46. Was Jesus acknowledged by John as the Messiah? and in what sense? (Chapter 1. Relations Between Jesus and John The Baptist.) (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined) (Strauss, David Friedrich)

To the foregoing question whether Jesus was known to John before the baptism, is attached another, namely, What did John think of Jesus and his Messiahship? The Gospel narratives are unanimous in stating, that before Jesus had 'presented himself for baptism, John had announced the immediate coming of One to whom he stood in a subordinate relation; and the scene at the baptism of Jesus marked him, beyond mistake, as the personage of whom John was the forerunner. According to Mark and Luke, we must presume that the Baptist gave credence to this sign; according to the fourth Gospel, he expressly attested his belief (i. 34), and moreover uttered words which evince the deepest insight into the higher nature and office of Jesus (i.29ff. 36; iii.27ff.); according to the first Gospel, he was already convinced of these before the baptism of Jesus. On the other hand, Matthew (xi.2ff.) and Luke (vii. 18.) tell us that at a later period, the Baptist, on hearing of the ministry of Jesus, despatched some of his disciples to him with the inquiry, whether he (Jesus) was the promised Messiah, or whether another must be expected.

^{P.222} The first impression from this is, that the question denoted an uncertainty on the part of the Baptist whether Jesus were really the Messiah; and so it was early understood. But such a doubt is in direct- contradiction with all the other circumstances reported by the evangelists. It is justly regarded as psychologically impossible that he whose belief was originated or confirmed by the baptismal sign, which he held to be a divine revelation, and who afterwards pronounced so decidedly on the Messianic call and the superior nature of Jesu.?, should all at once have become unsteady in his conviction; he must then indeed have been like a reed shaken by the wind, a comparison which Jesus abnegates on this very occasion (Matt. xi. 7.). A cause for such vacillation is in vain sought in the conduct or fortunes of Jesus at the time; for the rumor of the works of Christ, which in Luke's idea were miracles, could not awaken doubt in the Baptist, and it was on this rumour that he sent his message. Lastly, how could Jesus subsequently (John v. 33. ff.) so confidently appeal to the testimony of the Baptist concerning him, when it was known that John himself was at last perplexed about his Messiahship?

Hence it has been attempted to give a different turn to the facts, and to show that John's inquiry was not made on his own account, but for the sake of his disciples, to overcome in them the doubt with which he was himself untainted. Hereby it. is true, the above-named difficulties are removed; in particular it is explained why the Baptist should contrive to send this message precisely on hearing of the miracles of Jesus: he plainly hoping that his disciples, who had not believed his testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, would be convinced of its truth by beholding the-marvellous works of the latter. But how could John hope that his envoys would chance to find Jesus in the act of working miracles? According to Matthew, indeed, they did not so find him, and Jesus appeals (v. 4.) only to his former works, many of which they had seen, and of which they might hear wherever he had presented himself. Luke alone, in giving his evidently second-hand narrative, misconstrues the words of Jesus to require that the disciples of John should have found him in the exercise of his supernatural power. Further, if it had been the object of the Baptist to persuade his disciples by a sight of the works of Jesus, he would not have charged them with a question which could be answered by the mere words, the authentic declaration of Jesus. For he could not hope by the assertion of the person whose Messiahship was the very point in debate, to convince the disciples whom his own declaration, in other cases, ^{P.223} authoritative, had failed to satisfy. On the whole, it would have been a singular course in the Baptist to lend his own words to the doubts of others, and thereby, as Schleiermacher well observes, to compromise his early and repeated testimony in favour of Jesus.

It is clear that Jesus understood the question proposed to him by the messengers as proceeding from John himself (Matt. xi. 4;) and he indirectly complained of the want of faith in the latter by pronouncing those blessed who were not offended in him (ver. 6).

If then it must be granted that John made his inquiry on his own behalf, and not on that of his disciples, and if nevertheless we cannot impute to him a sudden lapse into doubt after his previous confidence; nothing remains but to take the positive, instead of the negative side of the question, and to consider its scepticism as the mere garb of substantial encouragement, On this interpretation, the time which Jesus allowed to escape without publicly manifesting himself as the Messiah, seemed too tedious to John in his imprisonment; he sent therefore to inquire how long Jesus would allow himself to be waited for, how long he would delay winning to himself the better part of the people by a declaration of his Messiahship, and striking a decisive blow against the enemies of his cause, a blow that might even liberate the Baptist from his prison. But if the Baptist, on the strength of his belief that Jesus was the Messiah, hoped and sued for a deliverance, perhaps miraculous, by him from prison, he would not clothe in the language of doubt an entreaty which sprang out of his faith. Now the inquiry in our Gospel text is one of unmixed doubt, and encouragement must be foisted in, before it can be found there. How great a violence must be done to the words is seen by the way in which Schleiermacher handles them in accordance with this interpretation. The dubitative question, "Are you the one who was to come?" he changes into the positive assumption, you are he who was to come; the other still more embarrassing interrogatory, "shall we look for another?" he completely transfigures thus: why, seeing that you perform so great works) do we yet await you? Shall not John with all his authority command, through us, all those who have partaken of his baptism to obey you as the Messiah, and be attentive to your signs?

Even if we allow, with Neander, the possibility of truth to this interpretation, a mere summons to action will not accord with the earlier representation of Jesus given by the Baptist. The two enunciations are at issue as to form; for if John doubted not the Messiahship of Jesus, neither could he doubt his better knowledge of the fitting time and manner of his appearance: still further are they at issue as to matter; for the Baptist could not take offence at what is termed the delay of Jesus in manifesting himself as the Messiah, or wish to animate him to bolder conduct, if he retained his early view ^{P.224} of the destination of Jesus. If he still, as formerly, conceived Jesus to be the Lamb of God that 'takes away the sins of the world,' no thought could occur to him of a blow to be struck by Jesus against his enemies, or in general, of a violent procedure to be crowned by external conquest; rather, the quiet path which Jesus trod must appear to him the right one-the path befitting the destination of the Lamb of God. Thus if the question of John conveyed a mere summons to action, it contradicted his previous views.

These expedients failing, the original explanation returns upon us; namely, that the inquiry was an expression of uncertainty respecting the Messianic dignity of Jesus, which had arisen in the Baptist's own mind; an explanation which even Neander allows to be the most natural. This writer seeks to account for the transient apostasy of the Baptist from the strong faith in which he gave his earlier testimony, by the supposition that a dark hour of doubt had overtaken the man of God in his dismal prison; and he cites instances of men who, persecuted for their Christian faith or other convictions, after having long borne witness to the truth in the face of death, at length yielded to human weakness and recanted. But on a closer examination, he has given a false analogy. Persecuted Christians of the first centuries, and, later, a Berengarius or a Galilee, were false to the convictions for which they were imprisoned, and by abjuring which they hoped to save themselves: the Baptist, to be compared with them, should have retracted his censure of Herod, and not have shaken his testimony in favour of Christ, which had no relation to his imprisonment. However that may be, it is evident here that these doubts cannot have been preceded by a state of certainty.

We come again to the difficulty arising from the statement of Matthew that John sent his two disciples on hearing of the works of Christ (a)kousaj ta e)rga tou Xristou), or as Luke has it, because "his disciples showed him of all these things." The latter evangelist has narrated, immediately before, the raising of the widow's son, and the healing of the centurion's servant. Could John, then, believe Jesus to be the Messiah before he had performed any Messianic works, and be seized with doubt when he began to legitimatize his claim by miracles such as were expected from the Messiah? This is so opposed to all psychological probability, that I wonder Dr. Paulus, or some other expositor versed in psychology and not timid in verbal criticism, has not started the conjecture that a negative has slipped out of Matt. xi. 2, and that its proper reading is, o( de Iwannhj, ou)k) a)kousaj e)n tw? desmwtheriw ta e)rga tou Xristou etc. It might then be conceived, that John had indeed been convinced, at a former period, of the Messiahship of Jesus; now, however, in his imprisonment, he was ^{P.225} assailed with doubt. But had John been previously satisfied of the Messiahship of Jesus, the mere want of acquaintance with his miracles could not have unhinged his faith. The actual cause of John's doubt, however, was the report of these miracles a state of the case which is irreconcileable with any previous confidence.

Bat how could he become uncertain about the Messiahship of Jesus, if he had never recognized it? Not indeed in the sense of beginning to suspect that Jesus was not the Messiah; but quite possibly in the sense of beginning to conjecture that a man of such deeds was the Messiah.

We have here, not a decaying, but a growing certainty, and this discrimination throws light on the whole purport of the passages in question. John knew nothing of Jesus before, but that he had, like many others, partaken of his baptism, and perhaps frequented the circle of his disciples; and not until after the imprisonment of the Baptist did Jesus appear as a teacher, and worker of miracles. of this John heard, and then arose in his mind a conjecture, fraught with hope, that as he had announced the proximity of the Messiah's kingdom, this Jesus might be he who would verify his idea. So interpreted, this message of the Baptist excludes his previous testimony; if he had so spoken formerly, he could not have so inquired latterly, and vice versa. It is our task, therefore, to compare the two contradictory statements, that we may ascertain which has more traces than the other, of truth or untruth.

The most definite expressions of John's conviction that Jesus was the Messiah are found in the fourth Gospel, and these suggest two distinct questions: first, whether it be conceivable that John had such a notion of the Messiah as is therein contained; and, secondly, whether it be probable that he believed it realized in the person of Jesus.

With respect to the former, the fourth Gospel makes the Baptist's idea of the Messiah include the characteristics of expiatory suffering, and of a pre-earthly, heavenly existence. It has been attempted, indeed, so to interpret the expressions with which he directs his disciples to Jesus, as to efface the notion of expiatory suffering. Jesus, we are told, is compared to a lamb on account of his meekness and patience; "to take away the sin of the world" is to be understood either of a patient endurance of the world's malice, or of an endeavour to remove the sins of the world by reforming; it; and the sense of the Baptist's words is this: "How moving is it that this meek and gentle Jesus should have undertaken so difficult and painful an office!" But even if ^{P.226} ai(rein by itself might bear this interpretation, still a)mnoj not merely with the article but with the addition tou qeou, must signify, not a Iamb in general, but a special, holy Lamb; and if, as is most probable, this designation has reference to Isai. xlii. 7, which can only be expounded by what is there predicated of the lamblike servant of God, that he "takes away the sin of the world" (V. 4, LXX), words which must signify vicarious suffering. Now that the Baptist should have referred the above prophetic passage to the Messiah, and hence have thought of him as suffering, has been recently held more than doubtful.

For so foreign to the current opinion, at least, was this notion of the Messiah, that the disciples of Jesus, during the whole period of their intercourse with him, could not reconcile them selves to it; and when his death had actually resulted, their trust in him as the Messiah was utterly confounded (Luke xxiv.20ff.). How, then, could the Baptist, who, according to the solemn declaration of Jesus, Matt. xi. 11, confirmed by the allusions in the Gospels to his strict ascetic life, ranked below the least in the kingdom of heaven, to which the apostles already belonged; how could this alien discern, long before the sufferings of Jesus, that they pertained to the character of the Messiah, when the denizens were only taught the same lesson by the issue? Or, if the Baptist really had such insight, and communicated it to his disciples, why did it not, by means of those who left his circle for that of Jesus, win an entrance into the latter; indeed, why did it not, by means of the great credit which John enjoyed, mitigate the offence caused by the death of Jesus, in the public at large? Add to this, that in none of our accounts of the Baptist, with the exception of the fourth Gospel, do we find that he entertained such views of the Messiah's character; for, not to mention Josephus, the Synoptic Gospels confine his representation of the Messianic office to the spiritual baptism and winnowing of the people. Still it remains possible that a penetrating mind, like that of the Baptist, might, even before the death of Jesus, gather from Old Testament- phrases and types the notion of a suffering Messiah, and that his obscure hints on the subject might not be comprehended by his disciples and contemporaries.

Thus the above considerations are not decisive, and we therefore turn to the expressions concerning the pre-earthly existence and heavenly origin of the Messiah, with the question: Could the Baptist have really held such tenets? That from the words, John i. 15, 27, 30: "He that comes after me is preferred before me; for he was before me," nothing but dogmatical obstinacy can banish the notion of pre-existence, is seen by a mere glance at such expositions as this of Paulus: "He who in the course of time comes after me; ^{P.227} has so appeared in my eyes, that he deserves rather from his rank and character to be called the-first." With preponderating arguments more unprejudiced commentators have maintained, that the reason here given why Jesus, who appeared after the Baptist in point of time, had the precedence of him in dignity, is the pre-existence of the former. We have here obviously the favourite dogma of the fourth evangelist, the eternal pre-existence of the logoj, present indeed to the mind of that writer, who had just been inditing his proem, but that it was also present to the mind of the Baptist is another question. The most recent expositor allows that the sense in which the evangelist intends prwtoj mou, must have been very remote from the Baptist's point of view, at least so far as the logoj is concerned.

The Baptist, he thinks, held the popular Jewish notion of the pre-existence of the Messiah, as the subject of the Old Testament theophanies. There are traces of this Jewish notion in the writings of Paul (e. g. 1 Cor. x. 4. Col. i. 15 f.) and the rabbis; and allowing that it was of Alexandrian origin, as Bretschneider argues, we may yet ask whether even before the time of Christ, the Alexandrian-Judaic theology may not have modified the opinions of the mother country? Even these expressions then, taken alone, are not conclusive, although it begins to appear suspicious that the Baptist, otherwise conspicuous for exhibiting the practical side of the idea of the Messiah's kingdom, should have ascribed to him by the fourth evangelist solely, two notions which at that time undoubtedly belonged only to the deepest Messianic speculations; and that the form in which those notions are expressed is too peculiarly that of the writer, not to be put to his account.

We arrive at a more decisive result by taking into examination the passage John iii. 27-36, where John replies to the complaints of his disciples at the rival baptism of Jesus, in a way that reduces all commentators to perplexity. After showing how it lay at the foundation of their respective destinies, which he desired not to overstep, that he must decrease, while Jesus must increase, he proceeds (ver. 31) to use forms of expression precisely similar to those in which the evangelist makes Jesus speak of himself, and in which he delivers his own thoughts concerning Jesus. Our most recent, commentator allows that this discourse of John seems the echo of the foregoing conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. ^{P.228}

The expressions in the speech lent to the Baptist are peculiarly those of the apostle John; for instance, sfragein (to seal), marturia (testimony), the antithesis of anwqen and e)k thj ghj (from above and of the earth), the phrase e)xein zwhn aiwnion (to have eternal life); and the question presents itself: Is it more probable that the evangelist, as well as Jesus, in whose mouth these expressions are so often put, borrowed them from the Baptist, or that the evangelist lent them (I will only at present say) to the latter? This must be decided by the fact that the ideas, to which the Baptist here gives utterance, he entirely within the domain of Christianity, and belong specially to the Christianity of the apostle John. Take for example that antithesis of a)nw (from above), and a)po thj ghj (of the earth), the designation of Jesus as a)nwqen e)rxomenoj (he that comes from above), as o(n e)pemyen o( qeoj (he whom God had sent), who consequently "speaks the words of God," the relation of Jesus to God as the ui(oj (son), whom the Father loves: what can be characteristic of Christianity, and of the Apostle John's mode of presenting it, if these ideas are not so? and could they belong to the Baptist? Christianus ante Christum! And then, as Olshausen well observes, is it consistent for John, who, even on the fourth evangelist's own showing, remained separate from Jesus, to speak of the blessedness of a believing union with him? (v. 33 and 36.)

Thus much then is certain, and has been acknowledged by the majority of modern commentators: the words v. 31-36, cannot have been spoken by the Baptist. Hence theologians have concluded, that the evangelist cannot have intended to ascribe them to him, but from v. 31 speaks in his own person."' This sounds plausible, if they can only point out any mark of division between the discourse of the Baptist and the addenda of the evangelist. But none such is to be found. It is true that the speaker from v. 31 uses the third person, and not the first as in v. 30, when referring to the Baptist: but in the former passage the Baptist is no longer alluded to directly and individually, but as one of a class, in which case he must, though himself the speaker, choose the third person.

Thus there is no definitive boundary, and the speech glides imperceptibly from those passages which might have been uttered by the Baptist, into those which are altogether incongruous with his position; moreover from v. 30. Jesus is spoken of in the present tense, as the evangelist might represent the Baptist to speak daring the lifetime of Jesus, but could not in his own person have written after the death of Jesus. In other passages, when presenting his own, ^{P.229} reflections concerning Jesus, he uses the preterite. Thus, grammatically, the Baptist continues to speak from v. 31, and yet, historically, it is impossible that he should have uttered the sequel; a contradiction not to be solved, if it be added that, dogmatically, the evangelist cannot have ascribed to the Baptist words which he never really pronounced. Now if we do not choose to defy the clear rules of grammar, and the sure data of history, for the sake of the visionary dogma of inspiration, we shall rather conclude from the given premises, with the author of the Probabilia, that the evangelist falsely ascribes the language in question to the Baptist, putting into his mouth a Christology of his own, of which the latter could know nothing. This is no more than L cke confesses, though not quite so frankly, when he says that the reflections of the evangelist are here more than equally mixed with the discourse of the Baptist, in such a way as to be undistinguishable. In point of fact, however, the reflections of the evangelist are easily to be recognized; but of the fundamental ideas of the Baptist there is no trace, unless they are sought for with a good will which amounts to prejudice, and to which therefore we make no pretension. If then we have a proof in the passages just considered, that the fourth evangelist did not hesitate to lend to the Baptist Messianic and other ideas which were never his; we may hence conclude retrospectively concerning the passages on which we formerly suspended our decision, that the ideas expressed in them of a suffering and pre-existent Messiah belonged, not to the Baptist, but to the evangelist.

In giving the above reply to our first question, we have, in strictness, answered the remaining one; for if the Baptist had no such messianic ideas, he could not refer them to the person of Jesus.

But to strengthen the evidence for the result already obtained, we will make the second question the object of a special examination. According to the fourth evangelist the Baptist ascribed to Jesus all the Messianic attributes above discussed. If he did this so enthusiastically, publicly, and repeatedly, as we road in John, he could not have been excluded by Jesus from the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xi. 11), nor have been placed below the least of its citizens. For such a confession as that of the Baptist, when he calls Jesus the "ui(oj tou qeou, who was before him," such refined insight into the Messianic economy, as is shown by his designating Jesus "the Son of the living God" Peter himself had not to produce, though Jesus not only receives him into the kingdom of heaven for his confession, Matt. xvi. 16, but constitutes him the rock on which that kingdom was to be founded. But we have something yet more incomprehensible. John, in the fourth Gospel, gives it as the object of his baptism, that Jesus be revealed as the Messiah (i. 31), and acknowledges it to be the divine ordinance, that by the side of the increasing Jesus, he must be the rock on which that kingdom was to be founded. ^{P.230} (iii. 30.); nevertheless after Jesus had begun to baptize by the instrumentality of his disciples, John continues to practise his baptism (iii. 32.). Why so, if he knew the object of his baptism to be fulfilled by the introduction of Jesus, and if he directed his followers to him as the Messiah? (i. 36 f.). The continuance of his baptism would be to no purpose; for Luke's supposition, that John's baptism was still of effect in those places where Jesus had not appeared, he himself overthrows by the observation, that at least at the period treated of in John iii. 22 ff., Jesus and John must have been baptizing near to each other, since the disciples of John were jealous of the concourse to the baptism of Jesus. But the continuance of John's baptism appears even to counteract his aim, if that aim were merely to point out Jesus as the Messiah. He thereby detained a circle of individuals on the borders of the Messiah's kingdom, and retarded or hindered their going over to Jesus (and that through his own fault, not theirs alone, for he nullified his verbal direction to Jesus by his contradictory example). Accordingly we find the party of John's disciples still existing in the time of the Apostle Paul (Acts xviii. 24 f. xix. 1 ff.); and, if the Sabeeans are to be credited concerning their own history, the sect remains to this day. Certainly, presupposing the averred conviction of the Baptist relative to Jesus, it would seem most natural for him to have attached himself to the latter; this, however, did not happen, and hence we conclude that he cannot have had that conviction.

But chiefly the character and entire demeanour of the Baptist render it impossible to believe that he placed himself on that footing with Jesus, described by the fourth evangelist. How could the man of the wilderness, the stern ascetic, who fed on locusts and wild honey, and prescribed severe fasts to his disciples, the gloomy, threatening preacher of repentance, animated with the spirit of Elijah, how could he form a friendship with Jesus, in every thing his opposite? He must assuredly, with his disciples, have stumbled at: the liberal manners of Jesus, and have been hindered by them from recognizing him as the Messiah. Nothing is more unbending than ascetic prejudice; he who, like the Baptist, esteems it piety to fast and mortify the body, will never assign a high grade in things divine to him who disregards such asceticism. A mind with narrow views can never comprehend one whose vision takes a wider range, ^{P.231} although the latter may know how to do justice to its inferior; hence Jesus could value and sanction John in his proper place, but the Baptist could never give the precedence to Jesus, as he is reported to have done in the fourth Gospel. The declaration of the Baptist (John iii. 30), that he must decrease, but Jesus must increase, is frequently praised as an example of the noblest and sublimest resignation. The beauty of this representation we grant; but not its truth. The instance would be a solitary one, if a man whose life had its influence on the world's history, had so readily yielded the ascendant, in his own circle, to one who came to eclipse him and render him superfluous. Such a step is not less difficult for individuals than for nations, and that not from any vice, as egotism or ambition, so that an exception might be presumed (though not without prejudice) in the case of a man like the Baptist; it is a consequence of that blameless, limitation which, as we have already remarked, is proper to a low point of view in relation to a higher, and which is all the more obstinately maintained if the inferior individual is, like John, of a coarse, rugged nature. Only from the divine point of view, or from that of an historian, bent on establishing religious doctrines, could such things be spoken, and the fourth evangelist has in fact put into the mouth of the Baptist the very same thoughts concerning the relation between him and Jesus, that the compiler of the 2nd book of Samuel has communicated, as his own observation, on the corresponding relation between Saul and David, Competent judges have recently acknowledged that there exists a discrepancy between the Synoptic Gospels and the fourth, the blame of which must be imputed to the latter; and this opinion is confirmed and strengthened by the fact, that the fourth evangelist transforms the Baptist, into a totally different character from that in which he appears in the Synoptic Gospels and in Josephus; out of a practical preacher he makes a speculative Christologist; out of a hard and unbending, a yielding and self-renouncing nature.

The style in which the scenes between John and Jesus (John i.29ff. 35ff.) are depicted, shows them to have originated partly in the free composition of the imagination, partly in a remodelling of the synoptic narratives with a view to the glorification of Jesus. With respect to the former: Jesus is walking, v. 35, near to John; in v. 29 he is said to come directly to him; yet on neither occasion is there any account of an interview between the two. Could Jesus really have avoided contact with the Baptist, that, there might be no appearance of preconcerted action? This is L cke's conjecture; but it is the product of modern reflections, foreign to the time and circumstances of Jesus. Or shall we suppose that the narrator, ^{P.232} whether fortuitously or purposely, omitted known details? But the meetings of Jesus and John must have furnished him with peculiarly interesting matter, so that, as L cke allows, his silence is enigmatical. From our point of view the enigma is solved. The Baptist had, in the evangelist's idea, pointed to Jesus as the Messiah. This, understood as a visible pointing, required that Jesus should pass by or approach John; hence this feature was inserted in the narrative: but the particulars of an actual meeting being unnecessary, were, though very awkwardly, omitted. The incident of some disciples attaching themselves to Jesus in consequence of the Baptist's direction, seems to be a free version of the sending of two disciples by John from his prison. Thus, as in Matthew xi.2, and Luke vii. 18, John despatches two disciples to Jesus with the dubitative question, "Are you he that should come? " so in the fourth Gospel he likewise sends two disciples to Jesus, but with the positive assertion that he (Jesus) is the Lamb of God, as Jesus in the former case gives to the disciples, after the delivery of their message, the direction: "Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard," so in the latter, he gives to the inquiry concerning his abode, the answer: "come and see.." But while in the synoptic Gospels the two disciples return to John, in the fourth, they permanently attach themselves to Jesus.

From the foregoing considerations, it is inconceivable that John should ever have held and pronounced Jesus to be the Messiah: but it is easy to show how a belief that he did so might obtain, without . historical foundation. According to Acts xix. 4, the apostle Paul declares what seems sufficiently guaranteed by history, that John baptized ton e0rxomenon, and this coming Messiah, adds Paul, to whom John pointed was Jesus. This was an interpretation of the Baptist's words by the issue; for Jesus had approved himself to a great number of his contemporaries, as the Messiah announced by John. There was but a step to the notion that the Baptist himself had, under the e0rxomenon understood the individual Jesus, had himself the ton Kurion in his mind; a view which, however unhistorical, would be inviting to the early Christians, in proportion to their wish to sustain the dignity of Jesus by the authority of the Baptist, then very influential in the Jewish world. ^{P.233} There was yet another reason, gathered from the Old Testament. The ancestor of the Messiah, David, had likewise in the old Hebrew legend a kind of forerunner in the person of Samuel, who by order from the Lord anointed him to be king over Israel (1 Sam. xvi), and afterwards stood in the relation of a witness to his claims. If then it behoved the Messiah to have a forerunner, who, besides, was more closely characterized in the prophecy of Malachi as a second Elijah, and if, historically, Jesus was preceded by John, whose baptism as a consecration corresponded to an anointing; the idea was not remote of conforming the relation between John and Jesus to that between Samuel and David.

We might have decided with tolerable certainty which of the two incompatible statements concerning the relation between the Baptist and Jesus is to be renounced as unhistorical, by the universal canon of interpretation, that where, in narratives having a tendency to aggrandize a person or a fact, (a tendency which the Gospels evince at every step,) two contradictory statements are found, that which best corresponds to this aim is the least historical; because if, in accordance with it, the original fact had been so dazzling, it is inconceivable that the other less brilliant representation should afterwards arise; as here, if John so early acknowledged Jesus, it is inexplicable how a story could be fabricated, which reports him to have been in doubt on the same subject at a very late period. We have, however, by a separate examination of the narrative in the fourth gospel, ascertained that it is self-contradictory and contains its own solution; hence our result, found independently of the above canon, serves for its confirmation.

Meanwhile that result is only the negative, that all which turns upon the early acknowledgment of Jesus by John has no claim to be received as historical; of the positive we know nothing, unless the message out of prison, may be regarded as a clue to the truth, and we must therefore subject this side of the matter to a separate examination. We will not extend our arguments against the probability of an early and decided conviction on the part of the Baptist, to a mere conjecture awakened in him at a later period that Jesus was the Messiah; and therefore we leave uncontested the proper contents of the narrative. But as regards the form, it is not to be conceived without difficulty. That the Baptist in prison, should have information of the proceedings of Jesus; that he should from that locality send his disciples to Jesus; and that these, as we are led to infer, should bring him an answer in his imprisonment.

According to Josephus, Herod imprisoned John from fear of disturbances; allowing this to be merely a joint cause with that given by the evangelist, it is yet difficult to believe that to a man, one motive of whose imprisonment was to seclude him from his followers, his disciples should have retained free access; although we cannot ^{P.234} prove it an impossibility that circumstances might favour the admission of certain individuals. Now that the message was sent from prison we learn from Matthew alone; Luke says nothing of it, although he tells of the message. We might hence, with Schleiermacher, consider Luke's account the true one, and the story of Matthew an unhistorical addition. But that critic has himself very convincingly shown, from the tedious amplifications, partly betraying even misunderstanding, which the narrative of Luke contains (vii. 20, 21, 29 30), that Matthew gives the incident in its original, Luke in a revised form. It would indeed be singular if Matthew had supplied the desmwtherion when it was originally wanting; it is far more natural to suppose that. Luke, who in the whole paragraph appears as a reviser, expunged the original mention of the prison.

In judging of Luke's motives for so doing, we are led to notice the difference in the dates given by the evangelists for the imprisonment of John. Matthew, with whom Mark agrees, places it before the public appearance of Jesus in Galilee; for he gives it as the motive for the return of Jesus into that province (Matt. iv. 12; Mark i, 14.). Luke assigns no precise date to the arrest of the Baptist (iii. 19 f.), yet it is to be inferred from his silence about the prison, in connection with the sending of the two disciples, that he regarded it as a later occurrence; but John expressly says, that after the first Passover attended by Jesus in his public character, John was not yet cast into prison (iii. 24.). If it be asked, who is right? we answer that there is something on the face of the account of the first evangelist, which has inclined many commentators to renounce it in favour of the two last. That Jesus, on the report of John's imprisonment in Galilee by Herod Antipas, should have returned into the dominions of that prince for the sake of safety, is, as Schneckenburger well maintains, highly improbable, since there, of all places, he was the least secure from a similar fate. But even if it be held impossible to dissociate the "he withdrew" from the cognate idea of seeking security, we may still ask whether, disregarding the mistake in the motive, the fact itself may not be maintained.

Matthew and Mark connect with this journey into Galilee after John's imprisonment, the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus; and that this was consequent on the removal of the Baptist, I am quite inclined to believe, For it is in itself the most natural that the exit of the Baptist should incite Jesus to carry on in his stead the preaching of repentance and the kingdom of heaven; and the canon cited above is entirely in favour of Matthew. And if it be asked which fiction best accords with the aggrandizing spirit of the Christian legend, that of John's removal before the appearance of Jesus, or that of their having long laboured in conjunction? the answer must be, the latter. If he to whom the hero of a narrative is superior disappears from the scene before the entrance of the latter, the crowning opportunity for the hero to demonstrate his ascendancy ^{P.235} is lost, the full splendour of the rising sun can only be appreciated, when the waning moon is seen above the horizon, growing paler and paler in the presence of the greater luminary. Such is the case in the Gospels of Luke and John, while Matthew and Mark rest satisfied with the less effective representation. Hence, as the least calculated to magnify Jesus, the account of Matthew has the advantage in historical probability.

Thus at the time when the two disciples must have been sent to Jesus, the Baptist was already imprisoned, and we have remarked above, that he could hardly, so situated, transmit and receive messages. But popular legend might be prompted to fabricate such a message that the Baptist might not depart without at least an incipient recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; so that neither the one nor the other of the two incompatible statements is to be regarded as historical.