Part I. -- Preparatory
The Historical Situation
8. Read SandayHastBD II.604-609. On the Land, its physical characteristics, its political divisions, its climate, its roads, and its varying civilization, SmithHGHL is unsurpassed. Its identifications of disputed localities are cautions. Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, and Thomson, The Land and the Book, give fuller detail concerning particular localities, but no such general view as Smith.
9. On Political conditions, SchuererJPTX I. i. and ii. is the fullest and most trustworthy treatise. More concise essays are Oscar Holtzmann, Nt. Zeitgeschichte (1895), 57-118; S. Mathews, History of NT Times in Palestine (1899), 1-158; Riggs, Maccabean and Roman Periods of Jewish History (1900), especially Sec.Sec.206-234, 257-267, 276-282. On the Religious Life and Parties in Palestine, SchuererJPTX II. i. and ii.; O. Holtzmann, NtZeitg, 136-177; Mathews, NT Times, see index; Riggs, Mac. and Rom. Periods, Sec.Sec.235-256; Muirhead, The Times of Christ (1898), 69-150. In addition Wellhausen, Die Pharisdaeer und die Sadducaeer (1874); on the Essenes, Conybeare in HastBD I.767-772, also Lightfoot, Colossians, 80-98, 347-419; Wellhausen, Isr. u. jued. Geschichte^3 (1897), 258-262; on the Samaritans, A. Cowley, in Expos. V. i.161-174; Jew. Quar. Rev. VIII. (1896) 562-575.
10. On the Messianic hope, SchuererJPTX II. ii.126-187; BaldSJ 3-122; Muirhead, Times of Xt., 112-150; Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels (1894), 1-40; WendtTJ I.33-84; Mathews, NT Times, 159-169; Riggs, Mac. and Rom. Periods, Sec.Sec.251-256.
11. On the language of Palestine see Arnold Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache (1896); DalmanWJ I.1-57; SchuererJPTX II. i.8-10, 47-51; Neubauer, Studia Biblica, I.39-74.
12. On Jewish literature dating near the times of Jesus see SchuererJPTX II. iii.; BaldSJ.3-122; EdersLJM I.31-39; Deane, Pseudepigrapha (1891); Thomson, Books which influenced our Lord, etc. (1891); and special editions, such as Alexandre, Sibylline Oracles (1869); Deane, The Wisdom of Solomon (1881); Charles, The Book of Enoch (1893), The Apocalypse of Baruch (1896), The Assumption of Moses (1897), and The Book of Jubilees (1895); Charles and Morfill, The Secrets of Enoch (1896); Ryle and James, The Psalms of the Pharisees [Psalms of Solomon] (1891); Bensly and James, Fourth Esdras (1895); Charles, EnBib I.213-250; HastBD I.109f.; Porter, HastBD I.110-123; James, EnBib I.249-261.
13. On the sources outside the gospels see Anthony, Introduction to the Life of Jesus, 19-108; KeimJN I.12-59; BeysLJ I.59-72; GilbertLJ 74-78; Knowling, Witness of the Epistles; Stevens, Pauline Theol.204-208; Sabatier, Apostle Paul, 76-85. On Josephus as a source see also SchuererJPTX I. ii.143-149; RevilleJN I.272-280. On the individual gospels see Burton, The Purpose and Plan of the Four Gospels (Univ. Chic. Press, 1900); Bruce, With Open Face, 1-61; Weiss, Introduction to N.T., II.239-386; Juelicher, Einleitung i. d. NT, 189-207. On Matthew, Burton Bib. Wld. I.1898, 37-44, 91-101; on Mark, Swete, Comm. on Mark, ix-lxxxix; on Luke, Plummer, Comm. on Luke, xi-lxx; Mathews, Bib. Wld.1895, I.336-342, 448-455; on John, Burton, Bib. Wld.1899, I.16-41, 102-105; Westcott, Comm. on John, v-lxxvii; Rhees in Abbott's The Bible as Literature, 281-297. On the synoptic question see Sanday SBD^2, 1217-1243, and Expositor, Feb.-June, 1891; Woods, Studia Biblica, II.59-104; Salmon, Introduction^7, 99-151, 570-581; Stanton in HastBD II.234-243; Juelicher, Einl. 207-227. A. Wright, Composition of the Four Gospels (1890) and Some NT Problems (1898), defends the oral tradition theory in a modified form. On possible dislocations in John see Spitta, Urchristentum, I.157-204; Bacon, Jour. Bib. Lit.1894, 64-76; Burton, Bib. Wld.1899, I.27-35. For the history of opinion see specially H. J. Holtzmann, Einl.^3 340-375. On the Johannine question see Sanday, Expositor, Nov.1891-May 1892; Schuerer, Cont. Rev. Sept.1891; Watkins SBD^2 1739-1764; Burton, Bib. Wld.1899, I.16-41; Reynolds in HastBD II.694-722; Zahn, Einl. II.445-564 (defends Johannine authorship); Juelicher, Einl. 238-250 (rejects Johannine authorship). For the history of opinion see Watkins, Bampton Lecture for 1890; Holtzmann, Einl.^3 433-438. P. Ewald, Hauptproblem der evang. Frage, argues the authenticity of the fourth gospel from the one-sidedness of the synoptic story. See also Jour. Bib. Lit.1898, I.87-102.
14. Reville proposes to reconstruct Jos. Ant. xviii.3.3 thus: |'At that time appeared Jesus, a wise man, who did astonishing things. That is why a good number of Jews and also of Greeks attached themselves to him.' Then follows some phrase probably signifying that these adherents had committed the error of proclaiming him Christ, and then 'denounced by the leading men of the nation, this Jesus was condemned by Pilate to die on the cross. But those who had loved him before persevered in their sentiment, and still to-day there exists a class of people who take from him their name Christians.'|
15. On the testimony of Papias (Euseb. Ch. Hist. iii.39.4) see Lightfoot, Cont. Rev.1875, II.379 ff., and McGiffert's notes in his Eusebius, 170 ff.
16. For a collection of probably genuine Agrapha see Ropes, Die Spruche Jesu, 154-161, and Amer. Jour. Theol.1897, 758-776; Resch, Agrapha, gives a much longer list. He is criticised by Ropes. On lost and uncanonical gospels see Salmon, Intr.^7 173-190, 580-591; Kruger, Early Christian Literature, 50-57. For the recently discovered Gospel of Peter see Swete, The Gospel of Peter; and on the so-called Sayings of Jesus found in Egypt in 1896 see Harnack, Expositor, V. vi.321-340, 401-416, and essay by Sanday and Lock. Apocryphal Gospels are most conveniently found in Ante-nicene Fathers, VIII.361-476.
The Harmony of the Gospels
17. The Diatessaron of Tatian is translated with notes by Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ. See also Ante-nic. Fathers, IX.35-138.
18. For the extreme position concerning Doublets see Holtzmann, Hand-commentar zum NT I. passim. E. Haupt, Studien u. Kritiken, 1884, 25, remarks that Jesus must often have repeated his teaching in essentially the same form.
19. For data and discussion of the various problems see Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis; Lewin, Fasti Sacra; KeimJN II.379-402; AndLOL 1-52; SchuererJPTX I. ii.30-32, 105-143; O. Holtzmann, NtZeitg, 118-124, 125-127, 131-132; Turner HastBD I.403-415; Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem; and von Soden in EnBib. I.799-812. For patristic opinion concerning the length of Jesus' ministry, see HastBD I.410. For the argument for a one-year ministry, see KeimJN II.398; O. Holtzmann, NtZeitg, 131f. For two years, see Wieseler, Chron. Synop.204-220; WeissLX I.389-392; Turner, in HastBD. For three years, see AndLOL 189-198; note by Robertson in Broadus, Harmony of the Gospels, 241-244. Compare RevilleJN II.227-231; Zahn, Einl. II.516f.
The Early Years
20. On the problem of the Virgin birth see GilbertLJ 79-89; WeissLX I.211-233; Swete, Apos. Creed, 42-55; Bruce, Apologetics, 407-413; Ropes, Andover Rev.1893, 695-712; FairbSLX 30-45; Godet, Comm. on Luke, Rem. on chaps. I. and II.; BovonNTTh I.198-217. These maintain historicity. The other side: BeysLJ I.148-174; Meyer, Comm. on Matt., Rem. on 1.18; Keim JN II.38-101; Reville, New World, 1892, 695-723, and JN I.361-408; HoltzmannNtTh I.409-415. On the early years of Jesus see EdersLJM I.217-254; WeissLX I.275-293; Hughes, Manliness of Xt, 35-60; WendtTJ I.90-96; Stapfer, Jesus Christ before his Ministry; FairbSLX 46-63; BeysLJ II.44-65; RevilleJN I.409-438.
21. For some of the early legends concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus, see the so-called Protevangelium of James, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and the Gospel of Thomas, Ante-nic. Fathers, VIII.361-383, 395-398. For Jewish calumnies see Laible, J. X. im Thalmud, 9-39.
22. On the two genealogies see AndLOL 62-68; WeissLX I.211-221; Godet on Luke, iii.23-38. These refer Luke's genealogy to Marv. Hervey SBD^2 1145-1148, Plummer on Luke, iii.23, EdersLJM I.149, GilbertLJ 81f., with the early fathers (see Plummer), refer both to Joseph. For the view that they are unauthentic see Holtzmann, Hand-comm. I.39-41; Bacon in HastBD II.137-141.
23. On the |brethren| of Jesus see Mayor, HastBD I.320-326; AndrewsLOL 111-123. These make the brethren sons of Joseph and Mary. Lightfoot, Galatians^10, 252-291, regards them as sons of Joseph by a former marriage.
John the Baptist
24. On the character and work of John the Baptist see KeimJN II.201-266 and references in the index under John the Baptist. Keim's is much the most satisfactory treatment; it is, moreover, Keim at his best. See also Ewald, Hist, of Israel, VI.160-200; WeissLX I.307-316; FairbSLX 64-79; W. A. Stevens, Homil. Rev.1891, II.163 ff.; Bebb in HastBD II.677-680; Wellhausen Isr. u. judische Geschichte, 342f.; Feather, Last of the Prophets. Reynolds, John the Baptist, obscures its excellencies by a vast amount of irrelevant discussion.
25. On the existence of a separate company of disciples of John see Mk. ii.18, Mt. ix.14, Lk. v.33; Mk. vi.29, Mt. xiv.12; Mt. xi.2f., Lk. vii.18f.; Lk. xi.1; Jn. i.35f.; iii.25; Ac. xix.1-3. Consult Lightfoot, Colossians, 400 ff.; Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, 93-152.
The Messianic Call
26. On the baptism of Jesus see WendtTJ I.96-101; EdersLJM I.278-287; BaldSJ 219-229. WeissLX I.316-336 says that the baptism meant for Jesus, already conscious of his Messiahship, |the close of his former life and the opening of one perfectly new| (322); KeimJN II.290-299 makes it an act of consecration, but eliminates the Voice and Dove; BeysLJ I.215-231 thinks that Jesus, conscious of no sin, yet not aware of his Messiahship, sought the baptism carrying |the sins and guilt of his people on his heart, as if they were his own| (229). Against Beyschlag see E. Haupt in Studien u. Kritiken, 1887, 381. Baldensperger shows clearly that the Messianic call was a revelation to Jesus, not a conclusion from a course of reasoning.
27. On the temptation see WendtTJ I.101-105; WeissLX I.337-354; EdersLJM I.299-307; FairbairnSLX 80-98; BaldSJ 230-236; BeysLJ I.231-237; KeimJN II.317-329. All these see in temptation the necessary result of the Messianic call at the baptism.
28. The locality of the baptism of Jesus cannot be determined. Tradition has fixed on one of the fords of the Jordan near Jericho, see SmithHGHL 496, note 1. On the probable location of Bethany (Bethabarah) (Jn. i.28) see discussion in AndLOL 146-151; EnBib 548; and especially Smith's note as above.
29. On the anointing of Jesus with the Holy Spirit see WeissLX I.323-336; BeysLJ I.230f. For the influence of the Spirit in the later life of Jesus see Mk. i.12; Mt. iv.1; Lk. iv.1; iv.14, 18, 21; Mk. iii.29, 30; Mt. xii.28; Jn. iii.34; compare Ac. i.2; x.38. Clearly these refer not to the ethical and religious indwelling of the Divine Spirit (comp. Rom. i.4), but to the special equipment for official duty. This is the OT sense, see Ex. xxxi.2-5; Jud. iii.10; I. Sam. xi.6; Isa. xi.1f.; xlii.1; lxi.1; and consult Schultz, Old Test. Theol. II.202f. Jesus seems to have needed a like divine equipment, notwithstanding his divine nature. See GilbertLJ 121f.
30. How this Messianic anointing is to be related to the doctrine of Jesus' essential divine nature cannot be determined with certainty. It must not be forgotten, however, that it is a datum for Christology, and that it cannot be explained away. It indicates one of the particulars in which Jesus was made like unto his brethren. What was involved when the Son of God |emptied himself and was made in the likeness of men| (Phil. ii.7) we can only vaguely conceive. Two views of early heretical sects seem rightly to have been rejected. The Docetic view, held by some Gnostics of the 2d cent., dates the incarnation from the baptism, but distinguishes Christ from the human Jesus, who only served as a vehicle for the manifestation of the Son of God; the Christ descended on Jesus at the baptism, ascending again to heaven from the cross, compare Mt. iii.16 and xxvii.50 in the Greek; see Schaff Hist. of Xn Church^2, II.455f. The recently discovered Gospel of Peter presents this view, Gosp. Pet. Sec.5. The Nestorian view represents that the baptism was, in a sense, Jesus' |birth from above| (Jn. iii.3, 5); thus the incarnation was first complete at the baptism though the Logos had been associated with Jesus from the beginning. See Schaff, Hist, of Xn Church^2, III.717 ff.; Conybeare, History of Xmas, Amer. Jour. Theol.1899, 1-21.
31. The traditional locality of the temptation is a mountain near Jericho called Quarantana, see AndLOL 155; the tradition seems to date no further back than the crusades. It is, however, probable that the |wilderness| (Mt. iv.1, Mk. i.12, Lk. iv.1) is the same wilderness mentioned in connection with John's earlier life and work (Mt. iii.1, Mk. i.4), the region W and NW of the Dead Sea, see SmithHGHL 317. Others (Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 308; EdersLJM I.300, 339 notes) hold that the temptation took place in the desert regions SE of the sea of Galilee; this is possibly correct, though the record in the gospels suggests the wilderness of Judea. On the source of the temptation story see WeissLX I.339 ff.; BeysLJ I.234; Bacon, Bib. Wld.1900, I.18-25.
The First Disciples
32. SandayHastBD II.612f.; GilbertLJ 144-157; WeissLX I.355-387; AndLOL 155-165; EdersLJM I.336-363; BeysLJ II.129-148 (assigns here a considerable part of the synoptic account of work in Capernaum).
33. The early confessions. On the genuineness of the Baptist's testimony to |the Lamb of God| see M. Dods in Expos. Gk. Test. I .695f.; Westcott, Comm. on John, 20; EdersLJM 1.342 ff.; WeissLX 1.362f. (thinks the evangelist added |who taketh away the sin of the world|); Holtzmann, Hand-comm. IV.38f. holds that the evangelist has put in the mouth of the Baptist a conception which was first current after the death of Jesus. On the confessions of Nathanael and the others, see Jour. Bib. Lit.1898, 21-30.
34. Cana is probably the modern Khirbet Kana, eight miles N of Nazareth. A rival site is Kefr Kenna, three and one-half miles NE from Nazareth. See EnBib and HastBD, also AndLOL 162-164.
35. The miracles of Jesus are challenged by modern thought. It is customary in reading other documents than the N.T. instantly to relegate the miraculous to the domain of legend. Miracles, however, are integral parts of the story of Jesus' life, and those who attempt to write that life eliminating the supernatural are constrained to recognize that he had marvellous power as an exorcist and healer of some forms of nervous disease. So E. A. Abbott, The Spirit on the Waters, 169-201. Our knowledge of nature does not warrant a dogmatic definition of the limits of the possible; see James, The Will to Believe, vii.-xiii., 299-327. The question is confessedly one of adequate evidence. The evidence for the supreme miracle -- the transcendent character of Jesus -- is clear, see Part III. chap. iv.; and the miraculous element in the story of his life must be considered in view of this supreme miracle. In association with him his miracles gain in credibility. In estimating the evidence for them their dignity and worthiness is important. What the devout imagination would do in embellishing the story of Jesus is exhibited in the apocryphal gospels; the miracles of the canonical gospels are of an entirely different type, which commends them as authentic. By definition a miracle is an event not explicable in terms of ordinary human experience. It is therefore futile to attempt to picture the miracles of Jesus in their occurrence, for the imagination has no material except that furnished by ordinary experience. For our day the miracles are of importance chiefly for the exhibition they give of the character of Jesus; they can be studied with this in view without regard to the curious question how they happened. Read SandayHastBD II.624-628; and see Fisher, Grounds of Christian and Theistic Belief, chaps, iv. -- vi., Supernatural Origin of Christianity^3, chap, xi.; Bruce, Miraculous Element in the Gospels; Apologetics, 409 ff.; Illingworth, Divine Immanence; Rainy, Orr, and Dods, The Supernatural in Christianity.
Part II. -- The Ministry
36. SandayHastBD II.609f.; GilbertLJ 136-143; AndLOL 125-137; BeysLJ I.256-295.
The Early Ministry in Judea
37. SandayHastBD II.612^b-613^b; WeissLX II.3-53; EdersLJM I.364-429; BeysLJ II.147-168; GilbertLJ 158-179.
38. On the chronological significance of John iv.35 see AndLOL 183; WeissLX II.40; Wieseler, Synop.212 ff, who find indication that the journey was in December. EdersLJM I.419f.; Turner in HastBD I.408, find indication of early summer. Some treat iv.35 as a proverb with no chronological significance; so Alford, Comm. on John.
39. Geographical notes. Aenon near Salim has not been identified. Most favor a site in Samaria, seven miles from a place named Salim, which lay four miles E of Shechem, see Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, II.57, 58; Stevens, Jour. Bib. Lit.1883, 128-141. But can John have been baptizing in Samaria? WeissLX II.28 says |it is perfectly impossible that he [John] can have taken up his station in Samaria.| Other suggestions are: some place in the Jordan valley (but then why remark on the abundance of water, Jn. iii.23?); near Jerusalem; and in the south of Judea. See AndLOL 173-175. Sychar is the modern 'Askar, about a mile and three-quarters from Nablus (Shechem), and half a mile N of Jacob's well. See SmithHGHL 367-375.
40. General questions. Was the temple twice cleansed? (see sect.116). Probably not. The two reports (Jn. ii.13-22; Mk. xi.15-18 ¶s) are similar in respect of Jesus' indignation, its cause, its expression, its result, and a consequent challenge of his authority. They differ in the time of the event (John assigns to first Passover, synoptics to the last) and in a possibly greater sternness in the synoptic account. These differences are no greater than appear in other records of identical events (compare Mt. viii.5-13 with Lk. vii.2-10), while the repetition of such an act would probably have been met by serious opposition. If the temple was cleansed but once, John indicates the true time. At the beginning of the ministry it was a demand that the people follow the new leader in the purification of God's house and the establishment of a truer worship. At the end it could have had only a vindictive significance, since the people had already signified to the clear insight of Jesus that they would not accept his leadership. For two distinct cleansings see the discussion in AndLOL 169f., 437; EdersLJM I.373; Plummer on Luke xix.45f. For one cleansing at the end see KeimJN V.113-131. For one cleansing at the beginning see WeissLX II.6 ff.; BeysLJ II.149 ff.; GilbertLJ 159 ff.
41. The journey to Galilee. Do John (iv.1-4, 43-45) and Mark (i.14 = Mt. iv.12; Lk. iv.14) report the same journey? Both are journeys from the south introducing work in Galilee; yet the reasons given for the journey are different (compare Jn. iv.1-3 with Mk. i.14). If the Pharisees had a hand in John's |delivering up| (Mk. i.14; comp. Jos. Ant. xviii.5.2), the same hostile movement may have impelled Jesus to leave Judea. He may not have heard of John's imprisonment until after his departure, or some time before he opened his new ministry in Galilee. See GilbertLJ 173f. AndLOL 176-182 argues against the identification.
42. The nobleman's son (Jn. iv.46-54). Is this a doublet of Mt. viii.5-13; Lk. vii.2-10? John differs from synoptics in the time, the place, the disease, the suppliant, his plea, and Jesus' attitude. Matthew and Mark differ from each other concerning the bearers of the centurion's messages to Jesus. John's account is similar to synoptic superficially, but is probably not a doublet. Compare Syro-Phoenician's daughter (Mk. vii.29f.). See GilbertLJ 202; Meyer on John iv.51-54; Plummer on Luke vii.10. WeissLX II.45-51 identifies. Read SandayHastBD II.613.
III and IV
The Ministry in Galilee
43. Read SandayHastBD II.613-630; GilbertLJ 180-283. Consult WeissLX II.44 to III.153; EdersLJM I.472 to II.125; BeysLJ II.140-147,168-294. See AndLOL 209-363 for discussion of details, and KeimJN III.10 to IV.346 for an illuminating, though not unprejudiced, topical treatment.
44. Geographical notes. Capernaum. The site is not clearly identified, two ruins on the NW of Sea of Galilee are rival claimants, -- Tell Hum and Khan Minyeh. Tell Hum is advocated by Thomson, Land and Book, Central Pal. and Phoenicia (1882), 416-420; Khan Minyeh, by SmithHGHL 456, EnBib I.696 ff. Latter is probably correct. See AndLOL 224-237.
Bethsaida. The full name is Bethsaida Julias, located at entrance of Jordan into the Sea of Galilee. SmithEnBib I.565f., SmithHGHL 457f., shows that there is no need of the hypothesis of a second Bethsaida to meet the statement in Mk. vi.45, or that in Jn. i.44. See also AndLOL 230-236. Ewing HastBD I.282f. renews the argument for two Bethsaidas.
Chorazin was probably the modern Kerazeh, about one mile N of Tell Hum, and back from the lake. See SmithEnBib I.751; SmithHGHL 456; AndLOL 237f.
45. The mountain of the sermon on the mount (Mt. v.1; Lk. vi.12) probably refers to the Galilean highlands as distinct from the shore of the lake. More definite location is not possible. See AndLOL 268f.; EdersLJM I.524. The traditional site, the Horns of Hattin, is a hill lying about seven miles SW from Khan Minyeh, which has near the top a level place (Lk. vi.17) flanked by two low peaks or |horns.|
46. The country of the Gerasenes, Gadarenes, or Gergesenes. Gadarenes is the best attested reading in Mt. viii.28, Gerasenes in Mk. v.1 and Lk. viii.26; Gergesenes has only secondary attestation. Gadara is identified with Um Keis on the Yarmuk, some six miles SE of the Sea of Galilee. This cannot have been the site of the miracle, though it is possible that Gadara may have controlled the country round about, including the shores of the sea. Gerasa is the name of a city in the highlands of Gilead, twenty miles E of Jordan, and thirty-five SE of the Sea of Galilee, and it clearly cannot have been the scene of the miracle. Near the E shore of the sea Thomson discovered the ruins of a village which now bears the name Khersa. The formation of the land in the neighborhood closely suits the narrative of the gospels. This is now accepted as the true identification. See Thomson Land and Book, Central Palestine, 353-355; SBD^2 1097-1100; HastBD II.159f.; AndLOL 296-300. The name |Gadarenes| may indicate that Gadara had jurisdiction over the region of Khersa; the names |Gerasenes| and |Gergesenes| may be derived directly and independently from Khersa, or may be corruptions due to the obscurity of Khersa.
47. The feeding of the five thousand took place on the E of the sea, in a desert region, abundant in grass, and mountainous, and located in the neighborhood of a place named Bethsaida. Near the ruins of Bethsaida Julias is a plain called now Butaiha, |a smooth, grassy place near the sea and the mountains,| which meets the requirements of the narrative. See AndLOL 322f.
48. The return of Jesus from the regions of Tyre |through Sidon| (Mk. vii.31) avoided Galilee, crossing N of Galilee to the territory of Philip and |the Decapolis.| This latter name applies to a group of free Greek cities, situated for the most part E of the Jordan. Most of the cities of the group were farther S than the Sea of Galilee; some, however, were E and NE of that sea, hence Jesus' approach from Caesarea Philippi or Damascus could be described as |through Decapolis.| See SmithHGHL 593-608; En Bib I.1051 ff.; SchuererJPTX II. i.94-121.
49. Of Magadan (Mt. xv.39) or Dalmanutha (Mk. viii.10) all that is known is that they must have been on the W coast of the Sea of Galilee. They have never been identified, though there are many conjectures. See SBD^2, HastBD, and En Bib.
50. Caesarea Philippi was situated at the easternmost and most important of the sources of the Jordan, it is called Panias by Jos. Ant. xv.10.3, now Banias. Probably a sanctuary of the god Pan. Here Herod the Great built a temple which he dedicated to Caesar; Philip the Tetrarch enlarged the town and called it Caesarea Philippi. See SBD^2; HastBD; EnBib.
51. The mountain of the transfiguration. The traditional site, since the fourth century, is Tabor in Galilee. Most recent opinion has favored one of the shoulders of Hermon, owing to the supposed connection of the event with the sojourn near Caesarea Philippi. WeissLX III.98 points out that there is no evidence that Jesus lingered for |six days| (Mk. ix.2) near that town, and that therefore the effort to locate the transfiguration is futile. GilbertLJ 274 thinks that Mk. ix.30 is decisive in favor of a place outside Galilee; he therefore holds to the common view that Hermon is the true locality. See AndLOL 357f.
52. General questions. Was Jesus twice rejected at Nazareth? (comp. Lk. iv.16-30 with Mk. vi.1-6^a; Mt. xiii.54-58). Here are two accounts that read like independent traditions of the same event; they agree concerning the place, the teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the astonishment of the Nazarenes, their scornful question, and Jesus' rejoinder. Luke makes no reference to the disciples (Mk. vi.1) nor to the working of miracles (Mk. vi.5); Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, say nothing of an attempt at violence. These differences are no more serious, however, than appear in the two accounts of the appeal of the centurion to Jesus (Mt. viii.5-8; Lk. vii.3-7). Moreover, Lk. iv.23 indicates a time after the ministry in Capernaum had won renown, which agrees with the place given the rejection in Mark. The general statement (Lk. iv.14f.) suggests that the visit to Nazareth is given at the beginning as an instance of |preaching in their synagogues.| The three accounts probably refer to one event reported independently. For identification see WeissLX III.34; Plummer on Luke iv.30; GilbertLJ 254f. For two rejections see Godet's supplementary note on Lk. iv.16-30; Meyer on Mt. xiii.53-58; EdersLJM I.457, note 1; Wieseler, Synopsis, 278. BeysLJ I.270 identifies but prefers Luke's date.
53. Were there two miraculous draughts of fish? Lk. v.1-11 is sometimes identified with Jn. xxi.3-13. So WendtLJ I.211f., WeissLX II.57f., and Meyer on Luke v.1-11. Against the identification see Alford, Godet, and Plummer on the passage in Luke. The two are alike in scene, the night of bootless toil, the great catch at Jesus' word. They differ in personnel, antecedent relations of the fishermen with Jesus, the effect of the miracle on Peter, and the subsequent teaching of Jesus, as well as in time. These differences make identification difficult.
54. Where in the synoptic story should the journey to the feast in Jerusalem (Jn. v.) be placed? There is nothing in John's narrative to identify the feast, although it is his custom to name the festivals to which he refers (Passover, ii.13, 23; vi.4; xi.55; xii.1; Tabernacles, vii.2; Dedication, x.22). Even if John wrote |the feast,| rather than |a feast| (the MSS. vary, A B D and seven other uncials omit the article), it would be impossible to decide between Passover and Tabernacles. The omission of the article suggests either that the feast was of minor importance, or that its identification was of no significance for the understanding of the following discourse. Since a year and four months probably elapsed between the journey into Galilee (Jn. iv.35) and the next Passover mentioned in John (vi.4), v.1 may refer to any one of the feasts of the Jewish year. The commonest interpretation prefers Purim, a festival of a secular and somewhat hilarious type, which occurred on the 14th and 15th of Adar, a month before the Passover. It is difficult to believe that this feast would have called Jesus to Jerusalem. See WeissLX II.391; GilbertLJ 137-139, 142, 234-235. Against this interpretation see EdersLJM II.765. Edersheim advocates the feast of Wood Gathering on the 15th of Ab -- about our August. On this day all the people were permitted to offer wood for the use of the altar in the temple, while during the rest of the year the privilege was reserved for special families. See LJM II 765f.; Westcott, Comm. on John, add. note on v.1, argues for the feast of Trumpets, or the new moon of the month Tisri, -- about our September, -- which was celebrated as the beginning of the civil year. Others have suggested Pentecost, fifty days after the Passover; the day of Atonement -- but this was a fast, not a feast; and Tabernacles. The majority of those who do not favor Purim prefer the Passover, notwithstanding the difficulty of thinking that John would refer to this feast simply as |a feast of the Jews.| Read AndLOL 193-198, remembering that the question must be considered independently of the question of the length of Jesus' ministry. The impossibility of determining the feast renders the adjustment of this visit to the synoptic story very uncertain. It may be that there was some connection between the Sabbath controversy in Galilee (Mk. ii.23-28) and the criticism Jesus aroused in Jerusalem (Jn. v.). If so, one of the spring feasts, Passover or Pentecost, would best suit the circumstances; but this arrangement is quite uncertain.
55. Do the five conflicts of Mk. ii.1 to iii.6 belong at the early place in the ministry of Jesus to which that gospel assigns them? It is commonly held that they do not, and the argument for a two-year ministry rests on this assumption (see SandayHastBD II.613). Holtzmann, Hand-commentar I.9f., remarks that at least for the cure of the paralytic and for the call and feast of Levi (Mk. ii.1, 13, 15) the evangelist was confident that he was following the actual order of events; note the call of the fifth disciple, Mk. ii.13, between the call of the four, Mk. i.16-20, and that of the twelve, iii.16-19. The question about fasting may owe its place (Mk. ii.18-22) to association with the criticism of Jesus for eating with publicans (Mk. ii.16). In like manner the second Sabbath conflict (Mk. iii.1-6) may be attached to the first (ii.23-28) as a result of the identity of subject, for it is noteworthy that Mark records only these two Sabbath conflicts; moreover, the plot of Herodians and Pharisees to kill Jesus strongly suggests a later time for the actual occurrence of this criticism. The first Sabbath question, however, may belong early, as Mark has placed it. Weiss, Markusevangelium, 76, LX II.232 ff., places these conflicts late. Edersheim, LJM II.51 ff., discusses the Sabbath controversies after the feeding of the multitudes. RevilleJN II.229 places the first of them early.
56. The sermon on the mount. Luke (vi.12-19 = Mk. iii.13-19^a indicates the place in the Galilean ministry; Matthew has therefore anticipated in assigning it to the beginning. The identity of the two sermons (Mt. v.1 to vii.27; Lk. vi.20-49) is shown by the fact that each begins with beatitudes, each closes with the parables of the wise and foolish builders, each is followed by the cure of a centurian's servant in Capernaum (Mt. viii.5-13; Lk. vii.1-10), and the teachings which are found in each account are given in the same order. Matthew is much fuller than Luke, many teachings given in the sermon in Matthew being found in later contexts in Luke. Much of the sermon in Matthew, however, evidently belonged to the original discourse, and was omitted by Luke, perhaps because of less interest to Gentile than to Jewish Christians. The following sections are found elsewhere in Luke, and were probably associated with the sermon by the first evangelist: Mt. v.25, 26; Lk. xii.58, 59; Mt. vi.9-13; Lk. xi.2-4; Mt. vi.19-34; Lk. xii.21-34; xi.34-36; xvi.13; Mt. vii.7-11; Lk. xi.9-13; Mt. vii.13, 14; Lk. xiii.24. The first evangelist's habit of grouping may explain also the presence in his sermon of teachings which he himself has duplicated later, thus: Mt. v.29, 30 = xviii.8,9; v.32 = xix.9, comp. Mk. x.11, ix.43-47, Lk. xvi.18; Mt. vi.14, 15 = Mk. xi.25. Matthew vii.22, 23 has the character of the teachings which follow the confession at Caesarea Phillipi, and is quite unlike the other early teachings. It may belong to the later time, for it was natural for the early Christians to associate together teachings which the Lord uttered on widely separated occasions. The sermon as originally given may be analyzed as follows: The privileges of the heirs of the kingdom of God, Mt. v.3-13; Lk. vi.20-26; their responsibilities, Mt. v.13-16; the relation of the new to the old, Mt. v.17-19; the text of the discourse, Mt. v.20; the new conception of morality, Mt. v.21-48; Lk. vi.27-36; the new practice of religion, Mt. vi.1-8, 16-18; warning against a censorious spirit, Mt. vii.16-20; Lk. vi.43-46; the wise and foolish builders, Mt. vii.24-27; Lk. vi.47-49.
57. The discourse in parables. Matthew gives seven parables at this point (xiii.), Mark (iv.1-34) has three, one of them is not given in Matthew, Luke (viii.4-18) gives in this connection but one, -- the Sower. Many think that the Tares of Matthew (xiii.24-30, 36-43) is a doublet of Mark's Seed growing secretly (iv.26-29); so Weiss LX II.209 note, against which view see WendtLJ I.178 f., and Bruce, Parabolic Teaching of Xt, 119. Matthew has probably made here a group of parables, as in chapters v. to vii. he has made a group of other teachings. The interpretation of the Tares, and of the Draw-net (xiii.40-43, 49, 50), may indicate that these parables were spoken after Jesus began to teach plainly concerning the end of the world (Mk. viii.31 to ix.1), Luke gives the Mustard Seed and Leaven in another connection (xiii.18-21), and it may be that Matthew has taken them out of their true context to associate them with the other parables of his group; yet in popular teaching it must be recognized that illustrations are most likely to be repeated in different situations. On the parables see Goebel, The Parables of Jesus (1890), Bruce, The Parabolic Teaching of Christ, 3d ed. (1886), Juelicher, Die Gleichnissreden Jesu (2 vols.1899), and the commentaries on the gospels.
58. The instructions to the twelve. Mt. ix.36 to xi.1. x.1, 5-14 corresponds in general with Mk. vi.7-11; Lk. ix.1-5. The similarity is closer, however, between x.7-15 and Lk. x.3-12 -- the instructions to the seventy (see sect. A 68). The rest of Mt. x. (16-42) is paralleled by teachings found in the closing discourses in the synoptic gospels, and in teachings preserved in the section peculiar to Luke (ix.51 to xviii.14. See SB sects.88-92, footnotes). It is probable that here the first evangelist has made a group of instructions to disciples gathered from all parts of the Lord's teachings; such a collection was of great practical value in the early time of persecution.
59. Did Jesus twice feed the multitudes? All the gospels record the feeding of the five thousand (Mt. xiv.13-23; Mk. vi.30-46; Lk. ix.10-17; Jn. vi.1-15), Matthew (xv.32-38) and Mark (viii.1-9) give also the feeding of the four thousand. The similarities are so great that the two accounts would be regarded as doublets if they occurred in different gospels. The difficulty with such an identification is chiefly the reference which in both Matthew (xvi.9, 10) and Mark (viii.19, 20) Jesus is said to have made to the two feedings. The evangelists clearly distinguished the two. In view of this fact the differences between the accounts become important. These concern the occasion of the two miracles, the number fed, the nationality of the multitudes (compare Jn. vi.31 and Mk. vii.31), the number of loaves and of baskets of broken pieces (the name for basket is different in the two cases, and is preserved consistently in Mk. viii.19, 20; Mt. xvi.9, 10). See GilbertLJ 259-262, Gould, and Swete, on Mk. viii.1-9; Meyer, Alford, on Mt. xv.32-38. WeissLX II.376f., BeysLJ I.279f., WendtLJ I.42, Holtzmann Hand-comm. I.186 ff., identify the accounts. See also SandayHastBD II.629.
60. Did Peter twice confess faith in Jesus as Messiah? Synoptics give his confession at Caeesarea Philippi (Mk. viii.27-30; Mt. xvi.13-20; Lk. ix.18-21). John, however, gives a confession earlier at Capernaum (vi.66-71). WeissLX III.53 identifies the two, placing that in John at Caesarea Philippi, since there is no evidence that all of the long discourse of Jn. vi. was spoken in Capernaum the day after the feeding of the five thousand. This may be correct, yet the marked recognition which Jesus gave to the confession at Caesarea Philippi does not demand that he first at that time received a confession of his disciples' faith. The confession in Jn. vi.68, 69 declared that the twelve were not shaken in their faith by the recent defection of many disciples. At Caesarea Philippi the confession was made after the revulsion of popular feeling had been made fully evident, and after the twelve had had time for reaction of enthusiasm consequent upon the growing coldness of the multitudes and active opposition of the leaders. The confession of Caesarea Philippi holds its unique significance, whether or not Jn. vi.68 is identified with it.
61. The journey to Tabernacles (Jn. vii.). Where in the synoptic story should it be placed? Lk. ix.51 ff. records the final departure from Galilee. The journey of Jn. vii. is the last journey from Galilee given in John. Yet the two are very different. In John, Jesus went in haste, unpremeditatedly, in secret, and unaccompanied, and confronted the people with himself unexpectedly during the feast. In Luke (Mk. x.1 and Mt. xix.1 are so general that they give no aid) he advanced deliberately, with careful plans, announcing his coming in advance, accompanied by many disciples, with whom he went from place to place, arriving in Jerusalem long after he had set out. The two journeys cannot be identified. John seems to keep Jesus in the south after the Tabernacles, but his account does not forbid a return to Galilee between Tabernacles and Dedication (x.22). After the hurried visit to Tabernacles, Jesus probably went back to Galilee, and gathered his disciples again for the final journey towards his cross -- for the visit to Jerusalem had given fresh evidence of the kind of treatment he must expect in the capital (Jn. vii.32, 45-52; viii.59). See AndLOL 369-379. Andrews suggests that the feast occurred before the withdrawal to Caesarea Philippi (376); this is possible, but it seems more natural to place it during the sojourn in Capernaum after the return from the north (Mk. ix.33-50). See SB, sects.82-85.
62. On the phenomena and interpretation of Demoniac Possession see J. L. Nevius, Demon Possession and allied Themes; Conybeare, Jew. Quar. Rev. VIII. (1896) 576-608, IX. (1896-7) 59-114, 444-470, 581-603; J. Weiss in Reaelencyklopaedie,^3 Hauck-Herzog, IV.408-419; Binet, Alterations of Personality, 325-356; James, Psychology, I.373-400; and the articles on DEMONS in EnBib and HastBD.
The Journey through Perea to Jerusalem
63. Read SandayHastBD II.630-632; see GilbertLJ 298-310: WeissLX III.157-223; KeimJN V, 1-64; BeysLJ I.287-294. II.333-419; AndLOL 365-420; EdersLJM II.126-360.
64. This journey began sometime between Tabernacles and Dedication (October and December) of the last year of Jesus' life, and continued until the arrival in Bethany six days before the last Passover.
65. Geographical notes. Perea -- a part of the domain of Antipas -- was the Jewish territory E of the Jordan. Its northern limit seems to have been marked by Pella (Jos. Wars, iii 3.3) or Gadara (Wars, iv.7.3), and its E boundary was marked by Philadelphia (Ant. xx.1.1); it extended S to the domain of Aretas, king of Arabia. The population was mixed, though predominatingly Jewish. Cities of the Decapolis, however, lay within the limits of Perea, and introduced Greek life and ideas to the people. On the highlands back from the Jordan it was a fertile and well populated land. See SmithHGHL 539f.; SchuererJPTX II. i.2-4.
66. On Bethany and Jericho see BDs and, for the latter, SmithHGHL 266 ff.
67. Ephraim, (John xi.54) is generally identified with the Ephron of II. Chron. xiii.19 (Jos. Wars, iv.9.9). Robinson located it at et Taiyibeh, 4 m. NE of Bethel, and 14 from Jerusalem. See HastBD l.728; SBD^2 975.
68. General questions. The mission of the seventy. Luke records two missions, that of the twelve (ix.1-6), and that of the seventy (x.1-24). Many regard these as doublets, similar to the two feedings in Mark. So WeissLX II.307 ff., BeysLJ I.275, WendtLJ I.84f. In favor of this conclusion emphasis is given to the fact that in Jewish thought seventy symbolized the nations of the world as twelve symbolized Israel. It is suggested that in his search for full records Luke came upon an account of the mission of disciples which had already been modified in the interests of Gentile Christianity, and failing to recognize its identity with the account of the mission furnished by Mark, he added it in his peculiar section. The similarity of the instructions given follows from the nature of the case. A second sending out of disciples is suitable in view of the entrance into a region hitherto unvisited. As Dr. Sanday has remarked, the sayings connected by Luke with this mission bear witness to the authenticity of the account. There is therefore no need to identify the two missions. See particularly SandayHastBD II.614, also GilbertLJ 226-230, Plummer's Comm. on Luke, 269 ff. Luke probably gives the correct place for the thanksgiving, self-declaration, and invitation of Jesus, in which the synoptists approach most nearly to the thought of John (Lk. x.21, 22; Mt. xi.25-30). The return of the seventy (Lk. x.17-20) followed the woes addressed to the unbelieving cities (Lk. x.13-16; Mt. xi.20-24).
69. The destination of the seventy. It is customary to think of them as sent to the various cities of Perea (see AndLOL 381-383). Were it not for the words |whither he himself was about to come| (Lk. x. I), it would be natural to conclude that they were sent E to Gerasa and Philadelphia, and S to the regions of the Dead Sea. If John's account is accepted, Jesus spent not a little time of the interval between his departure from Galilee and his final arrival in Bethany in and near Jerusalem. It may be that after the withdrawal from the Dedication he went far into the Perean districts. But John x.40 is against it. The question must be left unanswered. The messengers may have visited places in all parts of Palestine.
The Controversies of the Last Week
70. See GilbertLJ 311-335; WeissLX III.224-270; AndLOL 421-450; KeimJN V.65-275; BeysLJ II.422-434; EdersLJM II.363-478; SandayHastBD II 632f.
71. The supper at Bethany. John is definite, |six days before the passover| (xii. I). Synoptists place it after the day of controversy, on the Wednesday preceding the Passover (Mk. xiv. I, 3-9; Mt. xxvi.2, 6-13). John is probably correct. The rebuke of Judas (Jn. xii.4-8) was probably associated in the thought of the disciples with his later treachery; consequently the synoptists report the plot of Judas and this supper in close connection.
72. The Messianic entry into Jerusalem is regarded by Reville as a surrender by Jesus of his lofty Messianic ideal in response to the temptation to seek a popular following. Keim with finer insight says, |Even if it had certainly been his wish to bring the kingdom of heaven near in Jerusalem quietly and gradually, and with a healthy mental progress, as in Galilee, yet ... in the face of the irritability of his opponents, in the face of the powerful means at their disposal of crushing him ... there remained but one chance, -- reckless publicity, the conquest of the partially prepared nation by means, not of force, but of idea.... He came staking his life upon the venture, but also believing that God must finish his work through life or death| (JN V.100f.).
73. The question about the resurrection was probably a familiar Sadducean problem with which they made merry at the expense of the scribes. On the resurrection in Jewish thought see Charles, Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian, by index. For the scepticism of the Sadducees see also Ac. xxiii.8; Jos. Wars, ii, 8.14.
74. On the |great commandment| see EdersLJM II.403 ff.
75. The eschatological discourse presents serious exegetical difficulties. Many cut the knot by assuming that Mk. xiii. and ||s contain a little Jewish apocalypse written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, which has been blended with genuine predictions of Jesus concerning his second coming. See Charles, Eschatology, 323-.329; WendtLJ I.9-21; HoltzmannNtTH I.325 ff.; and Bruce's criticism in Expos. Gk. Test. I.287f., also Sanday's note in HastBD II.635f.
76. On the relation of proselytes to Judaism see SchuererJPTX II. ii.291-327. The synagogue in heathen lands drew to itself by its monotheism and its pure ethics the finest spirits of paganism. But few of them, however, submitted to circumcision, and became thus proselytes. Most of them constituted the class of |them that fear God| to whom Paul constantly appealed in his apostolic mission. The Greeks of Jn. xii.20 ff. were probably circumcised proselytes.
77. On Judas see Plummer in HastBD II.796 ff.; EdersLJM II.471-478; WeissLX III.285-289; AndLOL by index. De Quincey's essay on Judas Iscariot is an elaborate defence.
The Last Supper
78. GilbertLJ 335-354; WeissLX III.273-318; EdersLJM II.479-532; AndLOL 450-497; KeimJN V.275-343; BeysLJ II.434-448; SandayHastBD II.633-638.
79. The day of the last supper. John seems clearly to place it on the day before the Passover -- 13 Nisan. See xiii. I, 29; xviii.28; xix.14, 31, 42. Synoptists as clearly declare that the supper was prepared on the |first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Passover| (Mk. xiv.12; see also Lk. xxii.15); this is confirmed by the similarity between the Passover ritual as tradition has preserved it, and the course of events at the supper. Unless interpretation can remove the contradiction, John must have the preference. WeissLX III.273-282, BeysLJ II.390-399, accept John and correct the synoptists by him; thus the supper anticipated the Passover. Some hold that John can be interpreted harmoniously with synoptists, and be shown to indicate that the supper was on the 14th Nisan. So EdersLJM II.508, 566f., 612f.; AndLOL 452-481; GilbertLJ 335-339. Others believe that a true interpretation of synoptists shows that in calling the last supper a Passover they correctly represent the character, but misapprehend the time, of the meal. For this argument see Muirhead, Times of Xt, 163-169, and read SandayHastBD II.633-636 and his references. The debate is still on, but the advantage seems to be with those who assign the supper to the 13th and the crucifixion to the 14th Nisan.
80. Did Jesus institute a memorial sacrament? Read SandayHastBD II.636-638, and Thayer, in Jour. Bib. Lit.1899, 110-131; see also McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 68 ff. note; HoltzmannNtTh I.296-304.
81. The Passover ritual. The order according to the rabbis was the following: the first cup of wine and water was taken by the leader, who gave thanks over it, and then it was shared by all (compare Lk. xxii.17); then the head of the company washed his hands -- Dr. Edersheim connects with this the washing of the disciples' feet, which changed the ceremony from an act of distinction into one of humble service; after this the dishes were brought on the table, then the leader dipped some of the bitter herbs into salt water or vinegar, spoke a blessing, and partook of them, then handed them to each of the company; then one of the loaves of unleavened bread was broken; after this a second cup was filled, and before it was drunk the significance of the Passover was explained by the leader in reply to a question by the youngest of the company, after which the first part of the Hallel (Ps. cxiii., cxiv.) was sung, and then the cup was drunk; then followed the supper itself beginning with |the sop,| -- a piece of the paschal lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, wrapped together and dipped in the vinegar, -- which was passed around the company (compare the sop which Jesus gave to Judas); after the supper came a third cup, known as |the cup of blessing| (see I. Cor. x.16); then followed grace after meat; then a fourth cup, in connection with which the remainder of the Hallel was sung (Ps. cxv. to cxviii.), followed by certain other songs and prayers. See EdersLJM II.496-512; AndLOL 488-494.
82. The washing of the disciples' feet. John (xiii.1-11) says this occurred |during supper| (v.2), and before the designation of the traitor. Luke (xxii.23-30) tells of a dispute about greatness among the disciples. This dispute may have arisen over the assignment of places at table (compare Lk. xiv.7 ff.; Mk. x.33-45); if so, the reason for the lesson in humility is apparent. See AndLOL 482-484; EdersLJM II.492-503.
83. Did Jesus twice predict Peter's denials? Mark (xiv.26-31) and Matthew (xxvi.30-35) place the prediction after the departure for Gethsemane; Luke (xxii.31-34) and John (xiii.36-38), during the supper. AndLOL 494 ff. thinks Peter was warned twice, EdersLJM. II.535-537 holds to one warning on the way to Gethsemane. Antecedent probability favors this view.
84. Where in John should the institution of the sacrament be placed? Probably after the departure of Judas (Mark xiv.21f.; Matt. xxvi.26), thus not before xiii.30. The most likely place is between, verses 32 and 33. There is no break at this point, and it remains a mystery why John's account of the passion omitted this central feature of early Christian belief and practice. The omission argues for rather than against apostolic authorship, as a forger would not have ventured to disregard the leading service of the church in an account of the life of its Lord. See Westcott, Comm. on John, 188.
85. On the possible disarrangement of the last discourses (xiii.31 to xvi.33) in our text of John see Spitta, Urchristentum, I.168-193; Bacon, Jour. Bib. Lit.1894, 64-76; Burton, Bib. Wld.1899 I.32.
The Shadow of the Cross
86. See GilbertLJ 354-384; AndLOL 497-588; WeissLX III.319-381; BeysLJ I.390-432, II.448-473; EdersLJM II.533-620; KeimJN VI.1-274; SandayHastBD II.632f.
87. On the location of Gethsemane and Golgotha see AndLOL 499f., 575-588; and HastBD II.164, 226f.
88. On the progress of Jesus' trial by the Jewish authorities, see AndLOL 505-516; GilbertLJ 359-363. The legality of the trial has been carefully discussed by A. T. Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ.
89. On the form and sequence of Peter's denials, see Westcott, Comm. on John, 263-266; AndLOL 516-521.
90. The Words from the Cross. Matthew (xxvii.46) and Mark (xv.34) report one; Luke (xxiii.34?, 43, 46) adds three, omitting the one found in Matthew and Mark; John adds three more (xix.26f., 28, 30). Luke xxiii.34 is bracketed by Westcott and Hort because omitted by a very important group of MSS. ([Hebrew: aleph]^aBD*) and some early versions. The saying is almost certainly authentic, though it may have been added to Luke by some early copyist. See Westcott and Hort, N.T. in Greek, II. Appendix, 68; and Plummer, Comm. on Luke, 544f.
The Resurrection and Ascension
91. Read SandayHastBD II.638-643; see KeimJK VI.274-383, for a still valid criticism of the position of RevilleJN II.428-478; see also WeissLX III.382-409; BeysLJ I.433-481, II.474-493; BovonNTTh I.350-375; GilbertLJ 385-405; Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert; EdersLJM II.621-652; AndLOL 589-639.
92. The last twelve verses of Mark (xvi.9-20) are omitted by the oldest MSS ([Hebrew: aleph]B) and by the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac, as well as by other versions and fathers. An Armenian MS. has been found ascribing the section to one Ariston, or Aristion, a second century elder, and this explanation of the origin of the verses is widely accepted. The gospel cannot have ended with the words |for they were afraid,| but no satisfactory explanation of the condition of its text has been found. For a recent hypothesis see Rohrbach, Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums; on Aristion as the author, see Conybeare in Expos. IV. viii. (1893) 241, IV. x.219, V. ii.401; see also SandayHastBD II.638f., Bruce, Expos. Gk. Test. I.454f. For discussion of textual evidence see Westcott and Hort, NT in Greek, II. Appendix, 28-51, and Burgon, The last twelve verses of St. Mark (a passionate defence).
Luke xxiv.51 is omitted by [Hebrew: aleph]*D and several old Latin MSS. See Plummer and Bruce on the passage.
93. |After three days.| This formula, which appears often in Mark, is altered in parallels in Matthew and Luke to |on the third day| (see Concordance). Jesus died on Friday, lay in the tomb over Saturday, and rose very early Sunday morning. Thus he spent a part of Friday, and a part of Sunday, and all of Saturday in the grave. According to Jewish reckoning this was counted three days.
94. Emmaus. A village about 60 furlongs from Jerusalem. Cannot have been the Emmaus in the Shephelah, 20 m. from Jerusalem. May have been el Kubeibeh, 63 furlongs distant on the road from Jerusalem to Lydda. See AndLOL 617-619; but also HastBD I.700.
Part III. -- The Minister
The Friend of Men
95. Head Mathews, The Social Teachings of Jesus, especially 132-174; see also Robinson, The Saviour in the Newer Light, 343 ff.
The Teacher with Authority
96. See WendtTJ I.106-151; Stevens, Theol. of the N.T. 1-16; Beyschlag, N.T. Theology, I.31-34. In particular on the Parables see references in sect. A 56. On the content of Jesus' teaching see WendtTJ 2 vols.; Dalman, Die Worte Jesu; Stevens, Theol. of the N.T. 17-244; Beyschlag, N.T. Theol. I.27-299; Mathews, Social Teaching of Jesus; Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus; Bruce, The Kingdom of God.
Jesus' Knowledge of Truth
97. Adamson, The Mind in Christ; GilbertRJ 169f., 240-242; Schwartzkopf, The Prophecies of Jesus Christ.
Jesus' Conception of Himself
98. BaldSJ 125-282; Stalker, Christology of Jesus, HoltzmannNtTh I.234-304; WendtTJ II.122-183; GilbertRJ 167-228; Stevens, Theol. of the N.T. 41-64, 199-212. On the title |Son of Man| see particularly DalmanWJ I.191-219; Charles, Eschatology, 214f. note; against, A. Meyer, Jesu Muttersprache, 91-101, and others. See also HoltzmannNtTh I.246-264. On the name |Son of God,| see Dalman WJ I.219-237; Holtzmann NtTh I.265-278; Stalker, Christology, 86-123; Gilbert, as above. On the personal religion of Jesus see Burton, Bib. Wld.1899, II.394-403. For the total impression of the character of Jesus, read Bushnell, The Character of Jesus.