0) ,Q ^i

<sj

4-t -^

s .ts

^ H

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO
LIBRARY

Acme Library Card Pocket

Under Pat. " Ref. Index File."
Made by LIBRARY BUREAU