57. Difference between the Synoptics and John, on the Customary Scene of th... (Chapter 3. Locality and Chronology of the Public Life of Jesus.) (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined) (Strauss, David Friedrich)

ACCORDING to the synoptic writers, Jesus, born indeed at Bethlehem in Judea, but brought up at Nazareth in Galilee, only absented himself from Galilee during the short interval between his ^{P.274} baptism and the imprisonment of the Baptist; immediately after which, he returned there and began his ministry, teaching, healing, calling disciples, so as to traverse all Galilee; using as the centre of his agency, his previous dwelling-place, Nazareth, alternately with Capernaum, on the north-west border of the lake of Tiberias (Matt. iv. 12-25. parall.). Mark and Luke have many particulars concerning this ministry in Galilee which are not found in Matthew, and those which they have in common with him are arranged in a different order; but as they all agree in the geographical circuit which they assign to Jesus, the account of the first evangelist may serve as the basis of our criticism. According to him the incidents narrated took place in Galilee, and partly in Capernaum down to viii. 18, where Jesus crosses the Galilean sea, but is scarcely landed on the east side when he returns to Capernaum. Here follows a series of scenes connected by short transitions, such as "passing from thence," (ix. 9, 27), "while he was saying these things," expressions which can imply no important change of place, that is, of one province for another, which it is the habit of the writer to mark much more carefullv. The passage, ix. 35, perihgen o( Ihsouj taj poleij pasaj, didaskwn e)n taij sunagwgaij au)twn, is evidently only a repetition of iv. 23, and is therefore to be understood merely of excursions in Galilee. The message of the Baptist (chap. xi.) is also received by Jesus in Galilee, at least such appears to be the opinion of the narrator, from his placing in immediate connection the complaints of Jesus against the Galilean cities. When delivering the parable in chap. xiii. Jesus is by the sea, doubtless that of Galilee, and, as there is mention of his house (v. 1), probably in the vicinity of Capernaum. Next, after having visited his native city Nazareth (xiii. 53.) he passes over the sea (xiv. 13), according to Luke (ix. 10), into the country of Bethsaida (Julias); from which, however, after the miracle of the loaves, he speedily returns to the western border xiv. 34.). Jesus then proceeds to the northern extremity of Palestine, on the frontiers of Phoenicia (xv. 21.); soon, however, returned to the sea of Galilee (v. 29), he takes ship to the eastern side, in the coast of Magdala (v. 39), but again departs northward into the country of Caesarea Philippi (xvi. 13), in the vicinity of Lebanon, among the lower ridges of which is to be sought the mount of the transfiguration (xvii. 1.). After journeying in Galilee for some time longer with his disciples (xvii. 22), and once more visiting Capernaum (v. 24), he leaves Galilee (xix. 1) to travel (as it is most probably explained) through Perea into Judea, (a journey which, according to Luke ix. 52, he seems to have made through Samaria); xx. 17, he is on his way to Jerusalem; v. 29, he comes through Jericho; and xxL 1, is in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which, v. 10, he enters.

Thus, according to the synoptic writers, Jesus, from his return ^{P.275} after being baptized Tby John, to his final journey to Jerusalem, never goes beyond the limits of North Palestine, but traverses the countries west and east of the Galilean sea and the upper Jordan, in the dominions of Herod Antipas and Philip, without touching on Samaria to the south, still less Judea, or the country under the immediate administration of the Romans. And within those limits, to be still more precise, it is the land west of the Jordan, and the sea of Tiberias, and therefore Galilee, the province of Antipas, in which Jesus is especially active; only three short excursions on the eastern border of the sea, and two scarcely longer on the northern frontiers of the country, being recorded.

Quite otherwise is the theatre of the ministry of Jesus marked out in the fourth Gospel. It is true that here also he goes after his baptism by John into Galilee, to the wedding at Cana (ii. 1), and from thence to Capernaum (v. 12); but in a few days the approaching pas?ocr calls him to Jerusalem (v. 13.). From Jerusalem he proceeds into the country of Judea (iii. 22), and after some time exercising his ministry there (iv. 1), he returns through Samaria into Galilee (v. 43). Nothing is reported of his agency in this province but a single cure, and immediately on this a new feast summons him to Jerusalem (v. 1), where he is represented as performing a cure, being persecuted, and delivering long discourses, until he betakes himself (vi. 1.) to the eastern shore of the sea of Tiberias, and from thence to Capernaum (v. 17, 59). He then itinerates for some time in Galilee (vii. 1), but again leaves it, on occasion of the feast of tabernacles, for Jemsalein (v. 2, 10). To this visit the evangelist refers many discourses and vicissitudes of Jesus (vii. 10; x. 21), and moreover connects with it the beginning of his public minisliy at the feast of dedication, without noticing any intermediate journey out of Jerusalem and Judea (x. 22.). After this Jesus again retires into the country of Perea, where he had first been with the Baptist (x. 40), and there remains until the death of Lazarus recalls him to Bethany, near Jerusalem (xi. 1), from which he withdraws to Ephraim, in the vicinity of the wilderness of Judea, until the approach of the Passover, which he visited as his last (xii.1ff.).

Thus, according to John, Jesus was present at four feasts in Jerusalem, before the final one: was besides once in Bethany, and had been active for a considerable time in Judea and on his journey through Samaria.

Why, it must be asked, have the synoptic writers been silent on this frequent presence of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem? Why have they represented the matter, as if Jesus, before his last fatal journey to Jerusalem, had not overstepped the limits of Galilee and Perea, this discrepancy between the synoptic writers and John was long overlooked in the Church, and of late it has been thought feasible to deny its existence. It has been said, that Matthew ^{P.276} pursues his narrative without noticing any journey into Judea until the last; but that we are not hence to conclude that Matthew was unacquainted with the earlier ministry of Jesus in Judea, for as with this evangelist the local interest is subordinate to the effort at an appropriate arrangement of his events, many particulars in the former part of his history, which he narrates without indicating any place, may have been known, though not stated by him, to have occurred in the earlier journeys and residences in Judea. But this alleged subordination of the local interest in Matthew, is nothing more than a fiction of the harmonist, Schneckenburger has recently proved. Matthew very carefully marks (chap. iv.) the beginning and (chap. xix.) the end of the almost exclusive residence of Jesus in Galilee; all the intervening narration must therefore be regarded as belonging to that residence, unless the contrary be expressed; and since the evangelist is on the alert to notice the'short excursions of Jesus across the lake and into the north of Galilee, he would hardly pass over in silence the more important, and sometimes prolonged visits to Judea, had they been known or credited by him. Thus much only is to be allowed, that Matthew frequently neglects the more precise statement of localities, as the designation of the spot or neighbourhood in which Jesus laboured from time to time: but in his more general biographical statements, such as the designation of the territories and provinces of Palestine, within the "boundaries of which Jesus exercised his ministry, he is as accurate as any other evangelist.

Expositors must therefore accommodate themselves to the admission of a difference between the synoptic writers and John, and those who think it incumbent on them to harmonize the Gospels must take care lest this difference be found a contradiction; which can only be prevented by deducing the discrepancy, not from a disparity between the ideas of the evangelists as to the sphere of; the ministry of Jesus, but from the difference of mental bias under which they severally wrote. Some suppose that Matthew, being a Galilean, saw the most interest in Galilean occurrences, and hence Confined his narrative to them, though aware of the agency of Jesus at Jerusalem. But what biographer, who had himself accompanied his hero into various provinces, and beheld his labours there, would confine his narration to what he had performed in his (the biographer's) native province? Such provincial exclusiveness would surely be quite unexampled. Hence others have preferred the supposition that Matthew, writing at Jerusalem, purposely selected from the mass of discourses and actions of Jesus with which he was acquainted, those of which Galilee was the theatre, because they were the least known at Jerusalem, and required narrating more than what had happened within the hearing, and was fresh in the memories of its inhabitants. In opposition to this it has been already remarked, that there is no proof of Matthew's Gospel being especially intended for the Christians of Judea and Jerusalem: that even assuming this, a reference to the events which had happened in the reader's own country could not be superfluous; and that, lastly, the like limitation of the ministry of Jesus to Galilee by Mark and Luke cannot be thus accounted for, since these evangelists obviously did not write for Judea, (neither were they Galileans, so that this objection is equally valid against the first explanation;) and were not in so servile a relation to Matthew as to have no access to independent information that might give them a more extended horizon. It is curious enough that these two attempts to solve the contradiction between the synoptic writers and John, are themselves in the same predicament of mutual contradiction. For if Matthew has been silent on the incidents in Judea, according to one, on account of his proximity, according to the other, on account of his remoteness, it follows that, two contrary hypotheses being made with equal ease to explain the same fact, both are alike inadequate.

No supposition founded on the local relations of the writers sufficing to explain the difference in question, higher ground must be taken, in a consideration of the spirit and tendency of the Gospel writings. From this point of view the following proposition has been given: The cause which determined the difference in the contents of the fourth Gospel and that of the synoptic ones, accounts also for their divergency as to the limits they assign to the ministry of Jesus; in other words, the discourses delivered by Jesus in Jerusalem, and recorded by John, required for their comprehension a more mature development of Christianity than that presented in the first apostolic period; hence they were not retained in the primitive Gospel tradition, of which the synoptic writers were the organs, and were first restored to the Church by John, who wrote when Christianity was in a more advanced stage.j: But neither is this attempt at an explanation satisfactory, though it is less superficial than the preceding. For how could the popular and the esoteric in the teaching of Jesus be separated with such nicety, that the former should be confined to Galilee, and the latter to Jerusalem (the harsh discourse in the synagogue at, Capernaum alone excepted?) It may be said: in Jerusalem he had a more enlightened public around him, and could be more readily understood than in Galilee. But the Galileans could scarcely have misunderstood Jesus more lamentably than did the Jews from first to last, according to John's representation, and as in Galilee he had the most undisturbed communion with his disciples, we should rather have conjectured that here would be the scene of his more profound instruction. Besides, as the synoptic writers have given a plentiful gleaning of lucid and popular discourses from the final residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, there is no ground whatever for believing that his earlier visits were devoid of such, and that his converse on these occasions took throughout a higher tone. But even allowing that all the earlier discourses of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem were beyond the range of the first apostolic tradition, deeds were performed there, such as the cure of the man who Iiad had an infirmity thirtyeight years, the conferring of sight on the man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus, which, from their imposing rank among the evidences of Christianity, must almost have necessitated the mention of those early visits of Jesus to Judea during which they occurred.

Thus it is impossible to explain why the synoptic writers, if they knew of the earlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, should not have mentioned them, and it must be concluded that if John be right, the first three evangelists knew nothing of an essential part of the earlier ministry of Jesus; if, on the other hand, the Lriter be right, file author of the fourth Gospel, or of the tradition by which he was giiided, fabricated a large portion of what he has narrated concerning the ministry of Jesus, or at least assigned to it a false locality.

On a closer examination, however, the relation between John and the synoptic writers is not simply such, that the latter might not know what the former records, but such, that they must have proceeded from positively opposite data. For example, the synoptic writers, Matthew especially, as often as Jesus leaves Galilee, from the time that he takes up his abode there after the Baptist's imprisonment, seldom neglect to give a particular reason; such as that he wished to escape from the crowd by a passage across the sea (Matt. viii. 18), or that he withdrew into the wilderness of Perea to avoid the snares of Herod (xiv. 13), or that he retired into the region of Tyre and Sidon on account of the offence taken by the scribes at his preaching (xv. 21); John, on the contrary, generally alleges a special reason why Jesus leaves Judea and retires into Galilee. Not to contend that his very iirst journey there appears to be occasioned solely by the invitation to Cana, his departure again into Galilee after the first Passover attended by him in his public character, is expressly accounted for by the ominous attention which the increasing number of his disciples had excited among the Pharisees (iv.1ff.). His retirement after the second feast also, into the country east of the Sea of Tiberias (vi. 1), must be viewed in relation to "the Jews sought to kill him" (v. 18), since immediately after, the evangelist assigns as a reason for the continuance of Jesus in Galilee, the malignant designs of his enemies, which rendered his abode in Judea perilous to his life (vii. 1.). The interval between the Feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of the Dedication seems to have been spent by Jesus in the capital, no unpro- ^{P.279} pitious circumstances compelling him to absent himself (x. 22.); on the other hand his journey into Perea (x. 40.) and that into Ephraim (xi. 54.) are presented as effects of his persecution by the Jews.

Thus precisely the same relation as that which exists between Matthew and Luke, with respect to the original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus, is found between the first three evangelists and the fourth, with respect to the principal theatre of his ministry.

As, in the former instance, Matthew presupposes Bethlehem to be the original place of abode, and Nazareth the one subsequently adopted through fortuitous circumstances, while Luke gives the contrary representation; so in the latter, the entire statement of the synoptic writers turns on the idea that, until his last journey, Galilee was the chosen field of the labours of Jesus, and that he only left it occasionally, from particular motives and for a short time; while that of John, on the contrary, turns on the supposition, that Jesus would have taught solely in Judea and Jerusalem had not prudence sometimes counselled him to retire into the more remote provinces.of these two representations one only can be true. Before they were perceived to be contradictory, the narrative of John was incorporated with that of the synoptic writers; since they have been allowed to be in-cconcileable, the verdict has always been in favour of the fourth evangelist; and so prevalent is this custom, that even the author of the Probabilia does not use the difference to the disadvantage of the latter. De Wette numbers it among the objections to the authenticity of Matthew's Gospel, that it erroneously limits the ministry of Jesus to Galilee, and Schneckcnburger has no more important ground of doubt to produce against the apostolic origin of the first canonical Gospel, than the unacquaintance of its author with the extra-Galilean labours of Jesus. If this decision be well-founded, it must rest on a careful consideration of the question, which of the two incompatible narratives has the greater corroboration from external sources, and the more internal verisimilitude? We have shown in the introduction that the external evidence or testimony for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel and of the synoptic ones, that of Matthew emphatically, is of about equal value; that is, it determines nothing in either case, but leaves the decision to the internal evidence. In relation to this, the following question must be considered: is it more probable that, although Jesus was actually often in Judea and Jerusalem previous to his last journey, yet at the time and place from which the synoptic Gospels arose, all traces of the fact had disappeared; or that, on the contrary, although Jesus never entered Judea for the exercise of his public ministry before his last journey there, yet at the time and place of the composition of the fourth Gospel a tradition of several such visits had been formed?

The above critics seek to show that the first might be the case, in the following manner. The first Gospel, they say and more or less the two middle ones, contain the tradition concerning the life of Jesus as it was formed in Galilee, where the memory of what Jesus did and said in that province would be preserved with a natural partiality, while, of that part of his life which was spent out of Galilee, only the most critical incidents, such as his birth, consecration, and especially his last journey, which issued in his death, would bo retained; for the remainder, including his early journeys to the various feasts, being either unknown or forgotten, so that any fragments of information concerning one or other of the previous residences of Jesus at Jerusalem would be referred to the last, no other being known.

But John himself, in whom our theologians rest all their confidence, expressly mentions (iv. 45) that at the first Passover visited by Jesus after his baptism (and probably at others also) the Galileans were present, and apparently in great numbers, since as a consequence of their having witnessed his works in Jerusalem, Jesus found a favourable reception in Galilee. If we add to tlus, that most of the disciples who accompanied Jesus in his early journeys to the feasts were Galileans (John iv. 22, ix. 2), it is inconceivable that tidings of the ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem should not from the first reach Galilee. Once there, could time extinguish them?

We grant that it is in the nature of tradition to fuse and remodel its materials, and as the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem was preeminently memorable, it might absorb the recollections of the previous ones. But tradition has also another impulse, and it is its strongest; namely to glorify. It may indeed be said that to circumscribe the early ministry of Jesus by the frontiers of Galilee would serve the purpose of glorifying that province, in which the synoptic tradition had its origin. But the aim of the synoptic legend was not to glorify Galilee, on which it pronounces severe judgments.

Jesus is the object round which it would cast a halo, and his greatness is proportionate to the sphere of his influence. Hence, to show that from the beginning of his ministry he made himself known beyond the Galilean angulus terras, and that he often presented himself on the brilliant theatre of the capital, especially on occasions when it was crowded with spectators and hearers from all regions, was entirely according to the bent of the legend. If, therefore, there had historically been but one journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, tradition might bo tempted to create more by degrees, since it would argue-how could so great a light as Jesus have remained so long under a bushel, and not rather have early and often placed himself on the lofty stand which Jerusalem presented? Opponents, too, might object, like the unbelieving brethren of Jesus, (John vii. 3. 4,) that he who is conscious of the power to perform something truly ^{P.281} great, does not conceal himself, but seeks publicity, in order that his capabilities may be recognized; and to these opponents it was thought the best answer to show that Jesus actually did seek such publicity, and early obtained recognition in an extended sphere.

Out of this representation would easily grow the idea which lies at the foundation of the fourth Gospel, that not Galilee, but Judea, was the proper residence of Jesus.

Thus, viewed from the point of the possible formation of a legend, the balance inclines in favour of the synoptic writers. But is the result the same when we ascend to the relations and designs of Jesus, and from this point of view inquire, if it be more probable that Jesus visited Jerusalem once only or several times during his public life?

The alleged difficulty, that the various journeys to the feasts offer the principal means of accounting for the intellectual development of Jesus, is easily removed. For those journeys alone would not suffice to explain the mental pre-eminence of Jesus, and as the main stress must still be placed on his internal gifts, we cannot pronounce whether to a mind like his, even Galilee might not present enough aliment for their maturing; besides, an adherence to the synoptic writers would only oblige us to renounce those journeys to the feasts which Jesus took after his public appearance, so that he might still have been present at many feasts previous to his Messianic career, without assuming a conspicuous character. It has been held inconceivable that Jesus, so long after his assumption of the Messianic character, should confine himself to Galilee instead of taking his stand in Judea and Jerusalem, which, from the higher culture and more extensive foreign intercourse of their population, were a much more suitable field for his labours; but it has been long remarked, on the other hand, that Jesus could find easier access to the simple and energetic minds of Galilee, less fettered by priesteraft and Pharisaism, and therefore acted judiciously in obtaining a firm footing there by a protracted ministry, before he ventured to Jerusalem, where, in the centre of priestly and Pharisaic domination, he must expect stronger opposition.

There is a graver difficulty in the synoptic statement, considered in relation to the Mosaic law and Jewish custom. The law rigorously required that every Israelite should appear before the Lord yearly at the three principal feasts (Exod. xxiii.14ff.), and the reverence of Jesus for the Mosaic institutes (Matt. v.17ff.) renders it improbable that, during the whole course of his ministry, he should have undertaken but one journey of observance. The Gospel of Matthew, however, be our judgment what it may as to the date and place of its composition, did certainly arise in a community of Jewish Christians, who well knew what the law prescribed to the devout Israelite, and must therefore be aware of the contradiction to the law in which the practice of Jesus was involved, when, during a public ^{P.282} ministry of several years' duration, only one attendance at Jerusalem was noticed, or (in case the synoptic writers supposed but a single year's ministry, of which we shall speak below) when he was represented as neglecting two of the great annual feasts. If, then, a circle in close proximity to Jewish usage found nothing offensive in the opinion that Jesus attended but one feast, may not this authority remove all hesitation on the subject from our minds? Besides, on a more careful weighing of the historical and geographical relations, the question suggests itself, whether between the distant, half Gentile Galilee, and Jerusalem, the ecclesiastical bond was so close that the observance of all the feasts could be expected from a Galilean?

Even according to the fourth Gospel, Jesus omitted attending one Passover that occurred in the period of his public career (John vi. 4).

There is, however, one point unfavourable to the synoptic writers. That Jesus in his last visit to Jerusalem should, within the short space of the feast day, have brought himself into sueli decided hostility to the ruling party in the capital, that they contrived his arrest and death, is inexplicable, if we reject the statement of John, that tin's hostility originated and was gradually aggravated during his frequent previous visits. If it be rejoined, that even in Galilean synagogues there were stationary scribes and phansees (Matt. ix. 3. xii. 14), that such as were resident in the capital often visited the provinces (Matt. xv. 1), and that thus there existed a hierarchical nexus by means of which a deadly enmity against Jesus might be propagated in Jerusalem, before he had ever publicly appeared there; we then have precisely that ecclesiastical bond between Galilee and Jerusalem which renders improbable on the part of Jesus the non-observance of a series of feasts. Moreover the synoptic writers have recorded an expression of Jesus which tells strongly against their own view. The words: Jerusalem, Jerusalem-how often would I have gathered your children together, and you would not, have no meaning whatever in Luke, who puts them into the mouth of Jesus before he had even seen Jerusalem during his public ministry (xiii. 34); and even from the better arrangement of Matthew (xxiii. 37) it is not be understood how Jesus, after a single residence of a few days in Jerusalem, could found his reproaches on multiplied efforts to win over its inhabitants to his cause. this whole apostrophe of Jesus has so original a character, that it is difficult to believe it incorrectly assigned to him; hence to explain its existence, we must suppose a series of earlier residences in Jerusalem, such as those recorded by the fourth evangelist. There is only one resource, to pronounce the statement of the synoptic writers unhistorical in the particular of limiting the decisive visit of Jesus to Jerusalem to the few days of the feast, and to suppose that he made a more protracted stay in the capital.

It will be seen from the foregoing discussion, whether, when so much is to be argued pro and contra, the unhesitating decision of the critics in favour of the fourth evangelist's statement is a just one. ^{P.283}

For our own part, we are far from being equally hasty in declaring for the synoptic writers, and are content to have submitted the actual state of the controversy, as to the comparative merit's of John and the synoptic writers, to further consideration.