IF, before proceeding to the consideration of details, we compare the general character and tone of the historical narration in the various Gospels, we find differences, first, between Matthew and the two other Synoptics; secondly, between the three first evangelists collectively and the fourth.

Among the reproaches which modem criticism has heaped on the Gospel of Matthew, a prominent place has been given to its want of individualized and dramatic life; a want which is thought to prove that the author was not an eye-witness, since an eye-witness is ordinarily distinguished by the precision and minuteness of his narration. Certainly, when we read the indefinite designation ^{P.421} of times, places and persons, the perpetually recurring "then," "departing from thence," a)nqrwpoj (a man,) which characterize this gospel; when we recollect its wholesale statements, such as that Jesus went through all the cities and villages (ix. 35; xi. 1; comp. iv. 23); that they brought to him all sick people, and that he healed them all (iv. 24 f.; xiv. 35 f.; comp. xv.29ff.); and finally, the bareness and brevity of many isolated narratives: we cannot disapprove the decision of this criticism, that Matthew's whole narrative resembles a record of events which, before they were committed to writing, had been long current in oral tradition, and had thus lost the impress of particularity and minuteness. But it must be admitted, that this proof, taken alone, is not absolutely convincing; for in most cases we may verify the remark, that even an eye-witness may be unable graphically to narrate what he has seen.

But our modern critics have not only measured Matthew by the standard of what is to be expected from an eye-witness, in the abstract; they have also compared him with his fellow-evangelists.

They are of opinion, not only that John decidedly surpasses Matthew in the power of delineation, both in their few parallel passages and in his entire narrative, but also that the two other Synoptics, especially Mark, are generally far clearer and fuller in their style of narration, This is the actual fact, and it ought not to be any longer evaded. With respect to the fourth evangelist, it is true that, as one would have anticipated, he is net devoid of general, wholesale statements, such as, that Jesus during the feast did many miracles, that hence many believed in him (ii. 23), with others of a similar kind (iii. 22; vii. 1): and he not seldom designates persons indecisively. Sometimes, however, he gives the names of individuals whom Matthew does not specify (xii. 3, 4; comp. with Matt. xxvi. 7, 8; and xviii. 10. with Matt. xxvi. 51; also vi.5ff. with Matt. xiv. 16 f.); and he generally lets us know the district or country in which an event happened. His careful chronology we have already noticed; but the point of chief importance is that his narratives, (e, g. that of the man born blind, and that of the resurrection of Lazarus,) have a dramatic and life-like character, which we seek in vain in the first gospel. The two intermediate evangelists are not free from indecisive designations of time (e. g. Mark viii. 1; Luke v. 17; viii. 22); of place (Mark iii. 13; Luke vi. 12); and of persons (Mark x. 17; Luke xiii. 23); nor from statements that Jesus went through all cities, and healed all the sick (Mark i.32ff.; 38 f.; Luke iv. 40 f.); but they often give ua the details of what Matthew has only stated generally. Not only does Luke associate many discourses of Jesus with special occasions concerning which Matthew is silent, but both he and Mark notice the office or names of persons, to whom Matthew gives no precise ^{P.422} designation (Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41; Matth. xix.16; Luke xviii. 18; Matt. xx. 30; Mark x. 46). But it is chiefly in the lively description of particular incidents, that we perceive the decided superiority of Luke, and still more of Mark, over Matthew. Let the reader only compare the narrative of the execution of John the Baptist in Matthew and Mark (Matth. xiv. 3; Mark vi. 17), and that of the demoniac or demoniacs of Gadara (Matt. viii.28ff. parall.).

These facts are, in the opinion of our latest critics, a confirmation of the fourth evangelist's claim to the character of an eye-witness, and of the greater proximity of the second and third evangelists to the scenes they describe, than can be attributed to the first. But, even allowing that one who does not narrate graphically cannot he an eye-witness, this does not involve the proposition that whoever does narrate graphically must be an eye-witness. In all cases in which there are extant two accounts of a single fact, the one full, the other concise, opinions may be divided as to which of them is the original. When these accounts have been liable to the modifications of tradition, it is important to bear in mind that tradition has two tendencies: the one, to sublimate the concrete into the abstract, the individual into the general; the other, not less essential, to substitute arbitrary fictions for the historical reality which is lost. If then we put the want of precision in the narrative of the first evangelist to the account of the former function of the legend, ought we at once to regard the precision and dramatic effect of the other Gospels, as a proof that their authors were eye-witnesses? Must we not rather examine whether these qualities bo not derived from the second function of the legend?. The decision with which the other inference is drawn, is in fact merely an after-taste of the old orthodox opinion, that all our Gospels proceed immediately from eye-witnesses, or at least through a medium incapable of error. Modern criticism has limited this supposition, and admitted the possibility that one or the other of our Gospels may have been affected by oral tradition.

Accordingly it maintains, not without probability, that a gospel in which the descriptions are throughout destitute of colouring and life, cannot be the production of an eye-witness, and must have suffered from the effacing fingers of tradition. But the counter proposition, that the other Gospels, in which the style of narration is more detailed and dramatic, rest on the testimony of eye-witnesses, would only follow from the supposed necessity that this must. be the case with some of our Gospels. For if such a supposition be made with respect to several narratives of both the above kinds, there is no question that the more graphic and vivid ones are with preponderant probability to be referred to eye-witnesses. But this supposition has ^{P.423} merely a subjective foundation. It was an easier transition for commentators to make from the old notion that all the Gospels were immediately or mediately autoptical narratives, to the limited admission that perhaps one may fall short of this character, than to the eeneral admission that it mav be equally wanting to all. But, accordino- to the rigid rules of consequence, with the orthodox view of the scriptural canon, falls the assumption of pure ocular testimony, not only for one or other of the Gospels, but for all: the possibility of the contrary must be presupposed in relation to them all, and their pretensions must be estimated according to their internal character, compared with the external testimonies. From this point of view-the only one that criticism can consistently adopt-it is as probable, considering the nature of the external testimonies examined in our Introduction, that the three last evangelists owe the dramatic effect in which they surpass Matthew, to the embellishments of a more mature tradition, as that this quality is the result of a closer communication with eye-witnesses.

That we may not anticipate, let us, in relation to this question, refer to the results we have already obtained. The greater particularity by which Luke is distinguished from Matthew in his account of the occasions that suggested many discourses of Jesus, has appeared to us often to be the result of subsequent additions; and the names of persons in Mark (xiii. 3. comp. v. 37; Luke viii. 51.) have seemed to rest on a mere inference of the narrator. Now, however, that we are about to enter on an examination of particular narratives, w; will consider, from the point of view above indicated, the constant forms of introduction, conclusion, and transition, already noticed, in the several Gospels. Here we find the difference between Matthew and the other Synoptics, as to their more or less dramatic style, imprinted in a manner that can best teach us how much this style is worth.

Matthew (viii. 16 f.) states in general terms, that on the eveningafter the cure of Peter's mother-in-law, many demoniacs were brought to Jesus, all of whom, together with others that were sick, he healed.

Mark (i. 32.) in a highly dramatic manner, as if he himself had witnessed the scene, tells, that on the same occasion, the whole city was gathered together at the door of the house in which Jesus was; at another time, he makes the crowd block up the entrance (ii. 2.); in two other instances, he describes the concourse as so great, that Je-

.sus and his disciples could not take their food (iii. 20; vi. 31.); and Luke on one occasion states, that the people even gathered together in innumerable multitudes so that they trode one upon another.

(xii. 1.). All highly vivid touches, certainly: but the want of them can hardly be prejudicial to Matthew, for they look thoroughly like strokes of imagination, such as abound in Mark's narrative, and often, as Schleiermacher observes, give it almost an apocryphal appearance. In detailed narratives, of which we shall presently notice ^{P.424} many examples, while Matthew simply tells what Jesus said on a certain occasion, the two other evangelists are able to describe the glance with which his words were accompanied (Mark iii. 5; x. 21; Luke vi. 10). On the mention of a blind beggar of Jericho, Mark is careful to give us his name, and the name of his father (x. 46).

From these particulars we might already augur, what the examination of single narratives will prove: namely, that the copiousness of Mark and Luke is the product of the second function of the legend, which we may call the function of embellishment. Was this embellishment gradually wrought out by oral tradition, or was it the arbitrary addition of our evangelists? Concerning this, there may be a difference of opinion, and a degree of probability in relation to particular passages is the nearest, approach that can be made to a decision. In any case, not only must it be granted, that a narrative adorned by the writer's own additions is more remote from primitive truth than one free from such additions; but we may venture to pronounce that the earlier efforts of the legend are rapid sketches, tending to set off only the leading points whether of speech or action, and that at a later period it aims rather to give a symmetrical effect to the whole, including collateral incidents; so that, in either view, the closest approximation to truth remains on the side of the first gospel.

While the difference as to the more or less dramatic style of concluding and connecting forms, lies chiefly between Matthew and the other Synoptics; another difference with respect to these forms exists between all the Synoptics and John. While most of the synoptic stories from the public life of Jesus are wound up by a panegyric, those of John generally terminate, so to speak, polemically. It is true that the three first evangelists sometimes mention, by way of conclusion, the offence that Jesus gave to the narrow-hearted, and the machinations of his enemies against hiin (Matt. viii.34; xii. 14; xxi. 46; xxvi. 3 f.; Luke iv. 28 f.; xi. 35 f.); and, on the other hand, the fourth evangelist closes some discourses and miracles by the remark, that in consequence of them, many believed in Jesus (ii. 23; iv. 39. 53; vii. 31. 40 f.; viii 30; x. 42; xi. 45).

But in the synoptic Gospels, throughout the period previous to the residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, we find forms implying that the fame of Jesus had extended far and wide (Matt. iv. 24; ix. 26. 31;Mark i. 28. 45; v. 20; vii. 36; Luke iv. 37; v. 15; vii. 17; viii.39); that the people were astonished at his doctrine (Matt. vii. 28; Mark i. 22; xi. 18; Luke xix. 48), and miracles (Matt. viii. 27; ix. 8; xiv. 33; xv. 31), and hence followed him from all parts (Matt. iv. 25; viii. 1; ix, 36; xii. 15; xiii. 2; xiv. 13). In the fourth gospel, on the contrary, we are continually told that the Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 18; vii. 1); the Pharisees wish to take him, or send out officers to seize him (vii. 30. 32. 54; comp. viii. 20; x. 39); stones are taken up to cast at him (viii. 59; x. 31); and there is mention of a favourable dis- ^{P.425} position on the part of the people, the evangelist limits it to one portion of them, and represents the other as inimical to Jesus (vii.11-13). He is especially fond of drawing attention to such circumstances, as that before the final catastrophe all the guile and power of the enemies of Jesus were exerted in vain, because his hour was not yet come (vii. 30; viii. 20); that the emissaries sent out against him, overcome by the force of his words, and the dignity of his person, retired without fulfilling their errand (vii. 32.44ff.); and that Jesus passed unharmed through the midst of an exasperated crowd (viii. 59; x. 39: comp. Luke iv. 30). The writer, as we have above remarked, certainly does not intend us in these instances to think of a natural escape, but of one in which the higher nature of Jesus, his invulnerability so long as he did not choose to lay down his life, was his protection. And this throws some light on the object which the fourth evangelist had in view, in giving prominence to such traits as those just enumerated: they helped him to add to the number of the contrasts, by which, throughout his works, he aims to exalt the person of Jesus. The profound-wisdom of Jesus, as the divine Logos, appeared the more resplendent, from its opposition to the rude unapprehensiveness of the Jews; his goodness wore a more touching aspect, confronted with the inveterate malice of his enemies; his appearance gained in impressiveness, by the strife he excited among the people; and his power, as that of one who had life in himself, commanded the more reverence, the oftcncr his enemies and their instruments tried to seize him, and, as if restrained by a higher power, w-ere not able to lay hands on him, the more marvellously he passed through the ranks of adversaries prepared to take away his,l'ife. It has been made matter of praise to the fourth evangelis,t, 'that he alone presents the opposition of the pharisaic party to Jesus, in its rise and gradual progress: but there are reasons for,questioning whether the course of events described by him, ben'of rather fictitious than real. Partially fictitious, it evidentlyTs; for he appeals to the supernatural for a reason why the Pharisees so long effected nothing against Jesus: "whereas the Synoptics preserve the natural sequence of the facts by stating as a 'cause, that the Jewish hierarchy feared the people, who where attached to Jesus as a prophet (Matt. xxi. 46; Mark xii. 12; Luke xx. 19). If then the fourth evangelist was so far guided by his dogmatical interest, that for the escape of Jesus from the more early snares and assaults of his enemies, he invented such a reason as best suited his purpose; what shall assure us that he has not also, in consistency with the characteristics which we have already discerned in him, fabricated, for the sake of that interest, entire scenes of the kind above noticed? Not that we hold it improbable, that many futile plots and attacks of the enemies of Jesus preceded the final catastrophe of his fate: we are only dubious whether these attempts were precisely such as the Gospel of John describes. ^{P.426}

IN conformity with the aim of our criticism, we shall here confine our attention to those narratives, in which the influence of the legend may be demonstrated. The strongest evidence of this influence is found where one narrative is blended with another, or where the one is a mere variation of the other: hence, chronology having refused us its aid, we shall arrange the stories about to be considered according to their mutual affinity.

To begin with the more simple form of legendary influence:

Schuiz has already complained, that Matthew mentions two instances, in which a league with Beelzebub was imputed to Jesus, and a sign demanded from Ilim; circumstances which in Mark and Luke happen only once. The first time the imputation occurs (Matt. ix.32ff.), Jesus has cured a dumb dcinonianic; at this the people marvel, but the Pharisees observe, he casts out demons through the prince of the demons. Matthew does not here say that Jesus returned any answer to this accusation. On the second occasion (xii. 22. ff.), it is a blind and dumb demonianic whom Jesus cures; again the people are amazed, and again the Pharisees declare that the cure is effected by the help of Beelzebub, the prince of the demons, whereupon Jesus immediately exposes the absurdity of the accusation. That it should have been alleged against Jesus more than once when he cast out demons, is in itself probable. It is however suspicious that the demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the Pharisees, is in both instances dumb (in the second only, blindness is added). Demoniacs were of many kinds, every variety of malady being ascribed to the influence of evil spirits; why, then, should the above imputation be not once attached to the cure of another kind of demoniac, but twice to that of a dumb one'? The difficulty is heightened, if we compare the narrative of Luke (xi.14 f.), which, in its introductory description of the circumstances, corresponds not to the second narrative in Matthew, but to the first; for as there, so in Luke, the demoniac is only dumb, and his cure and the astonishment of the people are told with precisely the same form of expression: in all which points, the second narrative of Matthew is more remote from that of Luke. But with this cure of the dumb demoniac, which Matthew represents as passing off in silence on the part of Jesus, Luke connects the very discourse which Matthew appends to the cure of the one both blind and dumb; so that Jesus must on both these successive occasions, have said the same thing. This is a very unlikely repetition, and united with the improbability, that the same accusation should be twice made in connection with a dumb demoniac, it suggests the question, whether legend may not here have doubled one, and the same incident? How this can have taken place, Matthew himself shows us, by represent- ^{P.427} ing the demoniac as, in the one case, simply dumb, in the other, blind also. Must it not have been a striking cure which excited, on the one hand, the astonishment of the people, on the other, this desperate attack of the enemies of Jesus? Dumbness alone might soon appear an insufficient malady for the subject of the cure, and the legend, ever, prone to enhance, might deprive him of sight also.

If then, together with this new form of the legend, the old one too was handed down, what wonder that a compiler, more conscientious than critical, such as the author of the first gospel, adopted both as distinct histories, merely omitting on one occasion the discourse of Jesus, for the sake of avoiding repetition.

Matthew, having omitted (ix. 34) the discourse of Jesus, was obliged also to defer the demand of a sign, which required a previous rejoinder on the part of Jesus, until his second narration of the charge concerning Beelzebub; and in this point again the narrative of Luke, who also attaches the demand of a sign to the accusation, is parallel with the latter passage of Matthew, But Matthew not only has, with Luke, a demand of a sign in connection with this charge. Luke makes the demand of a sign follow immediately on the accusation, and then gives in succession the answers of Jesus to both. This representation modern criticism holds to be far more probable than that of Matthew, who gives first the accusation and its answer, then the demand of a sign and its refusal; and this judgment is grounded on the difficulty of supposing, that after Jesus had given a sufficiently long answer to the accusation, the very same people who had urged it would still demand a sign. But on the other hand, it is equally improbable that Jesus, after having some time ago delivered a forcible discourse on the more important point, the accusation concerning Beelzebub, and even after an interruption which had led him to a totally irrelevant declaration (Luke xi.27 ft), should revert to the less important point, namely, the demand of a sign, The discourse OH the departure and return of the unclean spirit, is in Matthew (v. 4:3-4-5) annexed to the reply of Jesus to this demand; but in Luke (xi. 24; ff.) it follows the answer to the imputation of a league with Beelzebub, and this may at first seem to be a more suitable arrangementi But on a closer examination, it will appear very improbable that Jesus should conclude a defence, exacted from him by his enemies, with so calm and purely theoretical a discourse, which supposes an audience, if not favourably prepossessed, at least open to instruction; and it will be found that here again there is no further connection than that both discourses treat of the expulsion of demons. By this single feature of resemblance, the writer of the third gospel was led to sover the connection between the answer to the oft-named accusation, and that to the demand of a sign, which accusation and demand, as the strongest proofs of the malevolent unbelief of the enemies of Jesus, seem to have been associated by tradition. The first evangelist refrained from this violence, and reserved the discourse on the return of the unclean spirit, which was suggested by the suspicion cast on the expulsion of demons by Jesus, until he had communicated the ^{P.428} above charge; he has also another, after the second feeding of the multitude (xvi.1ff.), and this second demand Mark also has (viii. 11 f.), while he omits the first. Here the Pharisees come to Jesus (according to Matthew, in the unlikely companionship of Sadducees), and tempt him by asking for a sign, from heaven. To this Jesus gives an answer, of which the concluding proposition, a zoicked and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas, in Matthew, agrees word for word with the opening of the earlier refusal. It is already improbable enough, that Jesus should have twice responded to the above requisition with the same cnismatical reference to Jonah; but the words (v. 2, 3) which, in the second passage of Matthew, precede the sentence last quoted, are totally unintelligible. For why Jesus, in reply to the demand of his enemies that he would show them a sign from heaven, should tell them that they were indeed well versed in the natural signs of the heavens, but were so much the more glaringly ignorant of the spiritual signs of the Messianic times, is so far from evident, that the otherwise unfounded omission of v. 2 and 3, seems to have arisen from despair of rinding any connection for them. Luke, who also has, (xii. 44 f.), in words only partly varied, this reproach of Jesus that his contemporaries understood better the signs of the weather than of the times, gives it another position, which might be regarded as the preferable one; since after speaking of the fire which he was to kindle, and the divisions which he was to cause, Jesus might very aptly say to the people: You take no notice of the unmistakeable prognostics of this great revolution which is being prepared by my means, so ill do you understand the signs of the times. But on a closer examination, Luke's arrangement appears just as abrupt here, as in the case of the two parables (xiii. 18). If from hence we turn again to Matthew, we easily see how he was led to his mode of representation, He may have been induced to double the demand of a sign, by the verbal variation which he met with, the required sign being at one time called simply a "sign", at another a "sign from heaven." And if he knew that Jesus had exhorted the Jews to study the signs of the times, as they had hitherto studied the appearance of the heavens, the conjecture was not very remote, that the Jews had given occasion for this admonition by demanding a sign from heaven, Thus Matthew here presents us, as Luke often does elsewhere, with a fictitious introduction to a discourse of Jesus; a proof of the proposition, advaaiced indeed, but too little regarded by Sieffert: that it is in the nature of traditional records, such as the three first Gospels, that one particular should be best preserved in this ^{P.429} narrative, another in that; so that first one, and then the other, is at a disadvantage, in comparison with the rest.

ALL the Synoptics mention a visit of the mother and brethren of Jesus, on being apprised of which Jesus points to his disciples, and declares that they who do the will of God are his mother and his brethren (Matt. xii.46ff.; Mark iii.31ff.; Luke viii.19ff.).

Matthew and Luke do not tell us the object of this visit, nor, consequently, whether this declaration of Jesus, which appears to imply a disowning of his relatives, was occasioned by any special circumstance. On this subject Mark gives us unexpected information: he tells us (v. 21) that while Jesus was teaching among a concourse of people, who even prevented him from taking food, his relatives, under the idea that he was beside himself, went out to seize him, and take him into the keeping of his family. In describing this incident, the evangelist makes use of the expression, "they said, he is beside himself", and it was merely this expression, apparently, that suggested to him what he next proceeds to narrate: "the scribes said, he has Beelzebub" etc, (comp. John x. 20). With this reproach, which however, he does not attach to an expulsion of demons, he connects the answer of Jesus; he then recurs to the relatives, whom he now particularizes as the mother and brethren of Jesus, supposing them to have arrived in the meantime; and he makes their announcement call forth from Jesus the answer of which we have above spoken.

These particulars imparted by Mark are very welcome to commentators, as a means of explaining and justifying the apparent harshness of the answer which Jesus returns to the announcement of his nearest relatives, on the ground of the perverted object of their visit. But, apart from the difficulty that, on the usual interpretation of the accounts of the childhood of Jesus, it is not to be explained how his mother could, after the events therein described, be thus mistaken in her son, it is very questionable whether we ought to accept this information of Mark's. In the first place, it is associated with tl'.e obvious exaggeration, that Jesus and his disciples were prevented even from taking food by the throng of people; and in the second place, it has in itself a strange appearance, from its want of relation to the context. If these points are considered, it will scarcely be possible to avoid agreeing with the opinion of Schleiermacher, that no explanation of the then existing relations of Jesus with his family is to be sought in this addition; that it rather belongs to those exaggerations to which Mark is so prone, as well in his introductions to isolated incidents, as in his general state- ^{P.430} ments. he wished to make it understood why Jesus returned an ungracious answer to the announcement of his relatives; for this purpose he thought it necessary to give their visit an object of which Jesus did not approve, and as he knew that the Pharisees had pronounced him to be under the influence of Beelzebub, he attributed a similar opinion to his relatives.

If we lay aside this addition of Mark's, the comparison of the three very similar narratives presents no result as it regards their matter;+ but there is a striking difference between the connections in which the evangelists place the event. Matthew and Mark insert it after the defence against the suspicion of diabolical aid, and before the parable of the sower, whereas Luke makes the visit considerably prior to that imputation, and places the parable even before the visit. It is worthy of notice, however, that Luke has, after the defence against the accusation of a league with Beelzebub, in the position which the two other evangelists give to the visit of the relatives of Jesus, an incident which issues in a declaration, precisely similar to that which the announcement calls forth. After the refutation of the Pharisaic reproach, and the discourse on the return of the unclean spirit, a woman in the crowd is rilled with admiration, and pronounces the mother of Jesus blessed, on which Jesus, as before on the announcement of his mother, replies; Yea, rather blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it - Schleiermacher here again prefers the account of Luke: he thinks this little digression on the exclamation of the woman, especially evinces a fresh and lively recollection, which has inserted it in its real place and circumstances; whereas Matthew, confounding the answer of Jesus to the ejaculation of the woman, with the very similar one to the announcement of his relatives, gives to the latter the place of the former, and thua passes over the scene with the wonian. But how the woman could feel herself hurried away into so enthusiastic an exclamation, precisely on hearing the abstruse discourse on the return of the expelled demons, or even the foregoing reprehensive reply to the Pharisees, it is difficult to understand, and the contrary conjecture to that of Schleiermacher might rather be established; namely, that in the place of the announcement of the relatives, the writer of the third gospel inserted the scene with the stamp of artificiality: we might as well attribute the latter expression to Mark's already discovered fondness for describing the action of the eyes, and consequently regard it as an addition of his own, ^{P.431} from its having a like termination. The Gospel tradition, as we see from Matthew and Mark, whether from historical or merely accidental motives, had associated the above visit and the saying about the spiritual relatives, with the discourse of Jesus on the accusation of a league with Beelzebub, and on the return of the unclean spirit; and Luke also, when he came to the conclusion of that discourse, was reminded of the story of the visit and its point: the extolling of a spiritual relationship to Jesus. But he had already mentioned the visit; he therefore seized on the scene with the woman, which presented a similar termination. From the strong resemblance between the two stories, I can scarcely believe that they are founded on two really distinct incidents; rather, it is more likely that the memorable declaration of Jesus, that he preferred his spiritual before his bodily relatives, had in the legend received two different settings or frames. According to one, it seemed the most natural that such a depreciation of his kindred should be united with an actual rejection of them; to another, that the exaltation of those who were spiritually near to him, should be called forth by a blessing pronounced on those who were nearest to him in the flesh. of these two forms of the legend, Matthew and Mark give only the first: Luke, however, had already disposed of this on an earlier occasion; when, therefore, he came to the passage where, in the common Gospel tradition, that story occurred, he was induced to supply its place by the second form.

The three first evangelists narrate several contentions for preeminence which arose among the disciples, with the manner in which Jesus composed these differences. One such contention, which is said to have arisen among the disciples after the transfiguration, and the first prediction of the passion, is common to all the Gospels (Matt. xviii.1ff.; Mark ix. 33 ft; Luke ix. 46 ff.).

There are indeed divergencies in the narratives, but the identity of the incident on which they are founded is attested by the fact, that in all of them, Jesus sets a little child before his disciples as an example; a scene which, as Schleiermacher rcmarks, would hardly be repeated. Matthew and Mark concur in mentioning a dispute about pre-eminence, which was excited by the two sons of Zebedee.

These disciples (according to Mark), or their mother for them (according to Matthew), petitioned for the two first places next to Jesus ^{P.432} in the Messianic kingdom (Matt. xx.20ff.; Mark x.35ff.).

of such a request on the part of the sons of Zebedee, the third evangelist knows nothing; but apart from this occasion, there is a further contention for pre-eminence, on which discourses are uttered, similar to those which the two first evangelists have connected with the above petition. At the last supper of which Jesus partook with his disciples before his passion, Luke makes the latter fall into a dispute, which among them shall be the greatest; a dispute which Jesus seeks to quell by the same reasons, and partly with the same words, that Matthew and Mark give in connection with the "indignation" excited in the disciples generally by the request of the sons of Zebedee. Luke here reproduces a sentence which he, in common with Mark, had previously given almost in the same form, as accompanying the presentation of the child; and which Matthew has, not only on the occasion of Salome's prayer, but also in the great anti-pharisaic discourse (comp. Luke xxii. 26; Mark ix. 35; Luke ix. 48; Matt. xx. 26 f., xxiii. 11).

However credible it may be that with the worldly Messianic hopes of the disciples, Jesus should often have to suppress disputes among them on the subject of their future rank in the Messiah's kingdom, it is by no means probable that, for example, the sentence, Whosoever will be great amony you, let him be the servant of all: should be spoken, 1st, on the presentation of the child; 2ndly, in connection with the prayer of the sons of Zebedee; 3rdly, in the anti-pharisaic discourse, and 4thly, at the last supper. There is here obviously a traditional confusion, whether it be (as Sieffert in such cases is fond of supposing) that several originally distinct occurrences have been assimilated by the legend, i.e. the same discourse erroneously repeated on various occasions; or that out of one incident the legend has made many, i.e. has invented various occasions for the same discourse. Our decision between these two possibilities must depend on the answer to the following question:

Have the various facts, to which the analogous discourses on humility are attached, the dependent appearance of mere frames to the discourses, or the independent" one of occurrences that carry their truth and significance in themselves.

It will not be denied that the petition of the sons of Zebedee, is in itself too specific and remarkable to be a mere background to the ensuing discourse; and the same judgment must be passed on the scene with the child: so that we have already two cases of ^{P.433} contention for pre-eminence subsisting in themselves. If we would assign to each of these occurrences its appropriate discourses, the declarations which Matthew connects with the presentation of the child: Unless you become as this child," and, "Whosoever shall humble himself as this child," evidently belong to this occasion.

On the other hand, the sentences on ruling and serving in the world and in the kingdom of Jesus, seem to be a perfectly suitable comment on the petition of the sons of Zebedee, with which Matthew associates them: also the saying about the first and the last, the greatest and the least, which Mark and Luke give so early as at the scene with the child, Matthew seems rightly to have reserved. for the scene with the sons of Zebedee. It is otherwise with the contention spoken of by Luke (xxii.24ff.). this contention originates in no particular occasion, nor does it issue in any strongly marked scene, (unless we choose to insert here the washing of the disciples' feet, described by John, who, for the rest, mentions no dispute of which scene, however, we cannot treat until we come to the story of the Passion.) On the contrary, this contention is ushered in merely by the words, "a dispute arose among them," nearly the same by which the first contention is introduced, ix. 46, and leads to a discourse from Jesus, which, as we have already noticed, Matthew and Mark represent him to have delivered in connection with the earlier instances of rivalry: so that this passage of Luke has nothing peculiarly its own, beyond its position, at the last supper. This position, however, is not very secure; for that immediately after the discourse on the betrayer, so humiliating to the disciples, pride should so strongly have taken possession of them, is as difficult to believe, as it is easy to discover, by a comparison of v. 23 and 24, how the "writer might be led, without historical grounds, to insert here a. contention for pre-eminence. It is clear that the words "they began to question one another, which of them would do this" suggested to him the similar ones, "a dispute arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest"; that is, the disputes about the betrayer called to his remembrance the disputes about pre-eminence. One such dispute indeed, he had already mentioned, but had only connected with it, one sentence excepted, the discourses occasioned by the exhibition of the child; he had yet in reserve those which the two first evangelists attach to the petition of the sons of Zebedee, an occasion which seems not to have been present to the mind of the third evangelist, so that he introduces the discourses pertaining to it here, with the general statement that they originated in a contention for pre-eminence, which broke out among the disciples. Meanwhile the chronological position, also, of the two first-named disputes about rank, has very little probability; for in both instances, it is after a prediction of the passion, which, like the prediction of the betrayal, would seem calculated to suppress such thoughts of earthly ambition. We therefore ^{P.434} welcome the indication which the Gospel narrative itself presents, of the manner in which the narrators were led unhistorically to such an arrangement. In the answer of Jesus to the prayer of Salome, the salient point was the suffering that awaited him and his disciples; hence by the most natural association of ideas, the ambition of the two disciples, the antidote to which was the announcement of approaching trial, was connected with the prediction of the passion. Again, oil the first occasion of rivalry, the preceding prediction of the passion leads in Mark and Luke to the observation, that the disciples did not understand the words of Jesus, and yet feared to ask him concerning them, so that it may be inferred that they debated and disputed on the subject among themselves; here, then, the association of ideas caused the evangelists to introduce the contention for pre-eminence, also carried on in the absence of Jesus.

This explanation is not applicable to the narrative of Matthew, for there, between the prediction of the passion and the dispute of the disciples, the story of the coin angled for by Peter, intervenes.

With the above contentions for pre-eminence, another story is indirectly connected by means of the child which is put forward on one of those occasions. Children are brought to Jesus that he may bless them; the disciples wish to prevent it, but Jesus speaks the encouraging words, "Let the little children to come to me," and adds that only for children, and those who resemble children, is the kingdom of heaven destined (Matt. xix.13ff.; Mark x.13ff.; Luke xviii.15ff.). this narrative has many points of resemblance to that of the child placed in the midst of the disciples. Istly, in both, Jesus presents children as a model, and declares that only those who resemble children can enter the kingdom of God; 2ndly, in both, the disciples appear in the light of opposition to children; and, 3rdly, in both, Mark says, that Jesus took the children in his arms. If these points of resemblance be esteemed adequate ground for reducing the two narratives to one, the latter must, beyond all question, be retained as the nearest to truth, because the saying of Jesus, Suffer little children etc. which, from its retaining this original form in all the narratives, bears the stamp of genuineness, could scarcely have been uttered on the other occasion; whereas, the sentences on children as patterns of humility, given in connection with the contention about rank, might very well have been uttered under the circumstances above described, in retrospective allusion to previous contentions about rank. Nevertheless, this might rather be the place for supposing an assimilation of originally diverse occurrences, since it is at least evident, that Mark has inserted the expression "receives me" in both, simply on account of the resemblance between the two scenes.

Jesus, during his first residence in Jerusalem, according to John ^{P.435} (Jn. ii.12ff. parall), undertook the purification of the temple. The ancient commentators thought, and many modern ones still think, that these were separate events, especially as, besides the chronological difference, there is some divergency between the three first evangelists and the fourth in their particulars. While, namely, the former, in relation to the conduct of Jesus, merely speak in general terms of an expulsion, John says that he made a scourge of small cords for this purpose: again, while according to the former, he treats all the sellers alike, he appears, according to John, to make some distinction, and to use the sellers of doves somewhat more mildly; moreover, John does not say that he drove out the buyers, as well as the sellers. There is also a difference as to the language used by Jesus on the occasion; in the synoptic Gospels, it is given in the form of an exact quotation from the Old Testament; in John, merely as a free allusion. But, above all, there is a difference as to the result: in the fourth gospel, Jesus is immediately called to account; in the synoptic Gospels, we read nothing of this, and according to them, it is not until the following day that the Jewish authorities put to Jesus a question, which seems to have reference to the purification of the temple (Matt. xxi.23ff.), and to which Jesus replies quite otherwise than to the remonstrance in the fourth gospel. To explain the repetition of such a measure, it is remarked that the abuse was not likely to cease on the first expulsion, and that on every revival of it, Jesus would feel himself anew called on to interfere; that, moreover, the temple purification in John is indicated to be an earlier event than that in the synoptic Gospels, by the circumstance, that the fourth evangelist represents Jesus as being immediately called to account, while his impunity in the other case appears a natural consequence of the heightened consideration which he had in the meantime won.

But allowing to these divergencies their full weight, the agreement between the two narratives preponderates. We have in both the same abuse, the same violent mode of checking it, by casting out the people, and overturning the tables; indeed, virtually the same language in justification of this procedure, for in John, as well as in the other Gospels, the words of Jesus contain a reference, though not a verbally precise one, to Isai. Ivi. 7; Jer. vii. 11. These important points of resemblance must at. least extort such an admission as that of Sieffert, namely, that the two occurrences, originally but little alike, were assimilated by tradition, the features of the one being transferred to the other. But thus much seems clear; the Synoptics know as little of an earlier event of this kind, as in fact of an earlier visit of Jesus to Jerusalem: and the fourth evangelist seems to have passed over the purification of the temple after the last entrance of Jesus into the metropolis, not because he presumed it to be already known from the other Gospels, ^{P.436} but because he believed that he must give an early date to the sole act of the kind with which he was acquainted. It" then each of the evangelists knew only of one purification of the temple, we are not warranted either by the slight divergencies in the description of the event, or by the important difference in its chronological position, to suppose that there were two; since chronological differences are by no means rare in the Gospels, and are quite natural in writings of traditional origin. It is therefore with justice that our most modern interpreters have, after the example of some older ones, declared them selves in favour of the identity of the two histories.

On which side lies the error? We may know beforehand how the criticism of the present day will decide on this question: namely, in favour of the fourth gospel. According to Lueke, the scourge, the diversified treatment of the different classes of traders, the more indirect allusion to the Old Testament passage, are so many indications that the writer was an eye and ear witness of the scene he describes; while as to chronology, it is well known that this is in no decree regarded by the Synoptics, but only by John, so that, according to Sieffert, to surrender the narrative of the latter to that of the former, would be to renounce the certain for the uncertain.

As to John's dramatic details, we may match them by a particular peculiar to Mark, And they would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple (v. 16), which besides has a support in the Jewish custom which did not permit the court of the temple to be made a thoroughfare. Nevertheless, this particular is put to the account of Mark's otherwise ascertained predilection for arbitrary embellishment,what authorizes us to regard similar artistic touches from the fourth evangelist, as necessary proofs of his having been an eye witness? To appeal here to his character of eye witness as a recognized fact, is too glaring a petitio principii, at least in the point of view taken by a comparative criticism, in which the decision as to whether the artistic details of the fourth evangelist are mere embellishments, must depend solely on intrinsic probability.

Although the different treatment of the different classes of men is in itself a probable feature, and the freer allusion to the Old Testament is at least an indifferent one; it is quite otherwise with the most striking feature in the narrative of John. Origen has set the example of objecting to the twisting and application of the scourge of small cords, as far too violent and disorderly a procedure. Modern interpreters soften the picture by supposing that Jesus used the scourge merely against the cattle, (a supposition, however, opposed to the text, which represents all as being driven out by the scourge); yet still they cannot avoid perceiving the use of a scourge at all to be unseemly in a person of the dignity of Jesus, and only ^{P.437} calculated to aggravate the already tumultuary character of the proceeding. The feature peculiar to Mark is encumbered with no such difficulties, and while it is rejected, is this of John .to be received?

Certainly not, if we can only find an indication in what way the fourth evangelist might be led to the free invention of such a particular. Now it is evident from the quotation v. 17, which is peculiar to him, that he looked on the act of Jesus as a demonstration of holy zeal a sufficient temptation to exaggerate the traits of zcalousness in his conduct.

In relation to the chronological difference, we need only remember how the fourth evangelist antedates the acknowledgment, of Jesus as the Messiah by the disciples, and the conferring of the name of Peter on Simon, to be freed from the common assumption of his pre-eminent chronological accuracy, which is alleged in favour of his position of the purification of the temple. For this particular case, however, it is impossible to show any reason why the occurrence in question would better suit the time of the first, than of the last Passover visited by Jesus, whereas there are no slight grounds for the opposite opinion. It is true that nothing in relation to chronology is to be founded on the improbability that Jesus should so early have referred to his death and resurrection, as he must have done, according to John's interpretation of the saying about the destruction and rebuilding of the temple; for we shall see, in the proper place, that this reference to the death and resurrection, owes its introduction into the declaration of Jesus to the evangelist alone. But it is no inconsiderable argument against John's position of the event, that Jesus, with his prudence and tact, would hardly have ventured thus early on so violent an exercise of his Messianic authority. For in that first period of his ministry he had not given himself out as the Messiah, and under any other than Messianic authority, such a step could than scarcely have been hazarded; moreover, he in the beginning rather chose to meet his contemporaries on friendly ground, and it is therefore hardly credible that he should at once, without trying milder means, have adopted an appearance so antagonistic. But to the last week of his life such a scene is perfectly suited.

Then, after his Messianic entrance into Jerusalem, it was his direct aim in all that he did and said, to assert his Messiahship, in defiance of the contradiction of his enemies; then, all lay so entirely at stake, that nothing more was to be lost by such a step.

As regards the nature of the event, Origen long ago thought it incredible, that so great a multitude should have unresistingly submitted to a single man, one, too, whose claims had ever been obsti- ^{P.438} nately contested: his only resource in this exigency is to appeal to the superhuman power of Jesus, by virtue of which he was able suddenly to extinguish the wrath of his enemies, or to render it impotent; and hence Origen ranks this expulsion among the greatest miracles of Jesus. Modern expositors decline the miracle, but Paulus is the only one among them who has adequately weighed Origen's remark, that in the ordinary course of things the multitude would have opposed themselves to a single person. Whatever may be said of the surprise caused by the suddenness of the appearance of Jesus (if, as John relates, he made himself a scourge of cords, he would need some time for preparation), of the force of right on his side (on the side of those whom he attacked, however, there was established usage); or, finally, of the irresistible impression produced by the personality of Jesus (on usurers and cattle-dealers-on brutemen, as Paulus calls them?): still, such a multitude, certain as it might be of the protection of the priesthood, would not have unresistingly allowed themselves to be driven out of the temple by a single man. Hence Paulus is of opinion that a number of others, equally scandalized by the sacrilegious traffic, made common cause with Jesus, and that to their united strength the buyers and sellers were compelled to yield. But this supposition is fatal to the entire incident, for it makes Jesus the cause of an open tumult; and it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual aversion to every thing revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his enemies to use it as an accusation against him. For that they held themselves bound in conscience to admit that the conduct of Jesus was justifiable in this case, is the less credible, since, according to a rabbinical authority, the Jews appear to have been so far from taking umbrage at the market in the court of the Gentiles that the absence of it seemed to them like a melancholy desolation of the temple. According to this, it is not surprising that Origen casts a doubt on the historical value of this narrative, by the expression, "if it really happened" , and at most admits that the evangelist, in order to present an idea allegorically, also borrowed the form of an actual occurrence.

But in order to contest the reality of this history, in dcilance of the agreement of all the four evangelists, the negative grounds hitherto adduced must be seconded by satisfactory positive ones, from whence it might be seen how the primitive Christian legend could be led to the invention of such a scene, apart from any historical foundation. But these appear to be wanting. For our only positive data in relation to this occurrence are the passages cited by the Synoptics from Tsaiah and Jeremiah, prohibiting that the temple ^{P.439} should be made a den of robbers; and the passage from Malachi iii.1-3, according to which it was expected that in the Messianic times the Lord would suddenly come to his temple, that no one would stand before his appearing, and that he would undertake a purification of the people and the worship. Certainly these passages seem to have some bearing on the irresistible reforming activity of Jesus in the temple, as described by our evangelists; but there is so little indication that they had reference in particular to the market in the outer court of the temple, that it seems necessary to suppose an actual opposition on the part of Jesus to this abuse, in order to account for the fulfilment of the above prophecies by him being represented under the form of an expulsion of buyers and sellers.

AN occasion on which Jesus was anointed by a woman as he sat at meat, is mentioned by all the evangelists (Matt. xxvl.6ff.; Mark xiv. 3 ft; Luke vii.36ff.; John xii.1ff.), but with some divergencies, the most important of which he between Luke and the other three. First, as to the chronology; Luke places the incident in the earlier period of the life of Jesus, before his departure from Galilee, while the other three assign it to the last week of his life; secondly, as to the character of the woman who anoints Jesus: she is, according to Luke, a woman who was a sinner, according to the two other Synoptics, a person of unsullied reputation; according to John, who is more precise, Mary of Bethany. From the second point of difference it follows, that in Luke the objection of the spectators turns on the admission of so infamous a person, in the other Gospels, on the wastefulness of the woman; from both, it follows, that Jesus in his defence dwells, in the former, on the grateful love of the woman, as contrasted with the haughty indifference of the Pharisees, in the latter, on his approaching departure, in opposition to the constant presence of the poor. There are yet the minor differences, that the place in which the entertainment and the anointing occur, is by the two first and the fourth evangelists called Bethany, which according to John xi. 1, was a kwmh (town), by Luke a polij (city), without any more precise designation; further, that the objection, according to the three former, proceeds from the disciples, according to Luke, from the entertainer. Hence the majority of commentators distinguish two anointings, of which one is narrated by Luke, the other by the three remaining evangelists.

But it must be asked, if the reconciliation of Luke with the other three evangelists is despaired of, whether the agreement of the latter amongst themselves is so decided, and whether we must not rather proceed, from the distinction of two anointings, to the distinction of ^{P.440} three, or even four? To four certainly it will scarcely extend; for Mark does not depart from Matthew, except in a few touches of his well-known dramatic manner; but between these two evangelists on the one side, and John on the other, there are differences which may fairly be compared with those between Luke and the rest. The first difference relates to the house in which the entertainment is said to have been given; according to the two first evangelists, it was the house of Simon the leper, a person elsewhere unnoticed; the fourth does not, it is true, expressly name the host, but since he mentions Martha as the person who waited on the guests, and her brother Lazarus as one of those who sat at meat, there is no doubt that he intended to indicate the house of the latter as the locality of the repast. Neither is the time of the occurrence precisely the same, for according to Matthew and Mark the scene takes place after the solemn entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, only two days at the utmost before the Passover; according to John, on the other hand, before the entrance, as early as six days prior to the Passover. Further, the individual whom John states to be that Mary of Bethany so intimately united to Jesus, is only known to the two first evangelists as a woman, neither do they represent her as being, like Mary, in the house, and one of the host's family, but as coming, one knows not from where, to Jesus, while he reclined at table. Moreover the act of anointing is in the fourth gospel another than in the two first. In the latter, the woman pours her ointment of spikenard on the head of Jesus; in John, on the contrary, she anoints his feet, and dries them with her hair, a difference which gives the whole scene a new character. Lastly, the two Synoptics are not aware that it was Judas who gave utterance to the censure against the woman; Matthew attributing it to the disciples, Mark, to the spectators generally.

Thus between the narrative of John, and that of Matthew and Mark, there is scarcely less difference than between the account of these three collectively, and that of Luke: whoever supposes two distinct occurrences in the one case, must, to be consistent, do so in the other; and thus, with Origen hold, at least conditionally, that there were three separate anointings. So soon, however, as this consequence is more closely examined, it must create a difficulty, for how improbable is it that Jesus should have been expensively anointed three times, each time at a feast, cadi time by a woman, that woman being always a different one; that moreover Jesus should, in each instance, have had to defend the act of the woman against the censures of the spectators. Above all, how is it to be conceived that after Jesus, on one and even on two earlier occasions, had so de- ^{P.441} cidedly given his sanction to the honour rendered to him, the disciples, or one of them, should have persisted in censuring it?

These considerations oblige us to think of reductions, and it is the most natural to commence with the narratives of the two first synoptlsts and of John, for these agree not only in the place, Bethany, but also, generally, in the time of the event, the last week of the life of Jesus; above all, the censure and the reply are nearly the same on both sides. In connection with these similarities the differences lose their importance, partly from the improbability that an incident of this kind should be repeated; partly from the probability, that in the traditional propagation of the story such divergencies should have insinuated themselves. But if in this case the identity of the occurrences be admitted, in consideration of the similarities, and in spite of the dissimilarities; then, on the other hand, the divergencies peculiar to the narrative of Luke, can no longer hinder us from pronouncing it to be identical with that of the three other evangelists, provided that there appear to be only a few important points of resemblance between the two. And such really exist, for Luke now strikingly accords with Matthew and Mark, in opposition to John; now, with the latter, in opposition to the former. Luke gives the entertainer the same name as the two first Synoptics, namely, Simon, the only difference being, that the former calls him a pharisee, while the latter style him the leper. Again, Luke agrees with the other Synoptics in opposition to John, in representing the woman who anoints Jesus as a nameless individual, not belonging to the house; and further, in making her appear with a box of ointment, while John speaks only of a pound of ointment, without specifying the vessel. On the other hand, Luke coincides in a remarkable manner with John, and differs from the two other evangelists, as to the mode of the anointing. While, namely, according to the latter, the ointment is poured on the head of Jesus, according to Luke, the woman, who was a sinner, as, according to John, Mary, anoints the feet of Jesus; and even the striking particular, that she dried them with her hair, is given by both in nearly the same words; excepting that in Luke, where the woman is described as a sinner, it is added that she bathed the feet of Jesus with her tears, and kissed them. Thus, without doubt, we have here but one history under three various forms; and this seems to have been the real conclusion of Origen, as well as recently of Schleiermacher.

In this state of the case, the effort is to escape as cheaply as possible, and to save the divergencies of the several evangelists at least from the appearance of contradiction. First, with regard to 'the differences between the two first evangelists and the last, it has been attempted to reconcile the discrepant dates by the supposition, ^{P.442} that the meal at Bethany was held really, as John informs us, six days before Easter; but that Matthew, after whom Mark wrote, has no contradictory date; that rather he has no date at all; for though he inserts the narrative of the meal and the anointing after the declaration of Jesus, that after two days is the feast of the Passover, this does not prove that he intended to place it later as to time, for it is probable that he gave it this position simply because he wished to note here, before coming to the betrayal by Judas, the occasion on which the traitor first embraced his black resolve, namely, the repast at which he was incensed by Mary's prodigality, and embittered by the rebuke of Jesus. But in opposition to this, modern criticism has shown that, on the one hand, in the mild and altogether general reply of Jesus there could he nothing personally offensive to Judas; and that, on the other hand, the two first Gospels do not name Judas as the party who censured the anointing, but the disciples or the bystanders generally: whereas, if they had noted this scene purely because it was the motive for the treachery of Judas, they must have especially pointed out the manifestation of his feeling. There remains, consequently, a chronological contradiction in this instance between the two first Synoptics and John: a contradiction which even Olshausen admits.

It has been attempted in a variety of ways to evade the further difference as to the person of the host. As Matthew and Mark speak only of the house of Simon the leper, some have distinguished the owner of the house, Simon, from the giver of the entertainment, who doubtless was Lazarus, and have supposed that hence, in both cases without error, the fourth evangelist mentions the latter, the two first Synoptics the former.But who would distinguish an entertainment by the name of the householder, if he were not in any way the giver of the entertainment? Again, since John does not expressly call Lazarus the host, but merely one of those sitting at the table), and since the inference that he was the host is drawn solely from the circumstance that his sister Martha served; others have regarded Simon as the husband of Martha, either separated on account of his leprosy, or already deceased, and have supposed that Lazarus then resided with his widowed sister, an hypothesis which it is more easy to reconcile with the narratives than the former, but which is unsupported by any certain information.

We come next to the divergency relative to the mode of anointing; according to the two first evangelists, the ointment was poured on the head of Jesus; according to the fourth, on his feet. The old, trivial mode of harmonizing the two statements, by supposing that both the head and the feet were anointed, has recently been expanded into the conjecture that Mary indeed intended only to anoint the feet ^{P.443} of Jesus (John), but that as she accidentally broke the vessel (suntriyasa Mark), the ointment flowed over his head also (Matt.). This attempt at reconciliation falls into the comic, for as we cannot imagine how a woman who was preparing to anoint the feet of Jesus could bring the vessel of ointment over his head, we must suppose that the ointment spirted upwards like an effervescing draught. So that here also the contradiction remains, and not only between Matthew and John, where it is admitted even by Schneckenburger, but also between the latter evangelist and Mark.

The two divergencies relative to the person of the woman who anoints Jesus, and to the party who blames her, were thought to be the most readily explained. That what John ascribes to Judas singly, Matthew and Mark refer to all the disciples or spectators, was believed to be simply accounted for by the supposition that while the rest manifested their disapprobation by gestures only, Judas vented his in words. We grant that the word elegon, (they said) preceded as it is in Mark, by the words "being indignant within themselves," and followed, as in Matthew, by the words "but Jesus knowing," does not necessarily imply that all the disciples gave audible expression to their feelings; as, however, the two first evangelists immediately after this meal narrate the betrayal by Judas, they would certainly have named the traitor on the above occasion, had he, to their knowledge, made himself conspicuous in connection with the covetous blame which the woman's liberality drew forth. That John particularizes the woman, whose name is not given by the Synoptics, as Mary of Bethany, is, in the ordinary view, only an example how the fourth evangelist supplies the omissions of his predecessors. But as the two first Synoptics attach so much importance to the deed of the woman, that they make Jesus predict the perpetuation of her memory on account of it-a particular which John has notthey would assuredly have also given her name had they known it; so that in any case we may conclude thus much; they knew not who the woman was, still less did they conceive her to be Mary of Bethany.

Thus if the identity only of the last evangelist's narrative with that of the two first be acknowledged, it must be confessed that we have, on the one side or the other, an account which is inaccurate, ^{P.444} and disfigured by tradition. It is, however, not only between these, but also between Luke and his fellow evangelists collectively, that they who suppose only one incident to be the foundation of their narratives, seek to remove as far as possible the appearance of contradiction. Schleiermacher, whose highest authority is John, but who will on no account renounce Luke, comes in this instance, when the two so widely diverge, into a peculiar dilemma, from which he must have thought that he could extricate himself with singular dexterity, since he has not evaded it, as he does others of a similar kind, by the supposition of two fundamental occurrences. It is true that he finds himself constrained to concede, in favour of John, that Luke's informant could not in this case have been an eye witness; from which minor divergencies, as for instance those relative to the locality, are to be explained. On the other hand, the apparently important differences that, according to Luke, the woman is a sinner, according to John, Mary of Bethany; that according to the former, the host, according to the latter, the disciples, make objections; and that the reply of Jesus is in the respective narrations totally different these, in Schleiermacher's opinion, have their foundation in the fact that. the occurrence may be regarded from two points of view. The one aspect of the occurrence is the murmuring of the disciples, and this is given by Matthew; the other, namely, the relations of Jesus with the pharisaic host, is exhibited by Luke; and John confirms both representations. The most decided impediment to the reconciliation of Luke with the other evangelists, his designation of the woman as a sinner, Schleiermacher invalidates, by calling it a false inference of the narrator from the address of Jesus to Mary, "Your sins are forgiven." This Jesus might say to Mary in allusion to some error, unknown to us, but such as the purest are liable to, without compromising her reputation with the spectators, who were well acquainted with her character; and it was only the narrator who erroneously concluded from the above words of Jesus, and from his further discourse, that the woman concerned was a sinner in the ordinary sense of the word, from which he has incorrectly amplified the thoughts of the host, v. 39. It is not, however, simply of sins, but of many sins, that Jesus speaks in relation to the woman; and if this also be an addition of the narrator, to be rejected as such because it is inconsistent with the character of Mary of Bethany, then has the entire speech of Jesus from v. 40-48, which turns on the opposition between forgiving and loving little and much, been falsified or misrepresented by the evangelist: and on the side of Luke especially, it is in vain to attempt to harmonize the discordant narratives.

If, then, the four narratives can be reconciled only by the supposition that several of them have undergone important traditional modifications: the question is, which of them is the nearest to the ^{P.445} original fact? That modern critics should unanimously decide in favour of John, cannot surprise us after our previous observations; and as little can the nature of the reasoning by which their judgment is supported. The narrative of John, say they, (reasoninw in a circle.) being that of an eye witness, must be at once supposed the true one, and this conclusion is sometimea rested for greater security on the false premiss, that the more circumstantial and dramatic narrator is the more accurate reporter-the eye witness. The breaking of the box of ointment, in Mark, although a dramatic particular, is readily rejected as a mere embellishment; but does not John's statement of the quantity of spikenard as a pound, border on exaggeration? and ought not the extravagance which Olshausen, in relation to this disproportionale consumption of ointment, attributes to Mary's love, to be rather referred to the evangelist's imagination, which would then also have the entire credit of the circumstance, that the house was filled vnth the odozir of the ointment? It is worthy of notice, that the estimate of the value of the perfume at 300 denarii, is given by John and Mark alone; as also at the miraculous feeding of the multitude, it is these two evangelists who rate the necessary food at 200 denarii. If Mark only had this close estimate, how quickly would it be pronounced, at least by Schleiermacher, a gratuitous addition of the narrator! What then is it that, in the actual state of the case, prevents the utterance of this opinion, even as a conjecture, but the prejudice in-favour of the fourth gospel? Even the anointing of the head, which is attested by two of the Synoptics, is, because John mentions the feet instead of the head, rejected as unusual, and incompatible with the position of Jesus at a meal whereas the anointing of the feet with precious oil was far less usual; and this the most recent commentator on the fourth gospel admits.

But peculiar gratitude is rendered to the eye-witness John, because he has rescued from oblivion the names, both of the anointing woman, and of the censorious disciple. It has been supposed that the Synoptics did in fact know the name of the woman, but withheld it from the apprehension that danger might possibly accrue to the family of Lazarus, while John, writing later, was under no such restraint if but this expedient rests on mere assumptions. Our former conclusion therefore subsists, namely, that the earlier evangelists knew nothing of the name of the woman; and the question arises, how was this possible? Jesus having expressly promised immortal renown to the deed of the woman, the tendency must arise to perpetuate her name also, and if this were identical with the known and oft repeated name of Mary of Bethany, it is not easy to understand how the association of the deed and the name could be lost in ^{P.446} tradition, and the woman who anointed Jesus become nameless. It is perhaps still more incomprehensible, supposing the covetous blame cast upon the woman to have been really uttered by him who proved the betrayer, that this should be forgotten in tradition, and the expression of blame attributed to the disciples generally. When a fact is narrated of a person otherwise unknown, or even when the person being known, the fact does not obviously accord with his general character, it is natural that the name should be lost in tradition; but when the narrated word or work of a person agrees so entirely with his known character, as does the covetous and hypocritical blame in question with the character of the traitor, it is difficult to suppose that the legend would sever it from his name. Moreover, the story in which this blame occurs, verges so nearly on the moment of the betrayal, (especially according to the position given to it by the two first evangelists,) that had the blame really proceeded from Judas, the two facts would have been almost inevitably associated. Indeed, even if that expression of latent cupidity had not really belonged to Judas, there must have been a temptation eventually to ascribe it to him, as a help to the delineation of his character, and to the explanation of his subsequent treachery. Thus the case is reversed, and the question is whether, instead of praising John that he has preserved to us this precise information, we ought not rather to give our approbation to the Synoptics, that they have abstained from so natural but unhistorical a combination. We can arrive at no other conclusion with respect to the designation of the woman who annoints Jesus as Mary of Bethany. On the one hand, it is inconceivable that the deed, if originally hers, should be separated from her celebrated name; on the other, the legend, in the course of its development, might naturally come to attribute to one whose spiritual relations with Jesus had, according to the third and fourth Gospels, early obtained great celebrity in the primitive Church, an act of devoted love towards him, which originally belonged to another and less known person.

But from another side also we find ourselves induced to regard the narratives of Matthew and Mark, who give no name to the woman, rather than that of John, who distinguishes her as Mary of Bethany, as the parent stem of the group of stories before us.

Our position of the identity of all the four narratives must, to be tenable, enable us also to explain how Luke's representation of the facts could arise. Now, supposing the narrative of John to be the nearest to the truth, it is not a little surprising that in the legend, the anointing woman should doubly descend from the highly honoured Mary, sister of Lazarus, to an unknown, nameless individual, and thence even to a notorious sinner; it appears far more natural to give the intermediate position to the indifferent statement of the Synoptics, out of whose equivocal nameless woman might equally be made, either in an ascending scale, a Mary; or, in a descending one, a sinner. ^{P.447}

The possibility of the first transformation has been already shown: it must next be asked, where could be an inducement, without historical grounds, gradually to invest the anointincr w'oman with the character of a sinner? In the narrative itself our only clue is a feature which the two first Synoptics have not, but which John has in common with Luke; namely that the v.'oman anointed the feet of Jesus. To the fourth evangelist, this tribute of feeling appeared in accordance with the sensitive, devoted nature of Mary, whom he elsewhere also (xi. 32), represents as falling at the feet of Jesus; but by another it might be taken, as by Luke, for the gesture of contrition; an idea which might favour the conception of the woman as a sinner.- Might favour, we say, not cause: for a cause; we must search elsewhere,

IN the Gospel of John (viii. 1 11), the Pharisees and scribes bring a woman taken in adultery to Jesus, that they may obtain his opinion as to the procedure to be observed against her; whereupon Jesus, by appealing to the consciences of the accusers, liberates the woman, and dismisses her with an admonition. The genulnenes of this passage has been strongly contested, indeed, its spuriousness might be regarded as demonstrated, were is not that even the most thorough investigations of the subject indirectly betray a design, which Paulus openly avows, of warding off the dangerous surmises as to the origin of the fourth gospel, which are occasioned by the supposition that this passage, encumbered as it is with improbabilities, is a genuine portion of that gospel. For in the first place, the scribes say to Jesus: closes in the law commanded us that such should be stoned: now in no part of the Pentateuch is this punishment prescribed for adultery, but simply death, the mode of inflicting it being left undetermined (Lev. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22); nor was stoning for adultery a later intsitution of the Talmud, for according to the canon: "omne mortis suppl'icium, in scriptura absolute, positum, esse strangulationem" the punishment appointed for this offence in the Talmud is strangulation. Further, it is difficult to discover what there was to ensnare Jesus in the question proposed to him; thie scribes quoted to him the commandment of the law, as if they would warn him, rather than tempt him, for they could not. expect that he would decide otherwise than agreeably to the law. Again, the decision of Jesus is open to the stricture, that if only he who is conscious of perfect purity were authorized to judge and punish, all social order would be at an end. The circumstance of Jesus writing on the ground has a legendary and mystical air, for even if it be ^{P.448} not correctly explained by the gloss of Jerome: "eorum videlicet, qui accusabant, et omnium mortalium peccata", it yet seems to imply something more mysterious than a mere manifestation of contempt for the accusers. Lastly, it is scarcely conceivable that every one of those men. who dragged the woman before. Jesus, zealous for the law, and adverse to his cause as they are supposed to be, should have had so tender a conscience, as on the appeal of Jesus to retire without prosecuting their design, and leave the woman behind them uninjured; this rather appears to belong merely to the legendary or poetical embellishment of the scene. Yet however improbable it may appear, from these observations, that the occurrence happened precisely as it is here narrated, this, as Brctschneidcr justly maintains, proves nothing against the genuineness of the passage, since it is arguing in a circle to assume the apostolic composition of the fourth gospel, and the consequent impossibility that a narrative containing contradictions should form a portion of it, prior to an examination of its several parts. Nevertheless, on the other hand, the absence of the passage in the oldest authorities is so suspicious, that a decision on the subject cannot be hazarded.

In any case, the narrative of an interview between Jesus and a woman of the above character must be very ancient, since, according to Eusebius, it was found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, and in the writings of Papias. It was long thought that the woman mentioned in the Hebrew gospel and by Papias was identical with the adulteress in John; but against this it has been justly observed, that one who had the reproach of many sins, must be distinct from her who was detected in the one act of adultery. . I wonder, however, that no one has, to my knowledge, thought, in connection with the passage of Eusebius, of the woman in Luke of whom Jesus says that her many sins are forgiven. It is true that the word diablhqeishj does not fully agree with this idea, for Luke does not speak of actual expressions of the Pharisee in disparagement of the woman, but merely of the unfavourable thoughts which he had concerning her; and in this respect the passage in Eusebius would agree better with the narrative of John, which has an express denunciation, a diaballein.

Thus we are led on external grounds, by the doubt whether an ancient notice refer to the one or the other of the two narratives, to a perception of their amnity, which is besides evident from internal reasons. In both we have a woman, a sinner, before Jesus; in both, this woman is regarded with an evil eye by Pharisaic sanctimoniousness, but is taken into protection by Jesus, and dismissed with a friendly "go. These were precisely the features, the origin of which we could not understand in the narrative of Luke, viewed ^{P.449} as a mere variation of the story of the anointing given by the other evangelists. Now, what is more natural than to suppose that they were transferred into Luke's history of the anointing, from that of the forgiven sinner? If the Christian legend possessed, on the one side, a woman who had anointed Jesus, who was on this account reproached, but was defended by Jesus; and on the other side, a woman who was accused before him of many sins, but whom he pardoned; how easily, aided by the idea of an anointing of the feet. of Jesus, which bears the interpretation of an act of penitence, might the two histories flow together-the anointing woman become also a sinner, and the sinner also an anointer? Then, that the scene of the pardon was an entertainment, was a feature also drawn from the story of the anointing: the entertainer must be a Pharisee, because the accusation of the woman ought to proceed from a Pharisaic party, and because, as we have seen, Luke has a predilection for Pharisaic entertainments. Lastly, the discourse of Jesus may have been borrowed, partly from the original narrative of the woman who was a sinner, partly from analogous occasions. If theso conjectures be correct, the narratives are preserved unmixcd, on the one hand, by the two first evangelists; on the other, by the fourth, or whoever was the author of the passage on the adulteress; for if the latter contains much that is legendary, it is at least free from any admixture of the story of the anointing.

Having thus accounted for one modification of the narrative concerning the anointing woman, namely, her degradation into a sinner, by the influence of another and somewhat similar story, which was current in the first age of Christianity, we mav proceed to consider experimentally, whether a like external influence may not have helped to produce the opposite modification of the unknown into Mary of Bethany: a modification which, for the rest, we have already seen to be easy of explanation. Such an influence could only proceed from the sole notice of Mary (with the exception of her appearance at the resurrection of Lazarus) which has been preserved to us, and which is rendered memorable by the declaration of Jesus, One thing is needful., anil Mary iiath chosen, etc. (Luke x. 38 if.). We have, in fact, here as well as there, Martha occupied in serving (John xii. 2; Luke x. 40, f) here, Mary sitting at the feet of Jesus, there, anointing his feet; here, blamed by her sister, there by Judas, for her useless conduct, and in both cases, defended by Jesus. It is surely unavoidable to say; if once the narrative of the anointing of Jesus by a woman were current together with that of Mary and Martha, it was very natural, from the numerous points of resemblance between them, that they should be blended in the legend, or by some individual, into one story; that the unknown woman who anointed the feet of Jesus, who was blamed by the spectators, and vindicated by Jesus, should be changed into Mary, while the task ^{P.450} of serving at the meal with which the anointing was connected is attributed to Mary's sister, Martha; and finally, her brother Lazarus is made a partaker of the meal: so that here the narrative of Luke on the one side, and that of the two Synoptics on the other, appear to be pure stories, that of John a mixed one.

Further, in Luke's narrative of the visit of Jesus to the two sisters, there is no mention of Lazarus, with whom, however, according to John (xi. and xii), Mary and Martha appear to have dwelt; indeed, Luke speaks precisely as if the presence or existence of this brother, whom indeed neither he nor either of the other Synoptics anywhere notices, were entirely unknown to him. For had he known anything of Lazarus, or had he thought of him as present, he could not have said: -A certain woman, named Martha, received him into her house; he must at least have named her brother also, especially as, according to John, the latter was an intimate friend of Jesui. This silence is remarkable, and commentatora have not succeeded in finding a better explanation of it than that given in the natural history of the prophet of Nazareth, where the shortly subsequent death of Lazarus is made available for the supposition that he was, about the time of that visit of Jesus, on a journey for the benefit of his health. Not less striking is another point relative to the locality of this scene. According to John, Mary and Martha dwelt in Bethany, a small town in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem; whereas Luke, when speaking of the visit of Jesus to these sisters, only mentions a certain town, (kwmhn tina), which is thought, however, to be easily reconciled with the statement of John, by the observation, that Luke assigns the visit to the journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, and to one travelling there' out of Galilee, Bethany would he in the way. But it would he quite at the end of this way, so that the visit of Jesus must fall at the close of his journey, whereas Luke places it soon after the departure out of Galilee, and separates it from the entrance into Jerusalem by a multitude of incidents filling eight entire chapters. Thus much then is clear: the author or editor of the third Gospel was ignorant that that visit was paid in Bethany, or that Mary and Martha dwelt there, and it is only that evangelist who represents Mary as the anointing woman, who also names Bethany as the home of Mary: the same place where, according to the two first Synoptics, the anointing occurred. If Mary were once made identical with the anointing woman, and if the anointing were known to have happened in Bethany, it would naturally follow that this town would be represented as Mary's home. Hence it is probable that the anointing woman owes her name to the current narrative of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, and that Mary owes her home to the narrative of the meal at Bethany.

We should thus have a group of five histories, among which the narrative given by the two first Synoptics of the anointing of ^{P.451} Jesus by a woman, would form the centre, that in John of t he adulteress, and that in Luke of Mary and Martha, the extremes, while the anointing by the sinner in Luke, and that by Mary in John, would fill the intermediate places. It is true that all the five narratives might with some plausibility be regarded as varied editions of one historical incident; but from the essential dissimilarity between the three to which I have assigned the middle and extreme places, I am rather of opinion that these are each founded on a special incident, but that the two intermediate narratives are secondary formations which owe their existence to the intermixture of the primary ones by tradition.