The story of the transfiguration of Jesus on the mountain could not be ranged with the narratives of miracles which we have hitherto examined; not only because it relates to a miracle which took place in Jesus instead of a miracle performed by him; but also because it has the character of an epoch in the life of Jesus, which on the score of resemblance could only be associated with the baptism and resurrection. Hence Herder has correctly designated these three events as the three luminous points in the life of Jesus, which attest his heavenly mission, ar in the {P.602} synoptic narrative (Matt. xvii.1ff.; Mark ix. 2 if; Luke ix.28ff.)-for the story is not found in the fourth gospel- we have here a real, external, and miraculous event. Jesus, six or eight days after the first announcement of his passion, ascends a mountain with his three most confidential disciples, who are there witnesses how all at once his countenance, and even his clothes, are illuminated with supernatural splendour; how two venerable forms from the realm of spirits, Moses and Elijah, appear talking with him; and lastly, how a heavenly voice, out of a bright cloud, declares Jesus to be the Son of God, to whom they are to give ear.

These few points in the story give rise to a multitude of questions, by the collection of which Gabler has done a meritorious service. In relation to each of the three phases of the event-the light, the apparition of the dead, and the voice-both its possibility, and the adequacy of its object, may be the subject of question. First, whence came the extraordinary light with which Jesus was invested? Let it be remembered that a metamorphosis of Jesus is spoken of; now this would appear to imply, not a mere illumination from without, but an irradiation from within, a transient effulgence, so to speak, of the beams of the divine glory through the veil of humanity. Thus Olshausen regards this event as an important crisis in the process of purification and glorification, through which he supposes the corporeality of Jesus to have passed, during his whole life up to the time of his ascension. But without here dilating further on our previous arguments, that either esus was no real man, or the purification which he underwent during his life, must have consisted in something else than the illumination and subtilization of his body; it is in no case to be conceived how his clothes, as well as his body, could participate in such a process of transfiguration. If, on this account, it be rather preferred to suppose an illumination from without, this would not be a metamorphosis, which however is the term used by the evangelists: so that no consistent conception can be formed of this scene, unless indeed we choose, with Olshausen, to include both modes, and think of Jesus as both radiating, and irradiated. But even supposing this illumination possible, there still remains the question, what purpose could it serve? The answer which most immediately suggests itself is: to glorify Jesus; but compared with the spiritual glory which Jesus created for himself by word and deed, this physical glorification, consisting in the investing of his body with a brilliant light, mus appear very insignificant, indeed, almost childish. If it be said that, nevertheless, such a mode of glorifying Jesus was necessary for the maintenance of weak faith: we reply that in that case, it must have been effected in the presence of the multitude, or at least before the entire circle of the disciples, not surely before just the select ^{P.603} three who were spiritually the strongest; still less would these few eye-witnesses have been prohibited from communicating the event precisely during the most critical period, namely, until after the resurrection. These two questions apply with enhanced force to the second feature in our history, the apparition of the two dead men. Can departed souls become visible to the living? and if, as it appears, the two men of God presented themselves in their former bodies, only transfigured, how had they these according to biblical ideas before the universal resurrection? Certainly in relation to Elijah, who went up to heaven without laying aside his body, this difficulty is not so great; Moses, however, died, and his corpse was buried. But further, to what end are we to suppose that these two illustrious dead appeared? The Gospel narrative, by representing the forms as talking with Jesus, seems to place the object of their appearance in Jesus; and if Luke be correct, it hd reference more immediately to the approaching sufferings and death of Jesus. But they could not have made the first announcement of these events to him, for, according to the unanimous testimony of the Synoptics, he had himself predicted them a week before (Matt. xvi. 21 parall.). Hence it is conjectured, that Moses and Elijah only informed Jesus more minutely, concerning the particular circumstances and conditions of his death: but, on the one hand, it is not accordant with the position which the Gospels assign to Jesus in relation to the ancient prophets, that he should have needed instruction from them; and on the other hand, Jesus had already foretold his passion so circumstantially, that the more special revelations from the world of spirits could only have referred to the particulars of his being delivered to the Gentiles, and the spitting in his faci, of which he does not speak till a subsequent occasion (Matt. xx. 19; Mark x. 34.). If, however, it be suggested, that the communication to b made to Jesus consisted not so much in information, as in the conferring of strength for his approaching sufferings: we submit that at this period there is not yet any trace of a state of mind in Jesus, which might seem to demand assistance of this kind; while for his later sufferings this early strengthening did not suffice, as is evident from the fact, that in Gethsemane a new impartation is necessary. Thus we are driven, though already in opposition to the text, to try whether we cannot give the appearance a relation to the disciples; but first, the object of strengthening faith is too general to be the motive of so special a dispensation; secondly, Jesus, in the parable of the rich man, must on this supposition have falsely expounded the principle of the divine government in this respect, for he there says that he who will not hear the writings of Moses and the prophets, and how much more he who will not hear the present Christ? would not be brought to believe, though one should return to him from he dead: from which it must be inferred that such an apparition, at least to that end, is not permitted by God. ^{P.604}

The more special object, of convincing the disciples that the doctrine and fate of Jesus were in accordance with Moses and the prophets, had been already partly attained; and it was not completely attained until after the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the outpouring of the Spirit: the transfiguration not having formed any epoch in their enlightenment on this subject.-Lastly, the voice out of the bright cloud (without doubt the Shekinah) is, like that at the baptism, a divine voice: but what an anthropomorphic conception of the Divine Being must that be, which admits the possibility of real, audible speech on his part! Or if it be said, that a communication of God to the spiritual ear, is alone spoken of here, the scene of the transfiguration is reduced to a vision, and we are suddenly transported to a totally different point of view.

IT has been, sought to escape from the difficulties of the opinion wi-+ich regards the transfiguration of Jesus as not only a miraculous, but also an external event, by confining the entire incident to the internal experience of the parties concerned. In adopting this position the miraculous is not at once relinquished; it is only transferred to the internal workings of the human mind, as being thus more simple and conceivable. Accordingly it is supposed, that by divine influence the spiritual nature of the three apostles, and probably also of Jesus himself, was exalted to a state of ecstacy, in which they either actually entered into intercourse with the higher world, or were able to shadow forth its forms to themselves in the most vivid manner; that is, the event is regarded as a vision, But the chief support of this interpretation, namely, that Matthew himself, by the expression opofia, vision (v. 9), describes the event as merely subjective and visionary, gives way so soon as it is remembered, tht neither is there any thing in the signification of the word o(rama which determines it to refer to what is merely mental, nor is it exclusively so applied even in the phraseology of the New Testament, for we also find it, as in Acts vii. 31., used to denote something perceived externally. As regards the fact itself, it is improbable, and at least without scriptural precedent, that several persons, as, here, three or four, should have had the same very complex vision;to which it may be added, that on this view of the subject also, the whole difficult question recurs concerning the utility of such a miraculous dispensation.

To avoid the above difficulty, others, still confining the event to the internal experience of the parties, regard it as, the product of ^{P.605} a natural activity of soul, and thus explain the whole as a dream. During or after a prayer offered by Jesus, or by themselves, in which mention was made of Moses and Elijah, and their advent as Messianic forerunners desired, the three disciples, according to this interpretation, slept, and (the two names mentioned by Jesus yet sounding in their ears,) dreamed that Moses and Elijah were present, and that Jesus conversed with them: an illusion which continued during the first confused moments after their awaking. As the former explanation rests on the o(rama of Matthew, so it is alleged in support of this, that Luke describes the disciples as heavy with sleep, and only towards the end of the scene as fully awake, grhgorountej (v. 32). The hold which the third evangelist here presents to the natural explanation, hag been made a reason for assigning to his narrative an important superiority over that of the two other evangelists; recent critics pronouncing that by this and otherparticulars, which bring the event nearer to natural possibility, the account in Luke evinces itself to be the original, while that of Matthew, by its omission of those particulars, is proved to be the traditionary one, since with the eagerness for the miraculous which characterized that age, no one would fabricate particulars calculated to diminish the miracle, as is the case with the sleepiness of the disciples. This mode of conclusion we also should be obliged to adopt, if in reality the above features could only be understood in the spirit of the natural interpretation. But we have only to recollect how in another scene, wherein the sufferings, which according to Luke were announced at the transfiguration, began to be accomplished, and wherein, according to the same evangelist, Jesus likewise held communication with a heavenly apparition, namely, in Gethsemane, the disciples, in all the synoptic Gospels, again appear asleep (Matt. xxvi. 40 parall.).

If it be admitted that the merely external, formal resemblance of the two scenes, might cause a narrator to convey the trait of the slumber into the story of the transfiguration, there is a yet stronger probability that the internal import of the trait might appear to him appropriate to this occasion also, for the sleeping of the disciples at the very moment when their master was going through his most critical experience, exhibits their infinite distance from him, their inability to attain his exalted level; the prophet, the recipient of a revelation, is among ordinary men like a watcher among the sleeping: hence it followed of course, that as in the deepest suffering, so here also in the highest glorification of Jesus, the disciples should be represented as heavy with sleep. Thus this particular, so far from furnishing aid to the natural explanation, is rather intended by, a contrast to heighten the miracle which took place in Jesus. We are, therefore, no longer

^{P.606} warranted in regarding the narrative in Luke as the original one, and in building an explanation of the event on his statement; on the contrary, we consider that addition, in connection with the one, already mentioned (v. 31), a sign that his account is a traditionary and embellished one, and must rather adhere to that of the two other evangelists.

Not only, however, does the interpretation which sees in the transfiguration only a natural dream of the apostles, fail as to its main support, but it has besides a multitude of internal difficulties. It presupposes only the three disciples to have been dreaming, leaving Jesus awake, and thus not included in the illusion. But the whole tenor of the Gospel narrative implies that Jesus as well as the disciples saw the appearance; and what is still more decisive, had the whole been a mere dream of the disciples, he could not afterwards have said to them: Tell the vision to no man, since by these words he must have confirmed in them the belief that they had witnessed something special and miraculous. Supposing however that Jesus had no share in the dream, it still remains altogether unexampled, that three persons should in a natural manner have had the same dream at the same time. This the friends of the above interpretation have perceived, and hence have supposed that the ardent Peter, who indeed is the only speaker, alone had the dream, but that the narrators, by a synecdoche, attributed to all the disciples what in fact happened only to one. But from the circumstance that Peter here, as well as elsewhere, is the spokesman, it does not follow that he alone had the vision, and the contrary can by no figure of speech be removed from the clear words of the evangelists.

But the explanation in question still more plainly betrays its inadequacy. Not only does it require, as already noticed, that the audible utterance of the names of Moses and Elijah on the part of Jesus, should be blended with the dream of the disciples; but it also calls in the aid of a storm, which by its flashes of lightning is supposed to have given rise in them to the idea of supernatural splendour, by its peals of thunder, to that of conversation and heavenly voices, and to have held them in this delusion even for some time after they awaked. But, according to Luke, it was on the waking of the disciples that they saw the two men standing by Jesus: this does not look like a mere illusion protracted from a dream into walking moments; hence Kuin l introduces the further supposition, that, while the disciples slept, there came to Jesus two unknown men, whom they, in awaking, connected with their dream, and mistook for Moses and Elijah. By giving this turn to the circumstances, all those occurrences which on the interpretation based on the supposition of a dream, should be regarded as mere mental conceptions, are again made external realities: for the idea of supernatural brilliancy is supposed to have been produced by a flash of lightning, the idea of voices, by thunder, and lastly, the idea of two persons in company with Jesus, by the actual presence of two unknown individuals. All this the disciples could properly perceive only when they were awake; and hence the supposition of a dream falls to the ground as superfluous.

Therefore, since this interpretation, by still retaining a thread of connection between the alleged character of the event and a mental condition, has the peculiar difficulty of making three partake in the same dream, it is better entirely to break this thread, and restore all to the external world: so that we now have a natural external occurrence before us, as in the first instance we had a supernatural one. Something objective presented itself to the disciples; thus it is explained how it could be perceived by several at once: they deceived themselves when awake as to what they saw; this was natural, because they were all born within the same circle of ideas, were in the same frame of mind, and in the same situation. According to this opinion, the essential fact in the scene on the mountain, is a secret interview which Jesus had preconcerted, and with a view to which he took with him the three most confidential of his disciples.

Who the two men were with whom Jesus held this interview, Paulus does not venure to determine; Kuin l conjectures that they were secret adherents of the same kind as Nicodemus; according to Venturini, they were Essenes, secret allies of Jesus. Before these were arrived, Jesus prayed, and the disciples, not being invited to join, slept; for the sleep noticed by Luke, though it were dreamless, is gladly retained in this interpretation, since a delusion appears more probable in the case of persons just awaking. On hearing strange voices talking with Jesus, they awake, see Jesus, who probably stood on a higher point of the mountain than they, enveloped in unwonted brilliancy, proceeding from the first rays of morning, which, perhaps reflected from a sheet of snow, fell on Jesus, but were mistaken by them in the surprise of the moment for a supernatural illumination; they perceive the two men, whom, for some unknown reasons, the drowsy Peter, and after him the rest, take for Moses and Elijah; their astonishment increases when they see the two unknown individuals disappear in a bright moring cloud, which descends as they are in the act of departing, and hear one of them pronounce out of the cloud the words: o(utoj e)stin etc., which they under these circumstances unavoidably regard as a voice from heaven. This explanation, which even Schleiermacher is inclined to favour, is supposed, like the former, to find a special support in Luke, because in this evangelist the assertion that the two men are Moses and Elijah, is much less confidently expressed than in Matthew and Mark, and more -as a mere notion of the drowsy Peter. For while the two first evangelists directly say: "there ^{P.608} appeared to them Moses and Elias," Luke more warily, as it seems, speaks of "two men, who were Moses and Elias," the first designation being held to contain the objective fact, the second its subjective interpretation. But this interpretation is obviously approved by the narrator, from his choice of the word oitinej hsan instead of edocan einai. That he first speaks of two men, and afterwards gives them their names, cannot have been to leave another interpretation open to the reader, but only to imitate the mysteriousness of the extraordinary scene, by the indefiniteness of his first expression. While this explanation has thus as little support in the Gospel narratives as those previously considered, it has at the same time no fewer difficulties in itself. The disciples must have been so far acquainted with the appearance of the morning beams on the mountains of their native land, as to be able to distinguish them from a heavenly glory; how they cae to have the idea that the two unknown individuals were Moses and Elijah, is not easy to explain on any of the former views, but least of all on this why Jesus, when Peter, by his proposal about the building of the three tabernacles, gave him to understand the delusion of the disciples, did not remove it, is incomprehensible, and this difficulty has induced Paulus to resort to the supposition, that Jesus did not hear the address of Peter the whole conjecture about secret allies of Jesus has justly lost all repute; and lastly, the one of those allies who spoke the words to the disciples out of the cloud, must have permitted himself to use an unworthy mystification.

THUS here, as in every former instance, after having run through the circle of natural explanations, we are led back to the supernatural; in which however we are precluded from resting by difficulties equally decisive. Since then the text forbids a natural interpretation, while it is impossible to maintain as historical the supernatural interpretation which it sanctions, we must apply ourselves to a critical examination of its statements. These are indeed said to be especially trustworthy in the narrative before us, the fact being narrated by three evangelists, who strikingly agree even in the precise determination of the time, and being moreover attested by the apostle Peter (2 Pet. 1.17.). The agreement as to the time (the "eight days" of Luke meaning, according to the usual reckoning, the same as the "six days" of the other evangelists,) is certainly striking; and besides this, all the three narrators concur in placing immediately after the transfiguration the cure of the demonacal boy, which the disciples had failed to effect. But both these points of agreement may be accounted for, by the origin of the synoptic gos- ^{P.609} pels from a fixed fund of Gospel tradition, in relation to Avhich, we need not be more surprised that it has grouped together many anecdotes in a particular manner without any objective reason, than that it has often preserved expressions in which it might have varied, through all the three editions. The attestation of the story by the three Synoptics is, however, very much weakened, at least on the ordinary view of the relation -which the four Gospels bear to each other, by the silence of John; since it does not appear why this evangelist should not have included in his history an event which was so important, and which moreover accorded so well with his system, indeed, exactly realized the declaration in his prologue (v. 14): We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. The worn out reason, that he might suppose the event to be sufficiently known through his predecessors, is, over and above its general invalidity, particularly unavailable here, because no one of the synotists was in this instance an eye-witness, and consequently there must be many things in their narratives which one who, like John, had participated in the scene, might rectify and explain. Hence another reason has been sought for this and similar omissions in the fourth gospel; and such an one has been supposed to be found in the anti-gnostic, or, more strictly, the anti-docetic tendency which has been ascribed to the gospel, in common with the epistles, bearing the name of John. It is, accordingly, maintained that in the story of the transfiguration, the splendour which illuminated Jesus, the transformation of his appearance into something more than earthly, might give countenance to the opinion that his human form was nothing but an unsubstantial veil, through which at times his true, superhuman nature shone forth; that his converse with the spirits of ancient prophets might lead to the conjecture, that he was himself perhaps only a like spirit of some Old Testament saint revisiting the earth; and tat, rather than give nourishment to such erroneous notions, which began early to be formed among gnosticis-ing Christians, John chose to suppress this and similar histories, But besides that it does not correspond with the apostolic plainness of speech (parrhsia) to suppress important facts in the Gospel history, on account of their possible abuse by individuals, John, if he were guided by the above consideration, must at least have proceeded with some consistency, and have excluded from the circle of his accounts all narratives which, in an equal degree with the one in question, were susceptible of a docetic misinterpretation.

Now, here, every one must at once be reminded of the story of the walking of Jesus on the sea, which is at least equally calculated with the story of the transfiguration, to produce the idea that the body of Jesus was a mere phantom, but which John nevertheless records. It is true that the relative importance of events might introduce a distinction: so that of two narraties with an equally strong docetic ^{P.610} aspect, John might include the one on account of its superior weight, while he omitted the less important. But no one will contend that the walking of Jesus on the sea surpasses, or even equals in importance, the story of the transfiguration. John, if he were intent on avoiding what wore a docetic appearance, must on every consideration have suppressed the first history before all others. As he has not done so, the above principle cannot have influenced him, and consequently can never be advanced as a reason for the designed omission of a history in the fourth gospel; rather it may be concluded, and particularly in relation to the event in question, that the author knew nothing, or at least nothing precise, of that history. It is true that this conclusion can form an objection to the historical character of the narrative of the transfiguration, to those only who suppose the fourth gospel to be the work of an apostle; so that from this silence we cannot argue against the truth of the narrative. n the other hand, the agreement of the Synoptics proves nothing in its favour, since we have already been obliged to pronounce unhis-torical more than one narrative in which three, indeed, all four Gospels agree. Lastly, as regards the alleged testimony of Peter, from the more than doubtful genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, the passage which certainly refers to our history of the transfiguration, is renounced as a proof of its historical truth even by orthodox theologians. On the other hand, besides the difficulties previously enumerated, lying in the miraculous contents of the narrative, wehave still a further ground for doubt in relation to the historical validity of the transfiguration: namely, the conversation which, according to the two first evangelists, the disciples held with Jesus immediately after. In descending from the mountain, the disciples ask Jesus: "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must first come?" (Matt. v. 10). This sounds just as if something had happened, from which they necessarily inferred that Elijah would not appear; and not in the least as if they were coming directly from a scene in which he had actually appeared; for in the latter case they would not have asked a question, as if unsatisfied, but must rather have indicated their satisfaction by the remark, "Truly then do the scribes say, etc." Hence expositors interpret the question the disciples to refer, not to the absence of an appearance of Elijah in general, but to the absence of a certain concomitant in the scene which they had just witnessed. The doctrine of the scribes namely, had taught them to anticipate that Elijah on his second appearance would exert a reforming influence on the life of the nation; whereas in the appearance which they had just beheld he had presently vanished again ^{P.611} without further activity. This explanation would be admissible if the words "will restore all things" stood in the question of the disciples; instead of this, however, it stands in both narratives (Matt. v. 11; Mark v. 12) only in the answer of Jesus: so that the disciples, according to this supposition, must, in the most contradictory manner, have been silent as to what they really missed, the restoration of all things, and only have mentioned that which after the foregoing appearance they could not have missed, namely, the coining of Elijah. As, however, the question of the disciples presupposes no previous appearance of Elijah, but, on the contrary, expresses the feeling that such an appearance was wanting, so the answer which Jesus gives them has the same import. For when he replies: the scribes are right in saying that Elijah must come before the Messiah; but this is no argument against my Messiahship, since an Elijah has already preceded me in the person of the Baptist, whn he thus seeks to guard his disciples against the doubt which might arise from the expectation of the scribes, by pointing out to them the figurative Elijah who had preceded him, it is impossible that an appearance of the actual Elijah can have previously taken place; otherwise Jesus must in the first place have referred to this appearance, and only in the second place to the Baptist, Thus the immediate connection of this conversation with that appearance cannot be historical, but is rather owing solely to this point of similarity that in both mention is made of Elijah. But not even at an interval, and after the lapse of intermediate events, can such a conversation have been preceded by an appearance of Elijah; for however long afterwards, both Jesus and the three eye-witnesses among his disciples must have remembered it, and could never have spoken as if such an appearance had not taken place. Still further, an appearance of the real Elijah cannot have happened even after such a conversation, in acordance with the orthodox idea of Jesus. For he too explicitly declares his opinion that the literal Elijah was not to be expected, and that the Baptist was the promised Elijah: if therefore, nevertheless, an appearance of the real Elijah did subsequently take place, Jesus must have been mistaken; a consequence which precisely those Avho are most concerned for the historical reality of the transfiguration, are the least in a position to admit. If then the appearance and the conversation directly exclude each other, the question is, which of the two passages can better be renounced? Now the purport of the conversation is so confirmed by Matt. xi. 14. comp. Luke i. 17., while the transfiguration is rendered so improbable by all kinds of difficulties, that there cannot be much doubt as to the decision. According to this, it appears here as in some former cases, that two narratives proceeding from quite different presuppositions, and having arisen also in different times, have been awkwardly enough combined:

^{P.612} the passage containing the conversation proceeding from the probably earlier opinion, that the prophecy concerning Elijah had its fulfilment in John; whereas the narrative of the transfiguration doubtless originated at a later period, when it was not held sufficient that in the Messianic time of Jesus Elijah should only have appeared figuratively, in the person of the Baptist, when it was thought fitting that he should also have shown himself personally and literally, if in no more than a transient appearance before a few witnesses (a public and more influential one being well known not to have taken place).

In order next to understand how such a narrative could arise in a legendary manner, the first feature to be considered, on the examination of which that of all the rest will most easily follow, is the sun-like splendour of the countenance of Jesus, and the bright lustre of his clothes. To the oriental, and more particularly to the Hebrew imagination, the beautiful, the majestic, is the luminous; the poet of the Song of Songs compares his beloved to the hues of morning, to the moon, to the sun (vi. 9.); the holy man supported by the blessing of God, is compared to the sun going forth in his might (Judg. v. 31.); and above all the future lot of the righteous is likened to the splendour of the sun and the stars (Dan. xii. 3; Matt. xiii. 40.). Hence, not only does God appear clothed in light, and angels with resplendent countenances and shining garments (Ps. 1, 2, 3; Dan. vii. 9 f.; x. 5, 6; Luke xxiv. 4; Rev. i.13ff.), but also the pious of Hebrew antiquity, as Adam before the fall, and among subsequen instances, more particularly Moses and Joshua, are represented as being distinguished by such a splendour; and the later Jewish tradition ascribes celestial splendour even to eminent rabbis in exalted moments. But the most celebrated example of this kind is the luminous countenance of Moses, which is mentioned, Exod. xxxiv.29ff., and as in other points, so in this, a conclusion was drawn from him in relation to the Messiah, a minori ad majus. Such a mode of arguing is indicated by the apostle Paul, 2 Cor. iii.7ff., though he opposes to Moses, (the minister of the letter) not Jesus, but, in accordance with the occasion of his epistle, the apostles and Christian teachers, ministers of the spirit, and the glory, (56a, of the latter, which surpassed the glory of Moses, is an object of hope, to be attained only in the future life. But especially in the Messiah himself, it was expected that there would be a splendour which would correspod to that of Moses, indeed, outshine it; and a Jewish writing which takes no notice of our history of the transfiguration, argues quite in the spirit of the ^{P.613} Jews of the first Christian period, when it urges that Jesus cannot have been the Messiah, because his countenance had not the splendour of the countenance of Moses, to say nothing of a higher splendour. Such objections, doubtless heard by the early Christians from the Jews, and partly suggested by their own minds, could not but generate in the early Church a tendency to introduce into the life of Jesus an imitation of that trait in the life of Moses, indeed, in one respect to surpass it, and instead of a shining countenance that might be covered with a veil, to ascribe to him a radiance, though but transitory, which was diffused even over his garments.

That the illumination of the countenance of Moses served as a type for the transfiguration of Jesus, is besides proved by a series of particular features. Moses obtained his splendour on Mount Sinai: of the transfiguration of Jesus also the scene is a mountain; Moses, on an earlier ascent of the mountain, which might easily be confounded with the later one, after which his countenance became luminous, had taken with him, besides the seventy elders, three confidential friends, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, to participate in the vision of the Lord (Exod. xxiv. 1, 9-11); so Jesus takes with him his three most confidential disciples, that, so far as their powers were adequate, they might be witnesses of the sublime spectacle, and their immediate object was, according to Luke, v. 28, to pray (proseucasqai) just as the Lord calls Moses with the three companions and the elders, to come on the mountain, that they might worship at a distance. As afterwards, when Moses ascended Sinai with Joshua, the glory of th Lord covered the mountain as a cloud, (v. 15 f. LXX.); as the Lord called to Moses out of the cloud, until at length the latter entered into the cloud (v. 16-18): so we have in our narrative a bright cloud which overshadows Jesus and the heavenly forms, a voice out of the cloud, and in Luke an entering of the three into the cloud. The first part of the address pronounced by the voice out of the eloud, consists of the Messianic declaration, composed out of Ps. ii. 7., and Is. 43.1., which had already sounded from heaven at the baptism of Jesus; the second part is taken from the words with which Moses, in the passage of Deuteronomy quoted earlier (xviii. 15), according to the usual interpretation, anounces to the people the future Messiah, and admonishes them to obedience towards him.

^{P.614} By the transfiguration on the mountain Jesus was brought into contact with his type Moses, and as it had entered into the anticipation of the Jews that the Messianic time, according to Is. 42.6 ff,, would have not merely one, but several forerunners, and that among others the ancient lawgiver especially would appear in the time of the Messiah: so no moment was more appropriate for his appearance, than that in which the Messiah was being glorified on a mountain, as he had himself once been. With him was then naturally associated the prophet, who, on the strength of Mai. iii. 23., was the most decidedly expected to be a Messianic forerunner, and, indeed, according to the rabbis, to appear contemporaneously with Moses. If these two men appeared to the Messiah, it followed as a matter of course that they conversed with him; and if it were asked what was the tenor of their conversation, nothing would suggest itself so soon as the approaching sufferings and death of Jesus, which had been announced in te foregoing passage, and which besides, as constituting emphatically the Messianic mystery of the New Testament, were best adapted for the subject of sxich a conversation with beings of another world: from which one cannot but wonder how Olshausen can maintain that the myth would never have fallen upon this theme of conversation. According to this, we have here a myth, the tendency of which is twofold: first, to exhibit in the lite of Jesus an enhanced repetition of the glorification of Moses; and secondly, to bring Jesus as the Messiah into contact with his two forerunners, by this appearance of the lawgiver and the prophet, of the founder and the reformer of the theocracy, to represent Jesus as the perfecter of the kingdom of God, and the fulfilment of the law and the prophets; and besides this, to show a confirmation of his Messianic dignity by a heavenly voice.

Although the point of departure was a totally different one, this statement of time might be retained for the opening of the scene of transfiguration in the story of Jesus.

Before we part with our subject, this example may serve to show with peculiar clearness, how the natural system of interpretation, while it seeks to preserve the historical certainty of the narratives, loses their ideal truth-sacrifices the essence to the form: whereas the mythical interpretation, by renouncing the historical body of such narratives, rescues and preserves the idea which resides in them, and which alone constitutes their vitality and spirit. Thus if, as the natural explanation would have it, the splendour around Jesus was an accidental, optical phenomenon, and the two appearances either images of a dream or unknown men, where is the significance of the incident? where the motive for preserving in the memory of the Church an story so void of ideas, and so barren of inference, resting on a common delusion and superstition? On the contrary, while according to the mythical interpretation, I do not, it is true, see in the Gospel narrative any real event, I yet retain a sense, a urpose in the narrative, know to what sentiments and thoughts of the first Christian community it owes its origin, and why the authors of the Gospels included so important a passage in their memoirs.

SHORTLY after the transfiguration on the mountain, the evangelists make Jesus enter on the fatal journey which conducted him to his death. With respect to the place from whence he set out on this journey, and the route which he took, the Gospel accounts differ. The Synoptics agree as to the point of departure, for they all represent Jesus as setting out from Galilee (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1; Luke ix. 51; in this last passage, Galilee is not indeed expressly named, but we necessarily infer it to be the supposed locality from what precedes, in which only Galilee and districts in Galilee are spoken of, as well as from the journey through Samaria, mentioned in the succeeding passagef): but concerning the route alone in possession of the field: so in the gospel, Moses and Elijah at last vanish, and the disciples see Jesus left alone.

Weisse, not satisfied with the interpretation found by me in the myth, and labouring besides to preserve an historical foundation for the narrative, understands it as a figurative representation in the oriental manner. It is an image of their intuition of the spiritual Messianic idea; the cloud which overshadowed the appearance, signifies the dimness and indefiniteness in which the knowledge faded away, from the inability of the disciples yet to retain it; the proposal of Peter to build tabernacles, is the attempt of this apostle at once to give a fixed dogmatical form to the sublime intuition. Weisse is fearful that this his conception of the history of the transfiguration may also be pronounced mythical: I think not; it is too manifestly allegorical.

^{P.616} In their accounts of the route which Jesus chose on their way from there to Judea, the Gospels appear to be at variance. It is true that the statements of two of them on this point are so obscure, that they might appear to lend some aid to the harmonizing exegesis. Mark says in the clearest and most definite manner that Jesus took his course through Perea; but his statement, He came into the coasts of Judea on the further side of Jordan, is scarcely anything more than the mode in which he judged it right to explain the hardly intelligible expression of Matthew, whom he follows in this chapter. What it precisely is which the latter intends by the words, he departed, from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judcea beyond Jordan, is in fact not at all evident. For if the explanation: he came into that part of Judasa which lies on the opposite side of the Jordan, clashes alike with geography and grammar, so the interpretation to which the comparison of Mark inclines the majority of commentators, namely, that Jesus came into Judsea through the country on the further side of the Jordan, is, even as modified by Fritzsche, not free from grammatical difficulty. In any case, however, thus much remains; that Matthew, as well as Mark, makes Jesus take the more circuitous course through Perasa, while Luke, on the other hand, appears to lead him the more direct way through Samaria. It is true that his expression, xvii. 11., where he says that Jesus, on his journey to Jerusalem, passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, dirjpxe-o 6ia fieaov Zafiapetas KOI roAtAcwaf, is scarcely clearer than the one just cited from Matthew. According to the customary meaning of words, he seems to state that Jesus first crossed Samaria, and then Galilee, in order to arrive at Jerusalem. But this is an inversion of the true order; for if he set out from a place in Galilee, he must first traverse the rest of Gailee, and not until then could he enter Samaria. Hence the words (5(t'psa0at did vioov it. T. A. have been interpreted to mean a progress along the boundary between Galilee and Samaria, and Luke has been reconciled with the two first evangelists by the supposition, that Jesus journeyed along the Galilean- Samariau frontier, until he reached the Jordan, that he then crossed this river, and so proceeded through Pertea towards Juda?a and Jerusalem. But this latter supposition does not agree with Luke ix.51ff.; for we learn from this passage that Jesus, after his departure from Galilee, went directly to a Samaritan village, and here made an unfavourable impression, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. Now this seems clearly to indicate that Jesus took his way directly from Galilee, through Samaria, to Judsa. We shall therefore be on the side of probability, if we judge this statement to be an artificial arrangement of words, to which the ^{P.617} writer was led by his desire to introduce the narrative of the ten lepers, one of whom was a Samaritan; and consequently admit that there is here a divergency between the synoptic Gospels. Towards the end of the journey of Jesus, they are once more in unison, for according to their unanimous statement, Jesus arrived at Jerusalem from Jericho (Matt. xx. 29, parall.); a place which, we may observe, lay more in the direct road for a Galilean coming through Perea, than for one coming through Samaria.

Thus there is indeed a difference between the Synoptics with regard to the way taken by Jesus; but still they agree as to the first point of departure, and the last stage of the road; the account of John, however, diverges from them in both respects. According to him, it is not Galilee from whence Jesus sets out to attend the last Passover, for so early as before the Feast of Tabernacles of the previous year, he had left that province, apparently for the last time (yii. 1. 10.); that between this feast and that of the dedication (x.22.) he had returned there, is at least not stated; after the latter feast, however, he went to Perea, and remained there (x. 40.) until the illness and death of Lazarus recalled him into Judea, and into the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, namely, to Bethany (xi.8ff.). On account of the machinations of his enemies, he quickly withdrew from thence again, but, because he intended to be present at the coming Passover, he retired no further than to the little city of Ephraim, near to the wilderness (xi. 54.); and from this place, no mention being made of a residence in Jericho, (which, besides, did not he in the way from Ephraim, according to the situation usually assigned to the latter city,) he proceeded to Jesusalem to the feast.

So total a divergency necessarily gave unwonted occupation to the harmonists. According to them, the departure from Galilee mentioned by the Synoptics, is not the departure to the last Passover, but to the feast of dedication though Luke, when he says, "when the time came that he should be received up," (ix. 51.) incontrovertibly marks it as the departure to that feast on which the sufferings and death of Jesus awaited him, and though all the Synoptics make the journey then begun end in that triumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to the fourth gospel also, took place immediately before the last Passover.

If, according to this, the departure from Galilee narrated by the Synoptics, is regarded as that to the feast of dedication, and the entrance into Jerusalem which they mention, as that to the subsequent Passover; they must have entirely passed over all which, on this supposition, lay between these two points, ^{P.619} namely, the arrival and residence of Jesus in Jerusalem during the feast of dedication, his journey from thence into PeraBa, from Persea to Bethany, and from Bethany to Ephraim. If from this it should appear to follow that the Synoptics were ignorant of all these particulars: our harmonists urge, on the contrary, that Luke makes Jesus soon after his journey out of Galilee encounter scribes, who try to put him to the proof (x. 25 if.); then shews him in Bethany in the vicinity of Jerusalem (x,38ff.); hereupon removes him to the frontiers of Samaria and Galilee (xvii. 11.); and not until then, makes him proceed to the Passover in Jerusalem (xix.29ff.); all which plainly enough indicates, that between that departure out of Galilee, and the final entrance into Jerusalem, Jesus made another journey to Juda?a and Jerusalem, and from thence back again. But, in the first place, the presence of the scribes proves absolutely nothing: and in the second, Luke makes no mention of Bethany but only of a visit to ary and Martha, whom the fourth evangelist places in that village; from which, however, it does not follow that the third also supposed them to dwell there, and consequently imagined Jesus when at their home, to be in the vicinity of Jerusalem, Again, from the fact that so very long after his departure, (ix. 51.- xvii. 11), Jesus first appears on the frontier between Galilee and Samaria, it only follows that we have before us no orderly progressive narrative. But, according to this harmonizing view, even Matthew was aware of those intermediate events, and has indicated them for the more attentive reader: the one member of his sentence, "he departed from Galilee," intimates the journey of Jesus to the feast of dedication, and thus forms a separate whole; the other, and came into the parts of Judea beyond Jordan, refers to the departure of Jesus from Jerusalem into Perea (John x. 40), and opens a new period. In dopting this expedient, however, it is honourably confessed that without the data gathered from John, no one would have thought of such a dismemberment of the passage in Matthew. In opposition to such artifices, no way is open to those who presuppose the accuracy of John's narrative, but that adopted by the most recent criticism; namely, to renounce the supposition that Matthew, who treats of the journey very briefly, was an eye-witness; and to suppose of Luke, whose account of it is very full, that either he or one of the collectors of whose labours he availed himself, mingled together two separate narratives, of which one referred to the earlier journey of Jesus to the feast of dedication, the other to his last journey to the Passover, without suspecting that between the departure of Jesus out of Galilee, and his entrance into Jerusalem, there fell yet an earlier residence in Jerusalem, together with other journeys and adventures.

We may now observe how in the course of the narrative concerning the last journey or journeys to Jerusalem, the relation between the synoptic Gospels and that of John is in a singular manner reversed. As in the first instance, we discovered a great blank on the side of the former, in their omission of a mass of intermediate events which John notices; so now, towards the end of the account of the journey, there appears on the side of the latter, a similar, though smaller blank, for he gives no intimation of Jesus having come through Jericho on his way to Jerusalem. It may indeed be said, that John might overlook this passage through Jericho, although, according to the Synoptics, it was distinguished by a cure of the blind, and the visit to Zacchaeus; but, it is to be asked, is there in his narrative room for a passage through Jericho? This city does not he on the way from Ephraim to Jerusalem, but considerably to the eastward; hence help is sought in the supposition that Jesus made all kinds of minor excursions, in one of which he came to Jericho, and from hence went forward to Jerusalem.

In any case a remarkable want of unity prevails in the Gospel accounts of the last journey of Jesus; for according to the common, synoptic tradition, he journeyed out of Galilee by Jericho (and, as Matthew and Mark say, through Persea, as Luke says, through Samaria); while according to the fourth gospel, he must have come there from Ephraim: statements which it is impossible to reconcile.

EVEN concerning the close of the journey of Jesus-concerning the last station before he readied Jerusalem, the evangelists are not entirely in unison. While from the synoptic Gospels it appears, that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the same day on which he left Jericho, and consequently without halting long at any intervening place (Matt. xx. 34; xxi.1ff. parall.); the fourth gospel makes him go from Ephraim only so'far as Bethany, spend the night there, and enter Jerusalem only on the following day (xii. 1.12ff.). In order to reconcile the two accounts it is said: we need not wonder that the Synoptics, in their summary narrative, do not expressly touch upon the spending of the night in Bethany, and we are not to infer from this that they intended to deny it; there exists, therefore, no contradiction between them and John, but what they present in a compact form, he exhibits in detail. But while Matthew does not even name Bethany, the two other Synoptics mention this place in a way which decidedly preclude the supposition that Jesus spent the night there. They narrate that when Jesus came near to Beth- ^{P.620} phage and Bethany, he caused an ass to be fetched from the next village, and forthwith rode on this into the city. Between events so connected it is impossible to imagine a night interposed; on the contrary, the narrative fully conveys the impression that immediately on the message of Jesus, the ass was surrendered by its owner, and that immediately after the arrival of the ass, Jesus prepared to enter the city. Moreover, if Jesus intended to remain in Bethany for the night, it is impossible to discover his motive in sending for the ass. For if we are to suppose the village to which he sent to be Bethany, and if the animal on which he purposed to ride would not be required until the following morning, there was no need for him to send forward the disciples, and he might conveniently have waited until he arrived with them in Bethany; the other alternative, that before he had reached Bethany, and ascertained whether the animal he required might not be found tere, he should have sent beyond this nearest village to Bethphage, in order there to procure an ass for the following morning, is altogether destitute of probability; and yet Matthew, at least, says decidedly that the ass was procured in Bethphage. To this it may be added, that according to the representation oi Mark, when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, the evening had already commenced (xi. 11,), and consequently it was only possible for him to take a cursory survey of the city and the temple, after which he again returned to Bethany. It is not, certainly, to be proved that the fourth gospel lays the entrance in the morning; but it must be asked, why did not Jesus, when he only came from so near a place as Bethany, set out earlier from thence, that he might have time to do something worth speaking of in Jerusalem? The late arrival of Jesus in the city, as stated by Mark, is evidently to be explained only by the longer distance from Jericho there; if he came from Bethany merely, he would scarcey set out so late, as that after he had only looked round him in the city, he must again return to Bethany, in order on the following day to set out earlier, which nothing had hindered him from doing on this day. It is true that, in deferring the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem until late in the evening, Mark is not supported by the two other Synoptics, for these represent Jesus as undertaking the purification of the temple on the day of his arrival, and Matthew even makes him perform cures, and give answers to the high priests and scribes (Matt. xxi.12ff.); but even without this statement as to the hour of entrance, the arrival of Jesus near to the above villages, the sending of the disciples, the bringing of the ass, and the riding into the city, are too closely consecutive, to allow of our inserting in the narrative of the Synoptics, a night's residence in Bethany.

If then it remains, that the three first evangelists make Jesus proceed directly from Jericho, without any stay in Bethany, while the fourth makes him come to Jerusalem from Bethany only: they must, if they are mutually correct, speak of two separate entrances; ^{P.621} and this has been recently maintained by several critics. According to them, Jesus first (as the Synoptics relate) proceeded directly to Jerusalem with the caravan going to the feast, and on this occasion there happened, when he made himself conspicuous by mounting the animal, an unpremeditated demonstration of homage on the part of his fellow-travellers, which converted the entrance into a triumphal progress. Having retired to Bethany in the evening, on the following morning (as John relates) a great multitude went out to meet him, in order to convey him into the city, and as he met with them on the way from Bethany, there was a repetition on an enlarged scale of the scene on the foregoing day, this time preconcerted by his adherents. This distinction of an earlier entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem before his approach was known in the city, and a later, after it was learned that he was in Bethany, is favoured by the difference, that according to the synoptic narrative, the people who render homage to him are only "going before" and "following" (Matt. v. 9), while according to that of John, they are meeting him (v. 13, 18). If however it be asked: why then among all our narrators, does each give only one entrance, and not one of them show any trace of a second? The answer in relation to John is, that this evangelist is silent as to the first entrance, probably because he was not present on the occasion, having possibly been sent to Bethany to announce the arrival of Jesus. As, however, according to our principles, if it be assumed of the author of the fourth gospel, that he is the apostle named in the superscriqtion, the same assumption must also be made respecting the author of the first: we ask in vain, whither are we then to suppose that Matthew was sent on the secoad entrance, that he knew nothing to relate concerning it? since with the repeated departure from Bethany to Jerusalem, there is no conceivable cause for such an errand. In relation to Jahn indeed it is apure invention; not to insist, that even if the two evangelists were not personally present, they must yet have learned enough of an event so much talked of in the circle of the disciples, to be able to furnish an account of it. Above all, as the narrative of the Synoptics does not indicate that a second entrance had taken place after the one described by them: so that of John is of such a kind, that before the entrance which it describes, it is impossible to conceive another.

For according to this narrative, the day before the entrance which it details (consequently, on the day of the synoptic entrance,) many Jews went from Jerusalem to Bethany because they had heard of the arrival of Jesus, and now wished to see him and Lazarus whom he had restored to life (v. 9, comp. 12.). But how could they learn on the day of the synoptic entrance, that Jesus was at Bethany? On that day Jesus did indeed pass either by or through Bethany, but he proceeded directly to ^{P.622} Jerusalem, from which, according to all the narratives, he could have returned to Bethany only at so late an hour in the evening, that Jews who now first went from Jerusalem, could no longer hope to be able to see him. But why should they take the trouble to seek Jesus in Bethany, when they had on that very day seen him in Jerusalem itself? Surely in this case it must have been said, not merely, that "they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also," but rather that they had indeed seen Jesus himself in Jerusalem, but as they wished to see Lazarus also, they came therefore to Bethany: whereas the evangelist represents these people as coming from Jerusalem partly to see Jesus; he cannot therefore have supposed that Jesus might have been seen in Jerusalem on that very day. Further, when it is said in John, that on the following day it was heard in Jerusalem that Jesus was coming, (v. 12.) this does not at all seem to imply that Jesus had already been there the day before, but rather that the news had come from Bethany, of his intention to enter on this clay. So also the reception which is immediately prepared for him, alone has its proper significance when it is regarded as the glorification of his first entrance into the metropolis; it could only have been appropriate on his second entrance, if Jesus had the day before entered unobserved and unhonoured, and it had been wished to repair this omission on the following day-not if the first entrance hail already been so brilliant. Moreover, on the second entrance every feature of the first must have been repeated, which, whether we refer it to a preconceived arrangement on the part of Jesus, or to an accidental coincidence of circumstances, still remains improbable. With respect to Jesus, it is not easy to understand how he could arrange the repetition, of a spectacle which, in the first instance significant, if acted a second time would be flat and unmeaning; on the other hand, circumstances must have coincided in an unprecedented manner, if on both occasions there happened the same demonstrations of homage on the part of the people, with the same expressions of envy on the part of his opponents: if, on both occasions, too, there stood at the command of Jesus an ass, by riding which he brought to mind the prophecy of Zachariah. We might therefore call to our aid Sieffert's hypothesis of assimilation, and suppose that the two entrances, originally more different, became thus similar by traditional intermixture: were not the supposition that two distinct events he at the foundation of the Gospel narratives, rendered improbable by another circumstance.

On the first glance, indeed, the supposition of two entrances seems to find support in the fact, that John makes his entrance take place the day after the meal in Bethany, at which Jesus was anointed under memorable circumstances; whereas the two first Synoptics (for Luke knows nothing of a meal at Bethany in this period of the life of Jesus) make their entrance precede this meal: and thus, quite ^{P.623} in accordance with the above supposition, the synoptic entrance would appear the earlier, that of John the later. This would be very well, if John had not placed his entrance so early, and the Synoptics their meal at Bethany so late, that the former cannot possibly have been subsequent to the latter. According to John, Jesus comes six days before the Passover to Bethany, and on the following day enters Jerusalem (xiii. 1, 12); on the other hand, the meal at Bethany mentioned by the Synoptics (Matt. xxvi.6ff. parall), can have been at the most but two days before the Passover (v. 2); so that if we are to suppose the synoptic entrance prior to the meal and the entrance in John, there must then have been after all this, according to the Synoptics, a second meal in Bethany. But between the two meals thus presupposed, as between the two entrances, there would have been the most striking resemblance even to the minutest points; and against the interweaving of two such double incidents, there is so stronga presumption, that it will scarcely be said there were two entrances and two meals, which were originally far more dissimilar, but, from the transference of features out of the one incident into the other by tradition, they have become as similar to each other as we now see them: on the contrary, here if anywhere, it is easier, when once the authenticity of the accounts is given up, to imagine that tradition has varied one incident, than that it has assimilated two.

WHILE the fourth gospel first makes the multitude that streamed forth to meet Jesus render him their homage, and then briefly states that Jesus mounted a young ass which he had obtained; the Synoptics commence their description of the entrance with a minute account of the manner in which Jesus came by the ass. When, namely, he had arrived in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, towards Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples into the village lying before them, telling them that when they came there they would find-Matthew says, mi ass tied, and a colt with her; the two others, a colt whereon never man sat- which they were to loose and bring to him, silencing any objections of the owner by the observation, the Lord has need of him (or them). This having been done, the disciples spread their clothes, and placed Jesus-on both the animals, according to Matthew; according to the two other Synoptics, on the single animal.

The most striking part of this account is obviously the statement oi Matthew, that Jesus not only required two asses, though he alone intended to ride, but that he also actually sat on them both. It is true, that, as is natural, there are not wanting attempts to explain the ^{P.624} former particular, and to do away with the latter. Jesus, it is said, caused the mother animal to be brought with the colt, on which alone he intended to ride, in order that the young and still sucking animal might by this means be made to go more easily; or else the mother, accustomed to her young one, followed of her own accord; but a young animal yet unweaned, would scarcely be given up by its owner to be ridden. A sufficient motive on the part of Jesus in sending for the two animals, could only be that he intended to ride both, which Matthew appears plainly enough to say; for his words imply, not only that the clothes were spread, but also that Jesus was placed on the two animals (eirdvu airoJv). But how are we to represent this to ourselves? As an alternate mounting of the one and the other, Fritzsche thinks: but this, for so short a distance would have been a .superfluous inconvenience. Hence commentators have sought to rid themselves of the singular statement. Some, after very wek authorities, and in opposition to all critical principles, read in the words relative to the spreading of the clothes upon it (the colt), instead of upon them; and then in the mentioning that Jesus placed himself thereon, refer the i(matia au)twn to the clothes which were spread on one of the animals. Others, thinking to escape the difficulty without an alteration of the reading, characterize Matthew's statement as an enallage numeri, by which, according to Winer's explanation, it is meant that the evangelist, using an inaccurate mode of expression, certainly speaks of both the animals, but only in the sense in which we say of him who springs from one of two horses harnessed together, that he springs from the horses. 1 Admitting this expedient to be sufficient, it again becomes incomprehensible why Jesus, who according to this only meant to use one animal, should have sent for two. The whole statement becomes the more suspicious, when we consider that it is givn by the first evangelist alone; for in order to reconsile the others with him it will not suffice to say, as we ordinarily read, that they name only the foal, as being that on which Jesus rode, and that while omitting the ass as an accessary fact, they do not exclude it.

But how was Matthew led into this singular statement? Its true source has been pointed out, though in a curious manner, by those who conjecture, that Jesus in his instructions to the two disciples, and Matthew in his original writing, following the passage, of Zachariah (ix. 9), made use of several expressions for the one idea of the ass, which expressions were by the Greek translator of the first Gospel misconstrued to mean more than one animal. Undoubtedly it was the accumulated designations of the ass in the above passage which occasioned ^{P.625} the duplication of it in the first gospel; for the and which in the Hebrew was intended in an explanatory sense, was erroneously understood to denote an addition, and hence instead of: an ass, that is, an ass's foal, was substituted: an ass together with an ass's foal. Bui this mistake cannot have originated with the Greek translator, who, if he had found throughout Matthew's narrative but one ass, would scarcely have doubled it purely on the strength of the prophetic passage, and as often as his original spoke of one ass, have added a second, or, introduced the plural number instead of the singular; it must rather have been made by one whose only written source was the prophetic passage, out of which, with the aid of oral tradition, he spun his entire narrative, i.e. the author of the first gospel; who hereby, as recent criticism correctly maintains, irrecoverably forfeits the reputation of an eye-witness? If the first gospel stands alone in this mistake, so, on the other hand, the two intermediate evangelists have a feature peculiar to themselves, which it is to the advantage of the first to have avoided. We shall merely point out in passing the prolixity with which Mark and Luke, (though they, as well as Matthew, make Jesus describe to the two disciples, how they would find the ass, and wherewith they were to satisfy the owner,) yet do not spare themselves or the reader the trouble of almost verbally repeating every particular as having occurred (Mark v. 4 if; Luke v. 32 if.); whereas Matthew, with more judgment, contents himself with the observation, and the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. This, as affecting merely the form of the narrative, we shall not dwell on further. But it concerns the substance, that, according to Mark and Luke, Jesus desired an animal ivhereon yet never man sat, a particular of which Matthew knows nothing. One does not understad how Jesus could designedly increase the difficulty of his progress, by the choice of a hitherto unridden animal, which, unless he kept it in order by divine omnipotence, (for the most consummate human skill would not suffice for this on the first riding,) must inevitably have occasioned much disturbance to the triumphal procession, especially as we are not to suppose that it was preceded by its mother, this circumstance having entered into the representation of the first evangelist only. To such an inconvenience Jesus would assuredly not have exposed himself without a cogent reason: such a. reason however appears to he sufficiently near in the opinion of antiquity, according to which, to use Wettstein's expression, animalia, usibus humanis nondum mancipata, sacra habebantar; so that thus Jesus, for his consecrated person, and the high occasion of his Messianic entrance, may have chosen to use only a sacred animal. But regarded more closely, this reason will appear frivolous, and absurd also; for the spectaors had no means of knowing that the ass had never been ridden before, except ^{P.626} by the unruliness with which he may have disturbed the peaceful progress of the triumphal train. If we are thus unable to comprehend how Jesus could seek an honour for himself in mounting an animal which had never yet been ridden; we shall, on the contrary, find it easy to comprehend how the primitive Christian community might early believe it due to his honour that he should ride only on such an animal, as subsequently that he should he only in an unused grave. The authors of the intermediate Gospels did not hesitate to receive this trait into their memoirs, because they indeed, in writing, would not experience the same inconvenience from the undisciplined animal, which it must have caused to Jesus in riding.

The two difficulties already considered belong respectively to the first evangelist, and the two intermediate ones: another is common to them all, namely, that which lies in the circumstance that Jesus so confidently sends two disciples for an ass which they would find in the next village, in such and such a situation, and that the issue corresponds so closely to his prediction. It might here appear the most natural, to suppose that he had previously bespoken the ass, and that consequently it stood ready for him at the hour and place appointed; but how could he have thus bespoken an ass in Bethphage, seeing that he was just come from Jericho? Hence even Paulus in this instance finds something else more probable: namely, that about the time of the feasts, in the villages lying on the high road to Jerusalem, many beasts of burden stood ready to be hired by travellers; but in opposition to this it is to be observed, that Jesus does not at all seem to speak of the first animal that may happen to presnt itself, but of a particular animal. Hence we cannot but be surprised that Olshausen describes it as only the probable idea of the narrator, that to the Messiah making his entrance into Jerusalem, the providence of God presented everything just as he needed it; as also that the same expositor, in order to explain the ready compliance of the owners of the animal, finds it necessary to suppose that they were friends of Jesus; since this trait rather serves to exhibit the as it were magical power which resided in the name of the JLord, at the mention of which the owner of the ass unresistingly placed it at his disposal, as subsequently the inhabitant of the room gave it up at a word from the Master (Matt. xxvi. 18 parall.). To this divine providence in favour of the Messiah, and the irresistible power of his name, is united the superior knowledge by means of ^{P.627} which Jesus here clearly discerns a distant fact which might be available for the supply of his wants.

Now admitting this to be the meaning and design of the evangelists, such a prediction of an accidental circumstance might certainly be conceived as the effect of a magnetic clairvoyance. But, on the one hand, we know full well the tendency of the primitive Christian legend to create such proofs of the superior nature of her Messiah (witness the calling of the two pairs of brethren; but the instance most analogous has been just alluded to, and is hereafter to be more closely examined, namely, the manner in which Jesus causes the room to be bespoken for his last supper with the twelve); on the other hand, the dogmatic reasons drawn from prophecy, for displaying the far-seeing of Jesus here as precisely the knowledge of an ass being tied at a certain place, are clearly obvious; so that we cannot abstain from the conjecture, that we have here nothing more than a product of the tendency which characterized the Christian legend, and of the effort to base Christian belief on ancient prophecy. In considering, namey, the passage quoted in the first and fourth Gospels from Zechariah, where it is merely said that the meek and lowly king will come riding on an ass, in general; it is usual to overlook another prophetic passage, which contains more precisely the tied ass of the Messiah. This passage is Gen. xlix. 11., where the dying Jacob says to Judah concerning the Shiloh, "Binding his foal to the vine, and his ass's colt to the choice vine." Justin Martyr understands this passage also, as well as the one from Zechariah, as a prediction relative to the entrance of Jesus, and hence directly asserts that the foal which Jesus caused to be fetched was bound to a vine. In like manner the Jews not only held the general interpretation that the Shiloh was the Messiah, as may be shown already in the Targum, but also combined the passage relative to the binding of the ass with that on the riding of it into Jerusalem.That the above prphecy of Jacob is not cited by any one of our evangelists, only proves, at the utmost, that it was not verbally present to their minds when they were writing the narrative before us: it can by no means prove that the passage was not an element in the conceptions of the circle in which the story was first formed. The transmission of the narrative through the hands of many who were not aware of its original relation to the passage in Genesis, may {certainly be argued from the fact that it no longer perfectly corresponds to the prophecy. For a perfect agreement to exist, Jesus, after he had, according to Zechariah, ridden ^{628} into the city on the ass, must on dismounting, have bound it to a vine, instead of causing it to be unbound in the next village (according to Mark, from a door by the way-side) as he actually does. By this means, however, there was obtained, together with the fulfilment of those two prophecies, a proof of the supernatural knowledge of Jesus, and the magical power of his name; and in relation to the former point, it might be remembered in particular, that Samuel also had once proved his gifts as a seer by the prediction, that as Saul was returning homeward, two men would meet him with the information that the asses of Kis his father were found (1 Sam. x. 2.). The narrative in the fourth gospel, having no connection with the Mosaic passage, says nothing of the ass being tied, or of its being fetched by the disciples, and merely states with reference to the passage of Zechariah alone: Jesus, having found a young ass, sat thereon (v. 14).

The next feature that presents itself for our consideration, is the homage which is rendered to Jesus by the populace. According to all the narrators except Luke, this consisted in cutting down the branches of trees, which, according to the Synoptics, were strewed in the way, according to John, (who with more particularity mentions palm branches,) were carried by the multitude that met Jesus; further, according to all except John, in the spreading of clothes in the way. To this were added joyous acclamations, of which all have, with unimportant modifications, the words: "Blessed be he that comes in the name of the Lord;" all except Luke the Hosanna; and all, the greeting as King, or Son of David. The first, from Ps. cxviii. 26, was, it is true, a customary form of salutation to persons visiting the feasts, and even the second, taken from the preceding verse of the same psalm, was a usual cry at the feast of tabernacles and th Passover; but the addition "to the Son of David, and b fiaaiXevf rov 'lapaA, the King of Israel, shows that the people here applied these general forms to Jesus specially as the Messiah, bid him welcome in a pre-eminent sense, and wished success to his undertaking. In relation to the parties who present the homage, Luke's account is the most-circumscribed, for he so connects the spreading of the clothes in the way (v. 36) with the immediately preceding context, that he appears to ascribe it, as well as the laying of the clothes on the ass, solely to the disciples, and he expressly attributes the acclamations to the whole multitude of the disciples only; whereas Matthew and Mark make the homage proceed from the accompanying mass of people. This difference, however, can be easily reconciled; for when Luke speaks of the multitude of the disciples, ^{P.629} this means the wider circle of the adherents of Jesus, and, on the other hand, the very great multitude in Matthew, only means all those who were favourable to him amonf the multitude. But while the Synoptics remain within the limits of the company who were proceeding to the feast, and who were thus the fellow travellers of Jesus, John, as above noticed, makes the whole solemnity proceed from those who go out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus (v. 13), while he represents the multitude who are approaching with Jesus as testifying to the former the resurrection of Lazarus, on account of which, according to John, the solemn escort of Jesus into Jerusalem was prepared (v. 17 f.). This cause we cannot admit as authentic, inasmuch as we have found critical reasons for doubting the resurrection of Lazarus: but with the alleged cause, the fact itself of the escort is shaken; especially if we reflect, that the dignity of Jesus might appear to demand that the inhabitants of the city David should have gone forth to bring him in with all solemnity, and that it fully harmonizes with the prevailing characteristics of the representation of the fourth gospel, to describe, before the arrival of Jesus at the feast, how intently the expectations of the people were fixed upon him (vii.11ff., xi. 56.).

The last trait in the picture before us, is the displeasure of the enemies of Jesus at the strong attachment to him, exhibited by the people on this occasion. According to John (v. 19), the Pharisees said to each other: we see from this that the (lenient) proceedings which we have hitherto adopted are of no avail; all the world is following him (we must interpose, with forcible measures). According to Luke (v. 39 f.), some Pharisees addressed Jesus as if they expected him to impose silence on his disciples; on which he answers, that if these were silent, the stones would cry out. While in Luke and John this happens during the progress, in Matthew it is only after Jesus has arrived with the procession in the temple, and when the children, even here, continue to cry Hosanna to the Son of David, that the high priests and scribes direct the attention of Jesus to the impropriety, as it appears to them, whereupon he repulses them with a sentence out of Psa. viii. 3. (Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings you hat perfected praise) (v. 15 f.); a sentence which in the original obviously relates to the Lord, but which Jesus thus applies to himself. The lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem, connected by Luke with the entrance, will come under our consideration further on.

John, and more particularly Matthew by his phrase touto de gegonen i(na plhrwqh etc. "All this was done that it might be fulfilled, etc." (v. 4), unequivocally express the idea that the design first of God, inasmuch as he ordained this scene, and next of the Messiah, as the participant in the Divine counsels, was, by giving this character to the entrance, to fulfil an ancient prophecy. If Jesus knew ^{P.630} himself as the Messiah, this cannot have been a knowledge resulting from the higher principle within him; for, even if this prophetic passage ought not to be referred to an historical prince, as Uzziah, or John Hyrcanus, but to a Messianic individual, still the latter, though a pacific, must yet be understood as a temporal prince, and moreover as in peaceful possession of Jerusalem thus as one altogether different from Jesus. But it appears quite possible for Jesus to have come to such an interpretation in a natural way, since at least the rabbis with decided unanimity interpret the passage of Zechariah of the Messiah. Above all, we know that the contradiction which appeared to exist between the insignificant advent here predicted of the Messiah, and the brilliant one which Daniel had foretold, was at a later period commonly reconciled by the doctrine, that according as the Jewish people showed themselves worthy or the contrary, their Messiah would appear in a majestic or a lowly form. If Nw even if this distinction did not exist in the time of Jesus, but only in general a reference of the passage Zech. ix. 9. to the Messiah: still Jesus might imagine that now, on his first appearance, the prophecy of Zechariah must be fulfilled in him, but hereafter, on his second appearance, the prophecy of Daniel. But there is a third possibility; namely, that either an accidental riding into Jerusalem on an ass by Jesus was subsequently interpreted by the Christians in this manner, or that, lest any Messianic attribute should be wanting to him, the whole narrative of the entrance was freely composed after the two prophecies and the dogmatic presupposition of a superhuman knowledge on the part of Jesus.