Jesus Christ (Ι᾿ησοῦς Χριστός, Ι᾿ηοῦς ὁ Χριστός; sometimes by Paul in the reverse order "Christ Jesus"), the ordinary designation of the incarnate Son of God and Savior of mankind. This double designation is not, like Simon Peter, John Mark, Joses Barnabas, composed of a name and a surname, but, like John the Baptist, Simon Magus, Bar-Jesus Elymas, of a proper name and an official title. JESUS was our Lord's proper name, just as Peter, James, and John were the proper names of three of his disciples. To distinguish our Lord from others bearing the name, he was termed Jesus of Nazareth (Joh 18:7, etc., strictly Jesus the Nazarene, Ι᾿ησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος), and Jesus the son of Joseph (Joh 6:42, etc.).
I. Import of the name. — There can be no doubt that Jesus is the Greek form of a Hebrew name, which had been borne by two illustrious individuals in former periods of the Jewish history — the successor of Moses and introducer of Israel into the promised land (Ex 24:13), and the high priest who, along with Zerubbabel (Zec 3:1), took so active a part in the reestablishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews on their return from the Babylonish captivity. Its original and full form is Jehoshua (Nu 13:16). By contraction it became Joshua, or Jeshua; and when transferred into Greek, by taking the termination characteristic of that language, it assumed the form Jesus. It is thus that the names of the illustrious individuals referred to are uniformly written in the Sept., and the first of them is twice mentioned in the New Testament by this name (Ac 7:45; Heb 4:8).
The original name of Joshua was Hoshea (הוֹשֵׁע, saving), as appears in Nu 13:8,16, which was changed by Moses into Jehoshua (יהוֹשֻׁעִ, Jehovah is his salvation), as appears in Nu 12:16; 1Ch 7:27, being elsewhere Anglicized "Joshua." After the exile he is called by the abridged form of this name, Jeshua (יֵשׁוּע, id.), whence the Greek name Ι᾿ησοῦς, by which this is always represented in the Sept. This last Heb. form differs little from the abstract noun from the same root, ישׁוּעָה, yeshuah', deliverance, and seems to have been understood as equivalent in import (see Mt 1:22 comp. Ecclesiastes 46:1). The "name of Jesus" (Php 2:10) is not the name Jesus, but "the name above every name" (ver. 9); i.e. the supreme dignity and authority with which the Father has invested Jesus Christ as the reward of his disinterested exertions in the cause of the divine glory and human happiness; and the bowing ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ι᾿ησοῦ is obviously not an external mark of homage when the name Jesus is pronounced, but the inward sense of awe and submission to him who is raised to a station so exalted.
The conferring of this name on our Lord was not the result of accident, or of the ordinary course of things, but was the effect of a direct divine order (Lu 1:31; Lu 2:21), as indicative of his saving function (Mt 1:21). Like the other name Immanuel (q.v.), it does not necessarily import the divine character of the wearer. This, however, clearly results from the attributes given in the same connection, and is plainly taught in numerous passages (see especially Ro 1:3-4; Ro 9:5). for the import and application of the name CHRIST, SEE MESSIAH.
For a full discussion of the name Jesus, including many fanciful etymologies and explanations, with their refutation, see Gesenius, Thes. Heb. 2, 582; Simon. Onom. V. T. p. 519 sq.; Fritzsche, De nomine Jesu (Freiburg, 1705); Clodius, De nom. Chr. et Marioe Arabicis (Lips. 1724); Hottinger, Hist. Orient. p. 153,157; Seelen, Meditat. exeg. 2, 413; Thiess, Krit.
Comment. 2, 395; A. Pfeiffer, De nomine Jesu, in his treatise De Talmude Judoeorum, p. 177 sq.; Baumgarten, Betracht. d. Namens Jesu (Halle, 1736); Chrysander, De vera forma atque emphasi nominis Jesu (Rintel. 1751); Osiander, Harmonia Evangelica (Basil. 1561), lib. 1, c. 6; Chemnitius, De nomine Jesu, in the Thes. Theol. Philol. (Amst. 1702), vol. 2, p. 62; Canini, Disquis. in loc. aliq. N.T., in the Crit. Sac. ix; Gass, De utroque J.C. nomine, Dei filii et nominis (Vratistl. 1840); and other monographs cited in Volbeding's Index, p. 6, 7; and in Hase's Leben Jesu, p. 51.
II. Personal Circumstances of our Lord. — These, of course, largely affected his history, notwithstanding his divinity. —
1. General View. — The following is a naked statement of the facts of his career as they may be gathered from the evangelical narratives, supposing them to be entitled simply to the credit due to profane history. (For literature, see Volbeding, p. 56; Hase, p. 8.) The founder of the Christian religion was born (B.C. 6) at Bethlehem, near Jerusalem, under the reign of the emperor Augustus, of Mary, at the time betrothed to the carpenter (τέκτων) Joseph, and descended from the royal house of David (Mt 1:1 sq.; Lu 3:23 sq.; comp. Joh 7:42). Soon after his birth he was compelled to escape from the murderous designs of Herod the Great by a hasty flight into the adjacent parts of Egypt (Mt 2:13 sq.; according to the tradition at Matarea, see Evangel. infant. Arab. c. 24; apparently a place near old Heliopolis, where is still shown a very old mulberry tree under which Mary is said to have rested with the babe, see Prosp. Alpin, Rer. AEg. 1, 5, p. 24; Paulus, Samml. 3, 256 sq.; Tischendorf, Reisen, 1, 141 sq.; comp. generally Hartmann, Erdbeschr. v. Africa, 1, 878 sq.). SEE EGYPT; SEE HEROD. But immediately after the death of this king his parents returned to their own country, and settled again (Lu 1:26) in Nazareth (q.v.), in Lower Galilee (Mt 2:23; comp. Lu 4:16; Joh 1:46, etc.), where the youthful Jesus so rapidly matured (Lu 2:40,52), that in his twelfth year the boy evinced at the metropolis traits of an uncommon religious intelligence, which excited astonishment in all the spectators (Lu 2:41 sq.). With this event the history of his youth concludes in the canonical gospels, and we next find him, about the thirtieth year of his age (A.D. 25), in the neighborhood of the Dead Sea, at the Jordan, where he suffered himself to be consecrated for the introduction of the new divine dispensation (βασίλεια τοῦ θεοῦ) by the symbol of water baptism at the hands of John the Baptist (Mt 3:13 sq.; Mr 1:9 sq.; Lu 3:21 sq.; Joh 1:32 sq.). He now began, after a forty-days' fast (comp. 1Ki 19:8) spent in the wilderness of Judea (Mt 4:1-11; Mr 1:12 sq.; Lu 4:1-13) in quiet meditation upon his mission, to publish openly in person this "kingdom of God," by earnestly summoning his countrymen to repentance, i.e. a fundamental reformation of their sentiments and conduct, through a new birth from the Holy Spirit (Joh 3:3 sq.). He repeatedly announced himself as the mediator of this dispensation, and in pursuance of this character, in correction of the sensual expectations of the people with reference to the long hoped for Redeemer (comp. Lu 4:21), he chose from among his early associates and Galilaean countrymen a small number of faithful disciples (Matthew 10), and with them traveled, especially at the time of the Paschal festival and during the summer months, in various directions through Palestine, seizing every opportunity to impress pure and fruitful religious sentiments upon the populace or his immediate disciples, and to enlighten them concerning his own dignity as God's legate (υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ), who should abolish the sacrificial service, and teach a worship of God, as the. common Father of mankind, in spirit and in truth (Joh 4:24). With these expositions of doctrine, which all breathe the noblest practical spirit, and were so carefully adapted to the capacity and apprehension of the hearers that in respect to clearness, simplicity, and dignified force they are still a pattern of true instruction, he coupled, in the spirit of the Old Testament prophets, and as his age expected from the Messiah, wonderful deeds, especially charitable cures of certain diseases at that time very prevalent and regarded as incurable, but to these he himself appears to have attributed a subordinate value. By this means he gathered about him a considerable company of true adherents and thankful disciples, chiefly from the middle class of the people (Joh 7:49; and even from the despicable publicans, Mt 9:9 sq. Lu 5:27 sq.); for the eminent and learned were repelled by the severe reproofs which he uttered against their corrupt maxims (Mr 12:38 sq.), their sanctimonious (Lu 12:1; Lu 18:9 sq.) and hypocritical punctiliousness (Lu 11:39 sq.; 18:9 sq.), and against their prejudices, as being subversive of all true religion (Joh 8:33; Joh 9:16), as well as by the slight regard which (in comparison with their statutes) he paid to the Sabbath (Joh 5:16); and as he in no respect corresponded to their expectations of the Messiah, full of animosity, they made repeated attempts to seize his person (Mr 11:18; Joh 7:30,44). At last they succeeded, by the assistance of the traitor Judas, in taking him prisoner in the very capital, where he had just partaken of a parting meal in the familiar circle of his friends (the Passover), upon which he engrafted the initiatory rite of a new covenant; and thus, without exciting any surprise on his part, in surrendering him into the hands of the Roman authorities as a popular insurrectionist. He was sentenced to death by crucifixion, as he had often declared to his disciples would be his fate, and suffered himself, with calm resignation, to be led to the place of execution between two malefactors (on their traditional names, see Thilo, Apocryph. 1, 580 sq.; comp. Evang. infant. Arab. c. 23); but he arose alive on the third day from the grave which a grateful disciple had prepared for him, and after tarrying forty days in the midst of his disciples, during which he confidently intrusted the prosecution of the great work into their hands, and promised them the divine help of a Paraclete (παράκλητος), he finally, according to one of the narrators, soared away visibly into the sky (A.D. 29). (See Volbeding, p. 6.)
2. Sources of Information. — The only trustworthy accounts respecting Jesus are to be derived from the evangelists. (See Volbeding, p. 5.) SEE GOSPELS, SPURIOUS. They exhibit, it is true, many chasms (Causse, De rationibus ob quas non plura quam quoe extant ad J.C. vitam pertinentia ab Evang. literis sint consignata, Franckf. 1766), but they wear the aspect of a true, plain, lively narrative. Only two of these derive their materials from older traditions, doubtless from the apostles and companions of Jesus; but they were all first written down a long time after the occurrences: hence it has often been asserted that the historical matter was even at that time no longer extant in an entirely pure state (since the objective and the subjective, both in views and opinions, are readily interchanged in an unscientifically formed style); but that after Jesus had been so gloriously proved to be the Messias, the incidents were improved into prodigies, especially through a consideration of the Old Testament prophecies (Kaiser, Bibl. Theol. 1, 199 sq.). Yet in the synoptical gospels this could only be shown in the composition and connection of single transactions; the facts themselves in the respective accounts agree too well in time and circumstances, and the narrators confine themselves too evidently to the position of writers of memoirs, to allow the supposition of a (conscious) transformation of the events or any such developments from Old Testament prophecy: moreover, if truth and pious poetry had already become mingled in the verbal traditionary reports, the eyewitnesses Matthew and John would have known well, in a fresh narration, how to distinguish between each of these elements with regard to scenes which they had themselves passed through (for memory and imagination were generally more lively and vigorous among the ancients than with us) (Br. ub. Rationalismus, p. 248 sq.; compare Heydenreich, Ueb. Unzulassigkeit d. myth. Auffassung des Histor. im N.T. und im Christenth. Herborn, 1831-5; see Hase, p. 9). Sooner would we suppose that the fertile-minded John, who wrote latest, has set before us, not the pure historical Christ, but one apprehended by faith and confounded with his own spiritual conceptions (Br. über Rational. p. 352). But while it is altogether probable that even he, by reason of his individuality and spiritual sympathy with Jesus, apprehended and reflected the depth and spirituality of his Master more truly than the synoptical evangelists, who depict rather the exterior phenomena of his character, at the same time there is actually nothing contained in the doctrinal discourses of Jesus in John, either in substance or form, that is incompatible with the Christ of the first three evangelists (see Heydenreich, in his Zeitschr fur Predigermiss. 1, pt. 1 and 2); yet these latter represent Jesus as speaking comparatively seldom, and that in more general terms, of his exaltation, dignity, and relation with the Father, whereas that Christ would have explained himself much more definitely and fully upon a point that could not have remained undiscussed, is of itself probable (see Hase, p. 10). Hence also, although we cannot believe that in such representations we are to understand the identical words of Christ to be given (for while the retention of all these extended discourses in the memory is improbable, on the other hand a writing of them down is repugnant to the Jewish custom), yet the actual sentiments of Jesus are certainly thus reported. (See further, Bauer, Bibl. Theol. N.T. 2, 278 sq.; B. Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 81; Fleck, Otium theolog. Lips. 1831; and generally Krummacher, Ueber den Geist und die Form der evang. Gesch. Lpz. 1805; Eichhorn, Einleit. 1, 689 sq.; on the mythicism of the evangelists, see Gabler, Neuest. theol. Journ. 7, 396; Bertholdt, Theol. Journ. 5, 235 sq.)
In the Church fathers, we find very little that appears to have been derived from clearly historical tradition, but the apocryphal gospels breathe a spirit entirely foreign to historical truth, and are filled with accounts of petty miracles (Tholuck, Glaubwurdigkeit, p. 406 sq.; Ammon, Leb. Jesu, 1, 90 sq.; compare Schmidt, Einl. ins N.T. 2, 234 sq., and Biblioth. Krit. u. Exegese, 2, 481 sq.). The passage of Josephus (Ant. 18, 3, 3; see Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. § 24), which Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 1, 11; Demonstr. Ev. 3, 7) was the first among Christian writers to make use of, has been shown (see Hase, p. 12), although some have ingeniously striven to defend it (see, among the latest, Bretschneider, in his Diss. capita theolog. Jud. dogmat. e Josepho collect. Lips. 1812; Bohmert, Ueber des Jos. Zeugniss von Christo, Leipz. 1823; Schodel, Fl. Joseph. de J. Chr. testatus, Lips. 1840), to be partly, but not entirely spurious (see Eichstadt, Flaviani de Jesu Christo testimonii αὐθεντία quo jure nuper rursus defensa sit, Jena, 1813; also his 6 Progr. m. einenz auctar, 1841; Paulus, in the Heidelberg Jahrb. 1813, 1, 269 sq.; Theile, in the N. kritisch. Journ. d. theolog. Lit. 2, 97 sq.; Heinichen, Exc. 1 zu Euseb. H.E. 3, 331 sq.; also Suppl. notarius ad Eusebium, p. 73 sq.; Ammon, Leben Jesu, 1, 120 sq.). SEE JOSEPHUS. (See Volbeding, p. 5.) The Koran (q.v.) contains only palpable fables concerning Jesus (Hottinger, Histor. Or. 105 sq.; Schmidt, in his Bibl. f. Krit. u. Exegese, 1, 110 sq.; D'Herbelot, Biblioth. Orientale, 2, 349 sq.; compare Augusti, Christologioe Koran lineam. Jena, 1799), and the Jewish History of Jesus (תּוֹלדוֹת ישׁוּע, edit. Huldrici, Lugd. Bat. 1703; and in Wagenseil, Tela ign. Satan. Altdorf, 1681) betrays itself as an abortive fabrication of Jewish calumny, destitute of any historical value (see Ammon, Bibl. Theol. 2, 263), while the allusions to Jesus in the Talmud and the Rabbins have only a polemical aim (see Meelfuhrer, Jesus in Talmude, Altdorf, 1699, 2, 4; Werner, Jesus in Talmude Stadae, 1731; comp. Bynaeus, De natali J.C. 2, 4). (See Volbeding, p. 5.) The genuine Acts of Pilate ("Acta Pilati," Eusebius, Chron. Arm. 2, 267; compare Henke, Opusc. p. 199 sq.) are no longer extant, SEE PILATE; what we now possess under this title is a later fabrication (see Ammon, 1, 102 sq.). In the Greek and Roman profane authors, Jesus is only incidentally named (Tacitus, Annal. 15, 44, 3; Pliny, Epist. 10, 97; Lamprid. Vit. Alex. Sev. c. 29, 43; Porphyry, De philosoph. ex. orac. in Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. 3, 7; Liban. in Socr. Hist. Ev. 3, 23; Lucian, Mors peregr. c. 11, 13). On Suidas, s.v. Ιησοῦς see Walter, Codex in Suida mendax de Jesu (Lips. 1724). Whether by Chrestus in Suetonius (Claud. p. 25) is to be understood Christ, is doubted by some (comp. Ernesti and Wolf, ad loc.; SEE CLAUDIUS ), but the unusual name Christus might easily undergo this change (see also Philostr. Soph. 2, 11) in popular reference (see generally Eckhard, Non-Christianor. de Christo testimonia, Quedlinb. 1737; Koecher, Hist. Jesu Christo ex scriptorib. profan. eruta, Jena, 1726; Meyer, Versuche Vertheid. u. Erlaut. der Geschichte Jesu u. d. Apostol. a. griech. u. rom. Profanscrib. Hannov. 1805; Fronmüller, in the Studien der wurtemb. Geistl. 10, 1. On the Jesus of the book of Sirach, 43, 25, see Seelen, De Jesu in Jesu Sirac. frustra quoesito, Lubec. 1724; also in his Medit. exeg. 1, 207 sq.).
3. The scientific treatment of the life of Jesus belongs to the modern period of theological criticism. Among earlier contributions of a critico- chronological character is that of Offerhaus (De vita J. C. privata et publica, in his Spicil. histor. chronol. Groningen, 1739). Greiling (Halle, 1813) first undertook the adjustment in a lively narrative, of the recent (rationalistic) exposition that has resulted, to the actual career of Christ. An independent but, on the whole, unsatisfactory treatise is that of Planck (Gesch. d. Christenth. in der Periode seiner ersten Einfuhr. in die Welt durch Jesum u. die Apostel, Göttingen, 1818). Kaiser has attempted an analysis (Bibl. Theol. 1, 230 sq.). Still more severe in his method of criticism is Paulus (Das Leben Jesu als Grundlage einer reinen Gesch. d. Urchristenth. Heidelb. 1828), and bold to a degree that has alarmed the theological world is D.F. Strauss (Leben J. krit. bearbeit. Tubing. 1835, and since). The latter anew reduced the evangelical histories (with the exception of a few plain transactions) to a mythical composition springing out of the Old Test. prophecies and the expectations of the Messiah in the community, and, in his criticism upon single points, generally stands upon the shoulders of the preceding writers. In opposition to him, numerous men of learning and courage rose up to defend the "historical Christ," some of them insisting upon the strictly supernatural interpretation (Lange; Harless; Tholuck, Glaubwurdigkeit der evangel. Gesch. Hamb. 1838; Krabbe, Vorles. über das Leben Jesu, Hamb. 1839), while others concede or pass over single points in the history (Neander, Leben J. Chr. Hamburg, 1837). Into this controversy, which grew highly personal, a philosophical writer (Weisse, Evang. Geschichte Krit. u. philosoph. Bearbeitung, Leipz. 1840) became involved, and attempted, by an ingenious but decidedly presumptuous criticism, to distinguish the historical and the unhistorical element in the evangelical account. At the same time, Theile (Zur Biographie Jesu, Leipzig, 1837) gave a careful and conciliatory summary of the materials of the discussion, but Hase has published (in the 4th ed. of his Leben Jesu, Leipz. 1840) a masterly review, showing the gradual rejection of the extravagances of criticism since 1829. The substance of the life of Jesus has thus now become established in general belief as historical truth; yet Bauer (Krit. der evangel. Gesch. d. Synoptiker, Leipz. 1841), after an analysis of the gospels as literary productions, calls the original narrative concerning Jesus "a pure creation of the Christian consciousness," and he pronounces the evangelical history generally to be "solved." Thenius has met him with a proof of the evangelical history, drawn from the N. Test. epistles, in a few but striking remarks (Das Evang. ohne die Evangelien, Leipz. 1843), but A. Ebrard (Viss. Krit. d. evang. Gesch. Frankf. 1842) has fully refuted him in a learned but not unprejudiced work (see also Weisse, in the Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1843, No. 7-9, 13-15). But this heartless and also peculiarly insipid criticism of Bauer which, indeed, often degenerates into the ridiculous appears to have left no impression upon the literary world, and may therefore be dismissed without further consideration (comp. generally Grimm, Glaubwurdigkeit d. evangel. Gesch. in Bezug auf Strauss und Bauer, Jena, 1845). Lately, Von Ammon (Gesch. d. Leb. Jesu; Leipz. 1842) undertook, in his style of combination, carefully steering between the extremes, a narrative of the life of Jesus full of striking observations. Whatever else has been done in this department (Gfrorer, Geschichte des Urchristenth. Stuttg. 1838; Salvador, Jesus Christ et sa doctrine, Par. 1838) belongs rather to the origin of Christianity than to the data of the life of Jesus. In Catholic literature little has appeared on this subject (Kuhn, Leben Jesus wissensch. bearbeitet, Mainz, 1838; of a more general character are the works of Francke, Leipz. 1838, and Storch, Leipz. 1841). (On the bearing of subjective views upon the treatment of the gospel history, there are the monographs cited in Volbeding, p. 6.) See literature below, and compare the art. SEE CHRISTOLOGY.
4. Chronological Data. —
a. The year of Christ's birth (for the general condition of the age, see Knapp, De statu temp. nato Christo, Hal. 1757; and the Church histories of Gieseler, Neander, etc.; on a special point, see Masson, Jani templ. Christo nascente reseratum, Rotterdam, 1700) cannot, as all investigations on this point have proved (Fabricii Bibl. antiquar. p. 187 sq., 342 sq.; Thiess, Krit. Comment. 2, 339 sq.; comp. especially S. van Tilde, de anno, mense et die nati Chr. Lugd. Bat. 1700, praef. J.G. Walch, Jena, 1740; K. Michaeles, Ueber das Geburts- u. Sterbejahr J.C. Wien, 1796, 2, 8), be determined with full certainty (Reccard, Pr. in rationes et limites incertitudinis circa temp. nat. Christi, Reg. 1768); yet it is now pretty generally agreed that the vulgar era (Hamberger, De epochoe Dionys. ortu et auctore, Jen. 1704; also in Martini Thes. Diss. 3, 1, 341 sq.), of which the first year corresponds to 4714 of the Julian Period, or 754 (and latter part of 753; see Jarvis, Introd. to Hist of the Church, p. 54, 610) of Rome (Sanclemente, De vulg. oeroe emendat. Rom. 1793; Ideler, Chronol. 2, 383 sq.), has assigned it a date too late by a few years (see Strong's Harm. and Expos. Append. 1), since the death of Herod the Great (Mt 2:1 sq.), according to Josephus (Ant. 17, 8, 1; comp. 14, 14, 5; 17, 9, 3), must have occurred before Easter in B.C. 4 (see Browne's Ordo Soeclorum, p. 27 sq.). Hence Jesus may have been born in the beginning of the year of Rome 750, four years before the epoch of our era, or even earlier (Uhland, Christum anno ante oer. Vulg. 4 exeunte nature esse, Tubing. 1775; so Bengel, Anger, Wieseler, Jarvis), but in no case later (comp. also Offerhaus, Spicileg. p. 422 sq.; Paulus, Comment. 1, 206 sq.; Vogel, in Gabler's Journ. f. auserl. theolog. Lit. 1, 244 sq.; and in the Studien der wurtemberg. Geistlichk. 1, 1, 50 sq.). A few passages (as Lu 3:1,23; Mt 2:2 sq.) afford a closer determination, SEE CYRENIUS; the latter gave occasion to the celebrated Kepler to connect the star of the Magi with a planetary conjunction (of Jupiter and Saturn), and more recent writers have followed this suggestion (Wurm, in Bengel's Archiv. 2, 1, 261 sq.; Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. 2, 399 sq., and Lehrb. d. Chronol. p. 428 sq.; compare also Munter, Stern der Weisen, Copenh. 1827; Klein's Oppositionsschr. 5, 1, 90 sq.; Schubert, Lehrb. d. Sternkunde, p. 226 sq.), fixing upon B.C. 6 as the true year of the nativity. SEE NATIVITY. But Mt 2:16 seems to state that the Magi, who must have arrived at Jerusalem soon after the birth of Jesus, had indicated the first appearance of the phenomenon as having occurred a long time previously (probably not exactly two years before), and on that view Jesus might have been born earlier than B.C. 6, the more so inasmuch as the accession of Mars to the same conjunction, occurring in the spring of B.C. 6, according to Kepler, may have first excited the full attention of the Magi. Lately Wieseler (Chronolog. Synopse, p. 67 sq.) has brought down the nativity to the year B.C. 4, and in additional confirmation of this date holds that a comet, which, according to Chinese astronomical tables, was visible for more than two months in this year, was identical with the star of the wise men, at the same time adducing Lu 2:1 sq.; 3:23, as pointing to the same year. But if the Magi had first been incited to their journey by the appearance of that comet, they could not well have designated to Herod as the Messianic star the planetary conjunction of A.U.C. 747 or 748, then almost two years ago, seeing this was an entirely distinct phenomenon. Under this supposition, too, Herod would have made more sure of his purpose if he had put to death children three years old. According to this view, then, we should place Christ's birth rather in B.C.
7 than B.C. 4. Some uncertainty, however, must always attend the use of these astronomical data. SEE STAR IN THE EAST. As an element in determining the year of the nativity, Lu 3:1, comp. 23, must also be taken into the account. Jesus is there positively stated to have entered upon his public ministry at thirty years of age, and indeed soon after John the Baptist, whose mission began in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius, so that by reckoning back about thirty years from this latter date (August, 781, to August, 782, of Rome, A.D. 28-29), we arrive at about B.C. 3 as the year of Christ's birth, which corresponds to the statements of Irenaeus (Hoeret. 3, 25), Tertullian (Adv. Jud. 8), and Eusebius (Hist. Ev. 1, 5), that Jesus was born in the year 41 (42) of the reign of Augustus, i.e. 751 of Rome, or B.C. 3 (Ideler, Chronolog. 2, 385). As Luke's language in that passage is somewhat indefinite ("about," ώαεί), we may presume that Christ was rather over than under thirty years of age; and this will agree with the computation of the fourth year before the Dionysian era, i.e. 750 of Rome. If, however, we suppose (but see Browne, Ordo Soeclorum, p. 67) the joint reign of Tiberius with Augustus, i.e. his association with him in the government especially of the provinces (Vell. Paterc. Hist. Rom. 2, 121; Sueton. 3, 20, 21; Tacitus, Annal. 1, 3; Dio Cass. Hist. Rom. 2, 103), three and a half years before his full reign (Janris, Introd. p. 228-239), to be meant, we shall again be brought to about B.C. 6, or possibly 7, as the year of the nativity. The latest conclusion of Block (Das wahre Geburtsjahr Christi, Berl. 1843), that Jesus was born in the year 735 of Rome, or nineteen years before the beginning of the vulgar era, based upon the authority of the later Rabbins, does not call for special examination (yet see Wieseler, Chronol. Synopse, p. 132). SEE ADVENT.
The month and day of the birth of Christ cannot be determined with a like degree of approximation, but it could not, at all events, have fallen in December or January, since at this time of the year the flocks are not found in the open fields during the night (Lu 2:8), but in pens (" the first rain descends the 17th of the month Marchesvan [November], and then the cattle returned home; nor did the shepherds any longer lodge in huts in the fields," Gemara, Nedar. 63); moreover, a census (ἀπογραφή), which made traveling necessary (Lu 2:2 sq.), would not have been ordered at this season. We may naturally suppose that the month of March is the time for driving out cattle to pasture, at least in Southern Palestine (Suskind, in Bengel's Archiv. 1, 215; comp. A.J. u. d. Hardt, De momenteis quibusd. hist. et chron. ad determin. Chr. diem natal. Helmst. 1754; Korner, De die
natali Servatoris, Lips. 1778; Funck, De die Servat. natali, Rint. 1735; also in his Dissert. Acad. p. 149 sq.; Minter, Stern der Weisen, Copenh. 1827, p. 110 sq.). If we can rely upon a statement of the Jewish Rabbins, that the first of the twenty-four courses of priests entered upon their duties in the regular cycle the very week in which the Temple was destroyed by the Romans (Mishna, 3, 298, 3), we are furnished with the means, by comparison with the time of the service of Zachariah (Lu 1:5,8), who belonged to the eighth division (1Ch 24:10), of determining with considerable certainty (Browne's Ordo Soeclorum, p. 33 sq.) the date of the nativity as occurring, if in B.C. 6, about the month of August (Strong's Harm. and Expos. Append. 1, p. 23). The attempts of Scaliger and Bengel to determine the month of the nativity from this element (compare Maurit. De sortit. p. 334 sq.) are unsatisfactory (see Van Til, ut sup. p. 75 sq.; Allix, Diatr. de anno et mense J.C. nat. p. 44 sq.; Paulus, Comment. 1, 36 sq.). Lately Jarvis (Introd. p. 535 sq.) has endeavored to maintain the traditionary date of Christmas of the Latin Church; and Seyffarth has anew adopted the conclusion (Chronoloq. Sacra, p. 97 sq.) that John the Baptist was born on the 24th of June, and consequently Jesus on the 25th (22d in his Summary of recent Discoveries in Chronology, N. York, 1857, p. 236) of December, based on the supposition that the Israelites reckoned by solar months: this pays no regard to Lu 2:8 (see Hase, p. 67). SEE CHRISTMAS.
b. The year of Christ's crucifixion is no less disputed (comp. Paulus, Comment. 3, 784 sq.). The two extreme limits of the date are the above- mentioned 15th year of Tiberius, in which John the Baptist began his career (Lu 3:1), i.e. Aug. 781 to Aug. 782 of Rome (A.D. 28-29), and the year of the death of that emperor, 790 of Rome (A.D. 37), in which Pilate had already left the province of Judaea. Jesus appears to have begun his public teaching soon after John's entrance upon his mission; for the message of the Sanhedrim to John, which is placed in immediate connection with the beginning of Christ's public ministry (Joh 1:19; comp. 29:35; 2:1), and comes in just before the Passover (Joh 2:12 sq.), must have been within a year after John's public appearance. This being assumed, a further approximation would depend upon the determination of the number of Passovers which Jesus celebrated during his ministry; but this itself is quite a difficult question (see under No. 5, below). It is now generally conceded that he could not well have passed less than three Paschal festivals, and probably not more than four (i.e. one at the beginning of each of Christ's three years, and a fourth at the close of the last); thus we ascertain as the terminus a quo of these festivals the year A.D. 28, and as the probable terminus ad quem the year A.D. 32; or, on the supposition (as above) that the joint reign of Tiberius is meant, we have as the limits of the Passovers of Jesus A.D. 25-29. This result would be rendered more definite and certain if we could ascertain whether in the last of these series of years (A.D. 29 or 32) the Jewish Passover fell on a Friday (Thursday evening and the ensuing day), as this was the week day on which the death of Christ is generally held to have taken place. There have been various calculations by means of lunar tables (Linbrunn, in the Abhandlung der bayerschen Akademie der Wiss. vol. 6; Wurm, in Bengel's Archiv. 2, 1, 292 sq.; Anger, De temporumn in Act. Apost. ratione ciss. 1, Lips. 1830, p. 30 sq.; Browne, Ordo Soeclorum. Lond. 1844, p. 504), to determine during which of the years of this period the Paschal day must have occurred on Friday (see Strong's Harm. and Exposit. Append. 1, p. 8 sq.); but the inexactness of the Jewish calendar makes every such computation uncertain (Wurm, ut sup. p. 294 sq.). Yet it is worthy of notice that the two most recent investigations of Wurm and Anger both make the year A.D. 31, or 784 of Rome, to be such a calendar year as we require. Wieseler, Chronol. Synops. p. 479), on the other hand, protests against the foregoing computations, and insists that in A.D. 30 alone the Paschal day fell on Friday. According to other calculations, A.D. 29 and 33 are the only years of this period in which the Paschal eve fell on Thursday (see Browne, Ordo Soeclorum, p. 55), while so great discrepancy prevails between other computations (see Townsend's Chronological N.T. p. *159) that little or no reliance can be placed upon this argument (see Strong's Harm. and Exposit. Append. 1, p. 8 sq.). SEE PASSOVER. The opinion of some of the ancient writers (Irelenus, 2, 22, 5), that Jesus died at 40 or 50 years of age (compare Joh 8:57), is altogether improbable (see Pisanski, De errore Irenoei in determinanda oetate Christi, Regiom. 1777). The most of the Church fathers (Tertull. Adv. Jud. 8; Lactantius, Institut. 4, 10; Augustine, Civ. dei, 18, 54; Clem. Alex. Stromn. 1, p. 147, etc.) assign but a single year as the duration of Christ's ministry, and place his death in the consulship of the two Gemini (VIII Cal. April. Coss. C. Rubellio Gemino et C. Rufio Gemino), i.e. 782 of Rome, A.D. 29, the 15th year of Tiberius's reign, which Ideler (Chronology, 2, 418 sq.) has lately (so also Browne, Ordo Soeclorum, p. 80 sq.) attempted to reconcile with Lu 3:1 (but see Seyffarth, Chronol. Sacra, p. 115 sq.; Eusebius, in his Chronicles Armen. 2, p. 264, places the death of Jesus in the 19th year of Tiberius, which Jerome, in his Latin translation, calls the 18th; on the above reckoning of the fathers, see Petavius, Animadvers. p. 146 sq.; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. 1, 497 sq.). On the observation of the sun at the crucifixion (Mt 27:45; Mr 15:33; Lu 23:44), SEE ECLIPSE, (On the chronological elements of the life of Jesus, see generally Hottinger, Pentas dissertat. bibl.-chronol. p. 218 sq.; Voss, De annis Christi dissertat. Amst. 1643; Lupi, De notis chronolog. anni mortis et nativ. J.C. dissertat. Rom. 1744; Horix, Observat. hist. chronol. de annis Chr. Mogunt. 1789; compare Volbeding, p. 20; Hase, p. 52.) SEE CHRONOLOGY.
5. The two family registers of Jesus (Matthew 1 and Luke 3), of which the first, is descending and the latter ascending, vary considerably from each other; inasmuch as not only entirely different names of ancestors are given from Joseph upwards to Zerubbabel and Salathiel (Mt 1:12 sq.; Lu 3:27), but also Matthew carries back Joseph's lineage to David's son Solomon (ver. 6 sq.), while Luke refers it to another son Nathan (ver. 31). Moreover, Matthew only goes back as far as Abraham (as he wrote for Jewish readers), but Luke (in agreement with the general scope of his gospel) as far as Adam (God). This disagreement early engaged the attention of the Church fathers (see Eusebius, Hist. Ev. 1, 7), and later interpreters have adopted various hypotheses for the reconcilement of the two evangelists (see especially Surenhus. Βίβλος καταλλαγῆς, p. 320 sq.: Rus, Harmon. evang. 1, 65 sq.; Thiess, Krit. Commentar, 2, 271 sq.; Kuinol, Proleg. in Matt. § 4). There are properly only two general representations possible. For the history of Christ's parents, SEE JOSEPH; SEE MARY.
(a) Matthew traces the lineage through Joseph, Luke gives the maternal descent (comp. also Neander, p. 21); so that the person called Eli in Lu 3:23, appears to have been the father of Mary (see especially Helvicus, in Crenii Exercitat. philol. hist. 3, p. 332 sq.; Spanheim, Dubia evang. 1, 13 sq.; Bengel, Heumann, Paulus, Kuinol, in their Commentaries; Wieseler, in the Studien u. Krit. 1845, p. 361 sq.; on the contrary, Bleek, Beitrage z. Evangelienkrit. p. 101 sq.). But, in the first place, in that case Luke would hardly have written so expressly "the son of Eli" (τοῦ ᾿Ηλί), since we must understand all the following genitives to refer to the actual fathers and not to the fathers-in-law (the appeal to Ru 1:11 sq., for the purpose of showing that a daughter-in-law could be called daughter among the Hebrews, is unavailing for the distinction in question); although, in the second place, we need not understand the Salathiel and Zerubbabel named in one genealogy to have been both different persons from those mentioned in the other (Paulus, Comment. 1, 243 sq.; Robinson, Gr. Harmony, p. 186), which is a very questionable expedient (see especially Hug, Einleitung, 2:266; Methodist Quarterly Review, Oct. 1852, p. 602 sq.). Aside from the fact that Luke does not even mention the mother of Jesus (but only Mt 1:16), and from the further fact that the Jews were not at all accustomed to record the genealogies of women (Baba Bathra, f. 110, "The father's family, not the mother's, is accounted the true lineage;" compare Wetstein, 1, 231), we might make an exception in the case of the Messiah, who was to be descended from a virgin (compare also Paulus, Leben J. 1, 90). A still different explanation (Voss, ut sup.; comp. also Schleyer, in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1836, p. 403 sq., 539 sq.), namely, that Eli; although the father of Mary, is here introduced as being the grandfather of Joseph (according to the supposition that Mary was an heiress, Nu 27:8), proceeds upon an entirely untenable interpretation (see Paulus, Comment. 1, 243, 261). Notwithstanding the foregoing objection to the view under consideration, it meets, perhaps better than any other, the difficulties of the subject. SEE GENEALOGY.
(b) Some assume that the proper father of Joseph was Eli: he, as a brother, or (as the difference of the names up to Salathiel necessitates) as the nearest relative (half-brother?), had married Mary, the wife of the deceased childless Jacob, and according to the Levirate law (q.v.) Joseph would appear as the son of Jacob, and would, in fact, have two fathers (so Ambrosius); or conversely, we may suppose that Jacob was the proper father of Joseph, and Eli his childless deceased uncle (comp. Julius Afric. in Eusebius, Hist. Ev. 1, 7; Calixtus, Clericus). This hypothesis, which still conflicts with the Levirate rule that only the deceased is called father of the posthumous son (De 25:6), Hug (Einl. 2, 268 sq.), has been so modified as to presume a Levirate marriage as far back as Salathiel, by which the mention of Salathiel and Zerubbabel in both lists would be explained; and Hug also introduces such a marriage between the parents of Joseph, and still another among more distant relatives. This is ingenious, but too complicated (see generally Paulus, ut sup. p. 260). If a direct descent of Jesus could have been laid down from David, there remains no reason why, when the natural extraction of the Messiah straight from David was so important, the very evangelist who wrote immediately for Jewish readers should have traced the indirect lineage. But if so many as three Levirate marriages had occurred together (as Hug thinks), we should suppose that Matthew, on account of the infrequency of such a case, would have given his readers some hint, or at least not have written (ver. 16) "begat" (ἐγέννησε) in a manner quite calculated to mislead. Moreover, this hypothesis of Hug rests upon an interpretation of 1Ch 3:18 sq., which that scholar himself could only have chosen in a genealogical difficulty. SEE LEVIRATE LAW
(c) If both the foregoing explanations be rejected, there remains no other course than to renounce the attempt to reconcile the two family lines of Jesus, and frankly acknowledge a discrepancy between the evangelists, as some have done (Stroth, in Eichhorn's Repert. 9, 131 sq.; Ammon, Bibl. Theol. 2, 266; Thiess, Krit. Comment. 2, 271 sq.; Fritzsche, ad Matthew p. 35; Strauss, 1, 105 sq.; De Wette, B. Crusius, Alford, on Luke 3). In the decayed family of Joseph it might not have been possible, especially after so much misfortune as befell the country and people, to recover any written elements for the construction of a family register back to David. Were the account of Julius Africanus (in Eusebius, 1, 7; compare Schottgen, Hor. Hebr. p. 885), that king Herod had caused the family records of the Jews to be burned, correct, the want of such information would be still more evident (but see Wetstein, 1, p. 232; Wieseler, in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1845, p. 369). In that case, after the need of such registers had arisen, persons would naturally have set themselves to compiling them from traditional recollections, and the variations of these may readily have resulted in a double lineage. But even on this view it has been insisted that both lines present the descent of Joseph and not of Mary, since it was unusual to exhibit the maternal lineage, and the Jews would not have regarded such an extraction from David as the genuine one. There are, at all events, but two positions possible: either the supernatural generation of Jesus by the Holy Spirit was admitted, or Jesus was considered a son of Joseph (Lu 3:33). In the latter case a family record of Joseph entirely sufficed for the application of the O.T. oracles to Jesus; in the former case it has been conceived that such a register would have been deemed superfluous, and every natural lineage of Jesus from David (Ro 1:3) would have thrown his divine origin into the background. This has been alleged as the reason why John gives no genealogy at all, and generally says nothing of the extraction of Jesus from the family of David (see Von Ammon, Leb. Jes. 1, 179 sq.). The force of these arguments, however, is greatly lessened by the consideration that the early Christians, in meeting the Jews, would be very anxious, if possible, to prove Christ's positive descent from David through both his reputed and his real parent; the more so, as the former was avowed to be only nominally such, leaving the whole actual lineage to be made out on the mother's side. (See generally Baumgarten, De genealogia Chr. Hal. 1749; Durr, Genealogia Jesu, Gott. 1778; Busching's Harmon. d. Evang. p. 187 sq., 264 sq.) SEE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.
6. The wonderful birth of Jesus through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, which only the synoptical gospels relate (Lu 1:26 sq.; Mt 1:18 sq.; the apocryphal gospels, in order to remove all idea of the conception of Mary by Joseph, make him to have been absent a long time from home at work, Histor. Josephi, c. 5; Hist. de Nativ. Marics, c. 10), has been imagined by many recent interpreters (Ammon, Biblic. Theol. 2, 251 sq., and Comm. in narrationum de primordus J.C. fontes, incrementa et nexum c. rel. Chr. Gott. 1798; also in his Nov. Opusc. p. 25 sq.; Bauer, Theol. N.T. 1, 310 sq.; Briefe über Rationalismus, p. 229 sq.; Kaiser, Bibl. Theolog. 1, 231 sq.; Greiling, p. 24 sq.) to have been a myth suggested by the O. Test. prophecies (Isa 7:14), and they have held Joseph to be the proper father of Jesus (as it is well known that many in the earliest Church, and individuals later, from time to time, have done, Unschuld. Nachr. 1711, p. 622 sq.; Walther, Vers. eines schriftmass. Beweisse dass Joseph der wahre Vater Christi sei, Berl. 1791; on the contrary, Oertel, Antijosephismus oder Kritik des Schriftm. Bew., etc., Germ. 1793; Hasse, Josephum verum patrem e Scriptura non fuisse, Reg. 1792; Ludewig, Histor. Untersuch. über die versch. Meinungen v. d. Abkunft Jes. Wolfenbuttel, 1831 ; comp. also Korb, Anticarus oder histor.-krit. Beleuchtung der Schrift; "Die naturl. Geburt Jesu u. s. w." Leipzig, 1831) on the following noways decisive grounds:
(a) "John, who stands in so near a relation to Jesus, and must have known the family affairs, relates nothing at all of this wonderful birth, although it was very apposite to his design." But this evangelist shows the high dignity of Jesus only from his discourses, the others from public evidences and a few astonishing miracles; moreover, his prologue (1, 1-18) declares dogmatically pretty much the same thing as the synoptical gospels do historically in this respect. (Compare also the deportment of Mary, Joh 2:3 sq.; see Neander, p. 16. sq.)
(b) "Neither Jesus nor an apostle ever appeals in any discourse to this circumstance. Paul always says simply that Jesus was born 'of the seed of David' (Ro 1:3; 2Ti 2:8); once (Ga 4:4), more definitely, 'of a woman' (ἐκ γυναικός, not παρθένου)." It must be admitted, however, that an appeal to a fact which only one individual could positively know by experience would be very ineffectual; and an apostle would be very likely to subject himself to the charge of irrelevancy if he resorted to such an appeal (comp. Niemeyer, Pr. ad illustrand. plurimor. N.T. scriptorum silentium de primordiis vitoe J.C. Halle, 1790). But this would be laying as improper an emphasis upon the word γυνή (Ga 4:4) as that of the older theologians upon עִלמָה (Isa 7:14).
(c) "Mary calls Joseph, without qualification, the father of Jesus (Lu 2:48), and also among the Jews Jesus was generally called Joseph's son (Mt 13:55; Mr 6:3; Lu 3:23; Lu 4:22; Joh 1:46; Joh 6:42)." This last argument is wholly destitute of force; but Mary might naturally, in common parlance, call Joseph Jesus' father, just as, in modem phrase, a foster-father is generally styled father when definiteness of expression is not requisite.
(d) "The brothers of Jesus did not believe in him as the Messiah (Joh 7:5), which would be inexplicable if the Deity had already indicated him as the Messiah from his very birth." Yet these brothers had not themselves personally known the fact; and it is, moreover, not uncommon that one son in a family who is a general favorite excites the ill will of the others to such a degree that they even deny his evident superiority, or that brothers fail to appreciate and esteem a mentally distinguished brother.
(e) "History shows in a multitude of examples that the birth of illustrious men has been embellished with fables (Wetstein, N.T. 1, p. 236); especially is the notion of a birth without connection with a man (παρθενογενής) wide spread in the ancient world (Georgi, Alphabet. Tibet. Rom. 1762, p. 55 sq., 369 sq.), and among the Indians and Chinese it is even applied to the founders of religion (Paul. a Bartholom. System. Brahman. p. 158; Du Halde, Beschr. d. Chines. Reichs, 3, 26)." In case it is meant by this that a wonderful generation of a holy man, effected immediately by the Spirit of God, was embraced in the circle of Oriental belief (Rosenmüller, in Gabler's Journ. ausserl. theol. Liter. 2, 253 sq.), this argument might make the purely historical character of the doctrine in question dubious, were it capable of proof that such an idea also harmonizes with the principles of the Israelitish monotheism, or could it be made probable (Weisse, Leben Jesu, 1, 176 sq.) that this account of the birth of Jesus is a heathen production (see, on the contrary, Neander, p. 12 sq.). On the other hand, however, this statement stands so isolated in the Christian tradition, and so surpasses the range of the profane conceptions, that we can hardly reject the idea that it must have operated to enhance the estimate of Christ's dignity. It has been suggested as possible (Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 97 sq.) that the hope had already formed itself in the soul of Mary that she would become the mother of the Messiah (which, however, is contradicted by her evident surprise and difficulty at the announcement, Lu 1:29,34), and that this had drawn nourishment from a vision in a dream, as the angelic annunciation (Lu 1:26 sq.) has been (but with the greatest violence) interpreted (see, however, Van Oosterzee, De Jesu e Virgine nato, Utr. 1840). SEE CONCEPTION.
Bethlehem, too (Wagner, De loco nat. J. Chr. Colon. Brandenb. 1673), as the place of Christ's birth, has been deemed to belong to the mythical dress of the narrative (comp. Mic 5:1; see Thess, Krit. Comment. 2, 414), and it has therefore been inferred that Jesus was not only begotten in Nazareth, but also born there (Kaiser, Bibl. Theol. 1, 230) — which, nevertheless, does not follow from Joh 1:46. That Jesus was born in Bethlehem is stated in two of the evangelical accounts (Mt 2:1; Lu 2:4), as may also be elsewhere gathered from the events which follow his birth. But a more direct discrepancy between Matthew and Luke (Hase, p. 44), respecting Joseph's belonging to Bethlehem (Mt 2:22-23; Lu 1:26; Lu 2:4), cannot be substantiated (compare generally Gelpe, Jugendgesch. d. Herrn, Berne, 1841.) SEE BETHLEHEM.
7. Among the relatives of Jesus, the following are named in the N. Test.:
(a) Mary, Jesus' mother's sister (Joh 19:25). According to the usual apprehension of this passage, SEE SALOME, she was married to one Clopas or Alphaeus (q.v.), and had as sons James (q.v.) the younger (Ac 1:13) and Joses (Mt 27:56; Mr 15:40). SEE MARY.
(b) Elizabeth, who is called the relative (συγγενής, "cousin") of Mary (Lu 1:36). Respecting the degree of relationship, nothing can be determined: it has been questioned (Paulus, Comment. 1, 78) whether she was of the tribe of Levi, but this appears certain from Lu 1:5. In a fragment of Hippolytus of Thebes (in Fabricii Pseudepimr. 2, 290) she is called Sube, the daughter of Mary's mother's sister. She was married to the priest Zacharias, and bore to him John the Baptist (Lu 1:57 sq.). SEE ELIZABETH.
(c) Brethren of Jesus (ἀδελφοί, Mt 12:46, and parallel passages; Joh 2:12; Joh 7:3,5,10; Ac 1:14; ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ Κυρίου, 1Co 9:5), by the name of James, Joses (q.v.), Simon, and Judas (Mt 13:55, and the parallel passage, Mr 6:3). (On these see Clemen. in the Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 3; 329 sq.; A. H. Bloom, De τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς et , ταῖς ἀδελφ. τοῦ κυρίου, Lugd. Bat. 1839; Wieseler, in the Studien u. Kritik. 1842, 1, 71 sq.; Schaff, Das Verhaltn. des Jacob. Brud. d. Herrn zu Jacob. Alphai, Berl. 1842, p. 11 sq., 34 sq.; Grimm, in the Hall. Encycl. 2, sect. 23, p. 80 sq.; Method. Quar. Rev. Oct. 1851, p. 670-672; on their descendants, Euseb. Hist. Ev. 3, 20, 33; see Korner, De propinquor. Servatoris persecutione, Lips. 1782.) In the passages Mt 12:46; Mt 13:55; Joh 2:12; Ac 1:14, are unquestionably to be understood proper brothers, as they are all together named conjointly with the mother of Jesus (and with Joseph, Mt 13:55); the same is the natural inference from the statement (Joh 7:5) that the brethren (ἀδελφοί) of Jesus had not believed in him as the Messiah. On "James, the brother of the Lord" (Ι᾿άκωβος ὁ αδελφὸς Κυρίου, Ga 1:19), SEE JAMES. These brethren were regarded as mere relatives, or, more exactly, cousins (namely, sons of Mary, Jesus' mother's sister), by the Church fathers (especially Jerome, ad Matt. 12, 46); also lately by Jessieu (Authentic. epist. Jud. p. 36 sq.), Schneckenburger (Ep. Jac. p. 144 sq.), Olshausen (Comment. 1, 465 sq.), Glockler (Evang. 1, 407), Kuhn (Jahrb. f. Theol. und christl. Philos. 1834, 3, pt. 1), and others, partly on the ground that the names James and Joses appear among the sons of the other Mary (Mt 27:56), partly that it is not certain that Mary, after her first conception by the Holy Spirit, ever became the mother of other children by her husband (see Origen, in Matt. 3, 463. ed. de la Rue; comp. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 2, 1). The latter argument is of no force (see Schaff, p. 29); on the former, see below. But the term "brethren" (ἀδελφοί), since it does of itself indicate blood relatives, cannot without utter confusion be used of mere cousins in immediate connection with the mother. And if it denotes proper brothers, as also Bloom and Wieseler suppose, the question still remains whether these had both parents the same with Jesus (i.e. were his full brothers), or were the sons of Joseph by a former marriage (halfbrothers; compare Theophyl. ad 1 Corinthians 9). The latter opinion, SEE JOSEPH, which is based upon an old (Ebionitic) tradition (see Fabricius, Pseudepigr. 1, 291; Thilo, Cod. Apocr. 1, 109, 208, 362 sq.), is held as probable by Grotius (ad Jac. 1, 1), Vorstius (De Hebr. Nov. Test. ed. Fischer, p. 71 sq.), Paulus (Comment. 1, 6113), Bertholdt (Einleit. 5, 656 sq.), and others; the former by Herder (Briefe zweener Bruder J. p. 7 sq.), Pott (Proleg. in Ep. Jac. p. 90), Ammon (Bibl. Theol. 2, 259), Eichhorn (Einl. ins N.T. 3, 570 sq.), Kuinol (ad Matthew 12:46), Clement (ut sup.), Bengel (in his N. Archiv, 2, 9 sq.), Stier (Andeut. 1, 404 sq.), Fritzsche (ad Matt. 481), Neander (Leb. Jesu, p. 39 sq.), Wieseler and Schaff (ut sup.), and others. An intimation that favors this last view is contained in the expression "first-born" (Mt 1:25; Lu 2:7), which is further corroborated by the statement of abstinence from matrimonial intercourse until the birth of Jesus (Mt 1:25; but see Olshausen, ad loc.), which seems to imply that the brothers in question were later sons of Joseph and Mary. The circumstance that the sister of Jesus' mother had two sons similarly named James and Joses (or three, if we understand Ιούδας Ιακώβον [Lu 6:16] to mean "brother of James", SEE JUDAS ) — is not conclusive against this view, since in two nearly-related families it is not even now unusual to find children of the same name, especially if, as in the present case, these names were in common use. Eichhorn's explanation (ut sup. p. 571) is based upon a long since exploded hypothesis, and requires no refutation. Joh 19:26, contains no valid counter argument: the brothers of Jesus may have become convinced by his resurrection (Mt 28:10), and, even had they been so at his death, yet perhaps the older and more spiritually- kindred John may have seemed to Jesus more suitable to carry out his last wishes than even his natural brothers (see Pott, ut sup. p. 76 sq.; Clement, ut sup. p. 360 sq.). At all events, the brothers of Jesus are not only expressed as having become at length believers in him, but they even appear somewhat later among the publishers of the Gospel (Ac 1:14; 1Co 9:5). SEE BROTHERS.
(d) Sisters of Jesus are mentioned in Mt 13:56; Mr 6:3 (in Mr 3:32, the words καὶ αἱ ἀδελφαί are of very doubtful authenticity). Their names are not given. That we are to understand own sisters is plain from the foregoing remarks respecting his brothers.
(e) Finally, an ecclesiastical tradition makes Salome, the wife of Zebedee, and mother of the apostles James and John (Mr 15:40; Mr 16:1, etc.), to have been a relative of Jesus. (See Hase, p. 55.) SEE SALOME.
8. Jesus was educated at Nazareth (Hase, p. 57; Weisse, De J.C. educatione, Helmst. 1698; Lange, De profectib. Christi adolesc. Altdorf, 1699), but attended no (Rabbinical) schools (Joh 7:15). He appears, according to the custom of the times, to have learned the trade of his adopted father (Justin Mart. c. Tryph. 88, p. 316, ed. Col.; comp. Theodor. Hist. Eccl. 3, 23; Sozomen, 6, 2, etc.), but this he did not continue to practice at the same time with his career of teaching, as was usual with all the Rabbins (compare Neander, p. 54). By this means he may in part have acquired his subsistence (comp. Mr 6:3; but Origen, Contra Celsum, 6, p. 299, denies this statement, and Tischendorf omits ὁ τέκτων). Besides, his followers supplied him with liberal presents, and, on his journeys, the Oriental usages of hospitality (Joh 5:45; Joh 12:2) served him in good stead (see Rau, Unde Jes. alimenta vitoe acceperit, Erlang. 1794). SEE HOSPITALITY. A number of grateful women also accompanied him for a considerable time, who cared for his maintenance (Lu 8:2; Mr 15:41). He had a common traveling purse with the apostles (Joh 12:6; Joh 13:29), from which the stock of provisions for the journey was provided (Lu 9:13; Mt 14:17 sq., etc.). We certainly cannot regard Jesus as properly poor in the sense of indigent (see Walch, Miscell. Sacr. p. 866 sq.), for this appears (Henke's Mus. 2, 610 sq.) neither from Mt 8:20 (see Lunze, De Christi divitiis. et pautpertate, Lips. 1784), nor yet from 2Co 8:9 (see Beitrage z. vernunftigen Denk. 4, 160 sq.), and Joh 19:23, rather shows the contrary (comp. Bar-Hebraeus, Chron. p. 251); yet his parents were by no means in opulent circumstances (see Lu 2:24; comp. Le 12:8), and he himself possessed (Mt 8:20) at least no real estate whatever (see generally Rau, De causis cur J.C. patupertati se subjecerit proecipuis, Erlang. 1787; Siebenhaar, in the Sachs. eget. Stud. 2, 168 sq.). SEE HUMILIATION. During his public career of teaching, Jesus (when not traveling) staid chiefly and of choice at Capernaum (Mt 4:13), and only on one or two occasions (Lu 4:16; Mr 6:1) visited Nazareth (see Kiesling, De J. Nazar. ingrata patria exule, Lips. 1741). In exterior he constantly observed the customs of his people (see A. Gesenius, Christ. decoro gentis suoe se accommodasse, Helmst. 1734; Gude, De Christo et discipulis ejus decori studiosis, in the Nov. miscellan. Lips. 3, 563 sq.), and, far from wishing to attract attention by singularity or austerity he took part in the pleasures of social life (Joh 2:1 sq.; Lu 7:31 sq.; Mt 11:16 sq.; compare 9:14 sq.). Nevertheless, he never married (compare Clem. Alex. Strom. 3, 191 sq.; see Schleiermacher, Der Christliche Glaube, 1st ed. 2, 526), for the supposition of Schulthess (Neutest. theolog. Nachr. 1826, 1, 20 sq.; 1828, 1, 102 sq.) that Jesus was married according to Jewish usage, with the addition that his wife (and, perhaps, several children by her) had died before his entrance upon public life, is a pure hypothesis that at least deserves no countenance from the silence in the N.T. as to any such occurrences; and the stupendous design already in the mind of the youthful Jesus afforded no motive for marriage, and, indeed, did not admit (compare Mt 19:12) such a confinement to a narrower circle (see Weisse, Leben Jesu, 1, 249 sq.; comp. Hase, p. 109). Additional literature may be seen in Volbeding, p. 17, 18; Hase, p. 59. SEE NAZARENE.
9. The length of Jesus' public ministry (beginning about the 30th year of his age, Lu 3:24; see Rosch, in the Brem. u. Verd. Bibliothl. 3, 813 sq.), as well as the chronological sequence of the single events related in the Gospels, is very variously estimated. (See Hase, p. 17.) The first three evangelists give, as the scene of their transactions (after his temptation and the imprisonment of the Baptist, Mt 4:1-13), almost exclusively Galilee (De Galilee opportuno Servatoris miraculor. theatro, Gott. 1775), inasmuch as Jesus had his residence then in the city Capernaum, especially in the winter months (Mt 4:13; Mt 8:5; Mt 17:24; Mr 1:21; Mr 2:1, etc.). For the most part, we find him in the romantic and thickly settled neighborhood of the Sea of Tiberias, or upon its surface (Mt 8:23 sq.; 13:1 sq.; 14:13; Lu 8:22), also on the other side in Peraea (Mt 8:28; Lu 8:26; Mr 7:31). Once he went as far as within the Phoenician boundaries (Mt 15:21; Mr 7:24 sq.). But in the synoptical gospels he only appears once to have visited Jerusalem, at the time of the last Passover (Matthew 21 sq.; Mark 11 sq.; Luke 19 sq.). According to this, the duration of his teaching might be limited to a single year (Euseb. 3, 24), and many (appealing to Lu 4:19; comp. Isa 61:1 sq.; see Origen, Horn. 32; comp. Tertull. Adv. Jud. c. 8; but see Kirner, p. 4) already in the ancient Church (Clem. Alex. Strom. 1, p. 147; Origen, Princip. 4, 5) only allow this space to his public mission (compare Mann, Three Years of the Birth and Death of Christ, p. 161; Priestly, Harmony of the Evangelists, London, 1774, 2, 4; Browne,
Ordo Soeclorum, p. 634 sq.); although, independently of all the others, Lu 6:1 (second-first Sabbath) affords indication of a second Passover which Jesus celebrated during his public career. SEE SABBATH.
On the other hand, John's Gospel shows (comp. Jacobi, Zur Chronol. d. Lebens J. im Evang. Joh. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, 4, 845 sq.) that Jesus was not only oftener, but generally in Judaea (whence he once traveled through Samaria to Galilee, Joh 4:4; compare his return, Lu 17:11), namely, in the holy city Jerusalem (but this difference agrees with the respective designs of the several gospels; see Neander, p. 385 sq.), and informs us of five Jewish festivals which Jesus celebrated at Jerusalem. The first, occurring soon after the baptism of Jesus (Joh 2:13), is a Passover; the second (Joh 5:1) is called indefinitely "a feast of the Jews" (ἑορτὴ τῶν Ι᾿ουδαίων); the third was the Festival of Tabernacles (Joh 7:2); the fourth the Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22); and, lastly, the fifth (Joh 12; Joh 13) again a Passover: mention is also made (Joh 6:4) of still another Passover which Jesus spent in Galilee. Hence it would seem that Jesus was engaged some three years (Origen, Contra Celsum, 2, p.67) as a public teacher; and if by the "feast" of Joh 5:1 we are also to understand a Passover (Paulus, Comm. 1, 901 sq.; Suskind, in Bengel's Archiv. 1, 182 sq.; B. Crusius, ad loc.; Seyffarth, Chronol. Sacra, p. 114; Robinson, Harmony, p. 193), which, however, is not certain (Lücke, ad loc.; Anger, De temp. in Act. Apost. ratione, 1, 24 sq.; Jacobi, ut sup. p. 864 sq.), we must assign a period of three and a half years (Eusebius, 1, 10, 3), as lately Seyffarth has done (Summary of recent Discoveries in Chronol. N.Y. 1857, p. 183), although on the most singular grounds (see Alford, Commentary on Joh 5:1). Otherwise the evangelists hardly afford more than two years and a few months (see Anger, ut sup. p. 28; Hase, p. 17 sq.) to the public labors of Jesus (see generally Laurbeck, De annis ministerii Chr., Altdorf, 1700; Korner, Quot Paschata Christus post baptism. celebraverit, Lips. 1779; Pries, De numero Paschatum Christi, Rostock, 1789; Lahode, De die et anno ult. Pasch. Chr. Hal. 1749; Marsh's remarks in Michaelis's Introd. 2, 46 sq.). Again, as the apostles were not uninterruptedly in company with Jesus, the time of their proper association with him might be still further reduced somewhat, although we can not (with Hanlein, De temporis, quo J.C. cume Apostol. versatus est, duratione, Erl. 1796) assume it to have been barely some nine months. Under these three (or four) Paschal festivals writers have repeatedly endeavored, for historical and particularly apologetic purposes, to arrange all the single occurrences which the first evangelists mention without chronological sequence, and so to obtain a complete chronological view of Jesus' entire journeys and teaching. Yet, notwithstanding so great a degree of ingenuity has been expended upon this subject, none of the Gospel Harmonies hitherto constructed can be regarded as more than a series, of historical conjectures, since the narrative of the first three evangelists presents but little that can guide to a measurably certain conclusion in such an arrangement, and John himself does not appear to relate the incidents in strictly chronological order according to these Passovers (see generally Eichhorn, Einl. ins N.T., 692 sq.). The most important of these attempts are, Lightfoot, Chronicle of the O.T. and N.T. Lond. 1655; Doddridge, Expositor of the N.T. London, 1739; Rus, Harmonia Evangelistar. Jen. 1727; Macknight, Harmony of the four Gospels, London, 1756, Latine fecit notasque adjecit Ruckersfelder, Brem. 1772; Bengel, Richt. Harmonie der 4 Evangel. 3d edit. Tubing. 1766; Newcome, Harmony of the Gospels, Dublin, 1778; Paulus, Comment. 1, 446 sq.; 2, 1 sq., 384 sq.; 3, 82 sq.; Kaiser, Ueb. die synopt. Zusammenstell. der 4 Evang. Nuremb. 1828; Clausen, Quat. evangel. tabuloe synopt. sec. rationem tempor. Copenhagen, 1829; Wieseler, Chronolog. Synopse der 4 Evang. Hamb. 1843; Townsend's Chronol Arrang. of the N. Test. Lond. 1821, Bost. 1837; Greswell, Harmonia Evang. Lond. 1830; Robinson, Harmony of the Gospels (Greek), Bost. 1845 (Engl. id.); Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangel. Leipz. 1851; Strong, Harmony of the Gospels (English), N.Y. 1852 (Greek), ib. 1854; Stroud, Greek Harmony, Lond. 1853. SEE HARMONIES.
10. Besides the twelve apostles (q.v.), Jesus also chose seventy (q.v.) persons as a second more private order (Lu 10:1 sq.), who have been supposed by some to correspond to some Jewish notion of the seventy nations of the world, inasmuch as Luke shows a tendency to such generalization; but this number was probably selected (see Kuinol, ad loc.) with reference to the seventy elders of the Jews (Nu 11:16 sq.), composing the Sanhedrim, just as the twelve apostles represented the twelve tribes of Israel (compare generally Burmann, Exercit. Acad. 2, 95 sq.; Heumann, De 70 Christi legatis, Gotting. 1743). Their traditional names (see Assemani, Biblioth. Or. 3, 1, 319 sq.: Fabric. Lux, p. 115 sq.), some of which are cited by Eusebius (1, 12), might have some historical ground but for the manifest endeavor to place in the illustrious rank of the seventy every conspicuous individual of the apostolical age, concerning whom nothing positive was known to the contrary. The account of Luke himself has sometimes been called in question as unhistorical (Strauss, 1, 566 sq.; Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter, 2, 45; see, on the other hand, Neander, p. 541 sq.).
Respecting the characteristics of Jesus' teaching (see especially Winkler, Ueber J. Lehrfahigkeit und Lehrart, Leipz. 1797; Behn, Ueb. die Lehrart Jesu u. seiner Apostel, Lubeck, 1791; Hauff, Bemerkungen über die Lehrart Jesu, Offenbach, 1788; H. Ballauf, Die Lehrart Jesu als vortrefflich gezeigt, Hannov. 1817; H.N. la Cle, De Jesu Ch. instituendi methodo horn. ingenia excolente, Groning. 1835; Ammon, Bibl. Theol. 2, 328 sq.; Planck, Geschichte d. Christenth. 1, 161 sq.; Hase, Leben Jes. p. 123 sq.; Neander, p. 151 sq.; Weisse, 1, 376 sq.), we may remark that all his discourses, which were delivered sometimes in the synagogues (Mt 13:54; Lu 4:22, etc.), sometimes in public places, and even in the open field, sometimes in the Temple court, were suggested on the occasion (Joh 4:32 sq.; 7:37 sq.), either by some transaction or natural phenomenon, or else by some recital (Lu 13:1), or expression of others (Mt 8:10). He loved especially to clothe his sentiments in comparisons (see Greiling, p. 201 sq.), parables (Mt 13:11 sq., 34 sq.) (for these are preeminently distinguished for simplicity, conciseness, natural beauty, intelligibleness, and dignity; see especially Unger, De parabolar. Jesu natura, intepretatione, usu, Leipz. 1828), allegories (Joh 6:32 sq.; 10; 15), and apothegms (Matthew 5), sometimes also paradoxes (Joh 2:19; Joh 6:53; Joh 8:58), which exactly suited the comprehension of his audience (Mr 4:33; Lu 13:15 sq.; 14:5 sq.); and he even adapted the novelty and peculiarity of his doctrines to familiar Jewish forms, which in his mouth lose that ruggedness and unaesthetic character in which they have come down to us in the Talmud (comp. Weisse, De more Domini acceptos a magistris Jud. loquedi ac disserendi modos sapienter emendandi; Viteb. 1792). SEE ALLEGORY; SEE PARABLE. In contests with learned Jews, Jesus knew how, by simple clearness of intellect, to defeat their arrogant dialectics, and yet was able to pursue their own method of inferential argument (Mt 12:25). When they proposed to him captious questions, he brought. them, not unfrequently by similar questions, mostly in the form of a dilemma (Mt 21:24; Mt 22:20; Lu 10:29 sq.; 20:3 sq.), or by appeal to the explicit written law or to their sacred history (Mt 9:13; Mt 12:3 sq.; 19:4 sq.; Lu 6:2 sq.; 10:26 sq.; 20:28 sq.), or by analogies from ordinary life (Mt 12:10 sq.), to maintain silence, or put them to embarrassment with all their sagacity and legal zeal (Mt 22:42 sq. Joh 8:3 sq.); sometimes he disarmed them by the exercise of his miraculous power (Lu 5:24). With a few exceptions, John alone assigns longer speeches of a dogmatic character to Jesus; nor is it any matter of surprise that the Wisdom which delivered itself to the populace in maxims and similes should permit itself to be understood, in the circle of the priests and those erudite in the law, connectedly and mystically on topics of the higher gnosis, although even in John, of course, we can not expect the ipsissima verba. In a formal treatment, moreover, his representations, especially those addressed to the people, could not be free from accommodation (P. van Hemert, Ueb. Accommod. im N.T. Dortmund and Leipz. 1797); but whether he made use of the material (not merely negative) species of accommodation is not a historical, but a dogmatic question (comp. thereon Bretschneider, Handb. d. Dogm. 1, 420 sq.; Wegschneider, Institut. p. 119 sq.; De Wette, Sittenlehre, 3, 131 sq.; Neander, p. 216 sq.). SEE ACCOMMODATION. Like the O.T. prophets, he sometimes also employed symbolical acts (Joh 13:1 sq., 20, 22; comp. Lu 9:47 sq.). A dignified expression, a keen but affectionate look, a gesticulation reflecting the inward inspiration (Hegemeister, Christum gestus pro concione usurpasse, Servest. 1774), may have contributed not a little to the force of his words, and gained for him, in opposing the Pharisees and lawyers, the eulogium of eloquence (compare Joh 7:46; Joh 18:6; Mt 7:28 sq.). The tuition which Jesus imparted to the apostles (comp. Greiling, p. 213 sq.), was apparently private (Mt 13:11 sq.; see Colln, Bibl. Theol. 2, 14). SEE APOSTLE. Finally, Jesus commonly spoke Syro-Chaldee (comp. e.g. Mr 3:17; Mr 5:41; Mr 7:34; Mt 27:47; see Malala, Chronograph. p. 13), like the Palestinian Jews generally, SEE LANGUAGE, not Greek (Diodati, De Christo Groece loquente, Neap. 1767, translated in the Am. Bibl. Repos. Jan. 1844, p. 180 sq.; comp. on the contrary, Ernesti, Neueste theol. Bibl. 1, 269 sq.), although he might have understood the latter language, or even Latin (Wernsdorf, De Christo Latine loquente, Viteb.; see generally Reiske, De lingua vern. J. C. Jen. 1670; Bh. de Rossi, Della lingua propria di Christo, Parm. 1773; Zeibich, De lingua Judoeor. temp. Christi et. Apost. Vitebsk, 1791; Wisemann, in his Hor. Syriac. Rom. 1828). No writings of his are extant (the spuriousness of the so-called letter to the king of Edessa, given by Eusebius, 1, 13, is evident; comp. also Rohr's Krit. Prediger-biblioth. 1, 161 sq. SEE ABGAR: the alleged written productions of Jesus may be seen in Fabricii Cod. Apocr. 1, 303 sq.), nor was there need of any, since he had provided for the immediate dissemination of his doctrines through the apostles, and he wished even to turn away attention from the literature of the age to the spirit and life of a thorough piety (compare Hauff, Briefe d. Werth der schriftl. Rel.-Urkund. betreffnd, 1, 94 sq.; Sartorius, Cur Christus scripti nihil reliquerit, Leipz. 1815; Witting, Warum J. nichts Schriftl. hinterlassen, Bschw. 1822; Giesecke, Warum hat J.C. über sich u. s. Relig. nichts Schriftl. hinterlassen, Lineb. 1823; B. Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 22 sq.; Neander, p. 150; comp. Hase, p. 11). Jesus has been improperly entitled a Rabbi, or high rank of religious teacher (רִבַּי, ῥαββί), in the sense of the Jewish schools, as having been thus styled not only by the populace (Mr 10:51; Joh 20:16), or his disciples (Joh 1:39,50; Joh 4:31; Joh 9:2; Joh 11:8; Mt 26:25, etc.), but also by Nicodemus (Joh 3:2), and even his enemies (Joh 6:25) themselves (Vitringa, Synag. vet. p. 706; Paulus, Leben Jes. 1, 122 sq.; see, on the contrary, C. E. Schmid, De promotione acad. Christo ejusque discipulis perperam tributa, Lips. 1740). In the time of Jesus persons had no occasion to aspire to the formality of learned honors, as in later ages (Neander, p. 50), and Jesus had little sympathy with such an ostentatious spirit (Joh 7:15). SEE RABBI. (Additional literature may be seen in Volbeding, p. 25.) SEE PROPHET.
11. The Jews expected miracles of the Messiah (Joh 7:31; Joh 4 Esdr. 13:50; comp. Mt 8:17; Joh 20:30 sq.; see Bertholdt, Christologia Judoeor. p. 168 sq.), such as Jesus performed (τέρατα, σημεῖα, δυνάμεις). These all had a moral tendency, and aimed at beneficent results (on Mt 8:28 sq., see Paulus, ad loc.; Bretschneider, Handb. d. Dogm. 1, 307 sq.; Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 134; on Mt 21:18 sq., see Fleck. Vertheid. d. Christenth. p. 138 sq.), in which respects they are in striking contrast with the silly thaumaturgy of the apocryphal gospels (see Tholuck, Glaubwurdigk. d. evang. Gesch. p. 406 sq.), consisting mostly of raising the dead and the cure (Mr 6:56) of such maladies as had baffled all scientific remedies (insanity, epilepsy, palsy, leprosy blindness, etc.). He asked no reward (comp. Mt 10:8), and performed no miracles to gratify curiosity (Mt 16:1 sq.; Mr 8:11 sq.), or to excite the astonishment of a sensuous populace; rather he repeatedly forbade the public report of his extraordinary deeds (Mt 9:30; Mr 1:44; Mr 7:36; Mr 8:26; Lu 5:14; Lu 8:56; Plitt, in the Hess. Heboper, 1850, p. 890 sq., takes an erroneous view of Mr 5:19, for in verse 20 Jesus bids the man relate his cure to his relatives only), and he avoided the popular outbursts of joy, which would have swelled loudly at his particularly successful achievements (Joh 5:13), only suffering these miracles to be acknowledged to the honor of God (Lu 8:39 sq.; 17:16 sq.). In effecting cures he sometimes made use of some means (Mr 7:33; Mr 8:23; Joh 9:6 sq.; comp. Spinoza, Tract. theol. pol. c. 6, p. 244, ed. Paul.; Med.-herm. Untersuch. p. 335 sq.; Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 223), but in general he employed simply a word (Mt 8:1 sq.; Joh 5:8, etc.), even at a distance (Mt 8:5 sq.; Lu 7:6 sq.; Joh 4:50), or merely a touch of the invalid (Mt 8:3,15) or the afflicted member (blind eyes, Mt 9:29; Mt 20:34; see Seiler, Christ. an in operibus mirabilib. arcanis usus sit remedus, Erlang. 1795; also, Jesus an miracula suis ipsius viribus ediderit, ib. 1799); on the other hand, likewise, a cure was experienced when the infirm touched his garment (Mt 9:20 sq.; 14:36), but in such a case always on the presumption of a firm faith (Mt 9:28; compare Joh 5:6), so that when this failed the miraculous power was not exercised (Mt 13:58; Mr 11:5). On this very account some moderns have asserted (Gutsmuth, Diss. de Christo Med. Jen. 1812 [on the opposite, Ammon's Theolog. Journ. 1, 177 sq.]; Ennemoser, Magnetism. p. 473 sq.; Kieser, Syst. des Tellurism. 2, 502 sq.; Meyer, Naturanalogien od. die Erschein. d. anim. Magnet. mit Hins. auf Theol. Hamb. 1839; comp. Weisse, 1, 349 sq.) that these cures were principally effected by Jesus through the agency of animal magnetism (comp. Lu 8:48; see generally Pfau, De Christo academ. N.T. medico primario, Erlang. 1743; Schulthess, in the Neuest. theol. Nachr. 1829, p. 360 sq.). SEE HEALING. That the Jewish Rabbis and the Essenes performed, or perhaps only pretended to perform, similar cures, at least upon demoniacs, appears from Mt 12:27; Lu 11:19; Mr 9:38 sq.; comp. Josephus, War, 2, 8, 6; Ant. 8, 2, 5). The sentiments of Jesus himself as to the value and tendency of his miracles are undeniable: he disapproved that eagerness for wonders displayed by his contemporaries (Mt 16:1; Joh 2:18) which sprung from sensuous curiosity or from pure malevolence (Mt 12:39; Mt 16:4; Mr 8:11 sq.), or else had a thankless regard merely to their own advantage (Joh 4:48; Joh 6:24), but which ever desired miracles merely as such, while he regarded them as a national method for attaining his purpose of awakening and calling forth faith (Joh 11:42; comp. Mt 11:4 sq.; Lu 7:21 sq.), and hence often lamented their ineffectualness (Mt 11:20 sq.; Lu 10:13; see especially Nitzsch, Quantum Christus miraculis tribuerit, Viteb. 1796; Schott, Opusc. 1, 111 sq.; Lehnerdt, De nonnullis Chr. effatis unde ipse quid quantumq. tribuerit miraculis cognoscetur, Regiom. 1833; comp. Paulus, in the Neu. theol. Journ. 9, 342 sq., 413 sq.; Storr, in Flatt's Mag. 4, 178 sq.; Eiseln, in the Kirchenblatter fur das Bisth. Rottenburg, 1, 161 sq.; De Wette, Biblisch. Dogm. p. 196 sq.; Strauss, Glaubenslehre, 1, 86 sq.). As an undeniably effective means of introducing Christianity, these miracles have ever retained a profound significance, of which they cannot be deprived by any efforts to explain them on natural principles (Br. ub. Rationalismus, p. 215 sq.), or to ascribe them to traditional exaggeration; for all investigations of this character have as yet generally resulted only in a contorted exegesis, and are oftentimes more difficult of belief than the miraculous incidents themselves (see on the subject generally Koster, Immanuel oder Charact. der neutest. Wundererzahlungen, Lpz. 1821; Johannsen, in Schroter and Klein's Oppositionschr. 5, 571 sq.; 6, 31 sq.; Miller, De mirac. J. Ch. nat. et necess. Marburg and Hal. 1839; Neander, p. 256 sq.). SEE MIRACLE.
12. Several of the circumstances of Christ's passion (q.v.) are explained under SEE BLOODY SWEAT, SEE CROSS, SEE LITHOSTROTON, SEE PILATE, SEE ECLIPSE, etc. (compare Merillii Notoe in passion. J. Chr. Par. 1622, Fref. and Lips. 1740; Walther, Jurist.-histor. Betracht. ub. d. Geschichte u. d. Leid. u. Sterb. Christi, Breslau, 1738, 1774; Die Leidensgesch. Jesu exegetisch und archaolog. bearbeitet, Stuttg. 1809; Hug, in the Zeitschr. f. d. Erzbisth. Freiburg, 5, 1 sq.; Friedlieb, Archaol. d. Leidensgesch. Bonn, 1843). The question of the legality or illegality of the sentence of death pronounced upon Jesus by the Sanhedrim and procurator has of late been warmly discussed (see, for the former view, Salvador, Histoire des institutions de Moise, Bruxel. 1822, 2, c. 3; also, Jesus Christ et sa doctrine, Par. 1838; Hase, Leben Jes. p. 197 sq.; on the opposite, Dupin, L'aine Jesus devant Caiphe et Pilate, Par. 1829; Ammon, Fortbild. 1, 341 sq.; B. Crusius, Opusc. p. 149 sq.; Neander, p. 683 sq.; comp. also Daumer, Syst. der specul. Philos. p. 41 sq.; and Neubig, Ist J. mit voll. Rechte den Tod eines Verbrechers gestorben? Erl. 1836). The Sanhedrim condemned Jesus as a blasphemer of God (Mt 26:65 sq.; Mr 14:64; compare Joh 19:7), for which the Law prescribed capital punishment (Le 24:16); but he would have been guilty of this crime if he had falsely claimed (Mt 26:63 sq.; Lu 22:67
sq.) to be the Messiah (Son of God), and the fact of this profession was substantiated indirectly by witnesses (Mt 26:60 sq.; Mr 14:57 sq.), and directly by Jesus' own declaration (Mt 26:63 sq.; Mr 14:61 sq.). So far the transaction might seem to be tolerably regular, except that swearing the prisoner as to his own crime is an unheard of process in law. Moreover, there was more than a single superficial examination of witnesses (Mt 26:60), and Jesus had really uttered (Joh 2:19) what the deponents averred. But that Jesus could not be the Messiah was presupposed by the Sanhedrim on the ground of their Christological views; and here were they chiefly to blame. More exact inquiries concerning the teachings and acts of Jesus would have surely corrected their impression that Jesus was a blasphemer, and perhaps led them to a rectification of their expectations respecting the Messiah. Another point is entitled to consideration in estimating their judicial action. The Sanhedrim's broader denunciation of Jesus before Pilate as a usurper of royal power, and their charging him with treason (crimen loesoe majestatis) (Mt 27:11; Mr 15:2; Lu 23:2; Joh 18:33), is explained by the fact that the Messiah was to be a theocratic king, and that the populace for a few days saluted Jesus with huzzas as the Son of David (Mt 21; Joh 12). Jesus certainly did not aspire to royalty in the political sense, as he declared before Pilate (Joh 18:36 sq.): this the Sanhedrim, if they had been dispassionate judges, must have been assured of, even if they had not previously inquired or ascertained how far Jesus was from pretensions to political authority. The sentence itself is therefore less to be reprobated than that the high court did not, as would have been worthy itself, become better informed respecting the charges; their indecorous haste evinces an eagerness to condemn the prisoner at all hazards, and their vindictive manner clearly betrays their personal malice against him. That Pilate passed and executed the sentence of death contrary to his better judgment as a civil officer is beyond all doubt. SEE PILATE.
That Jesus passed through a merely apparent death has been supposed by many (see especially Bahrdt, Zwecke Jesu, 10, 174 sq.; Paulus, Comment. 3, 810 sq., and Leben Jesu, 1, 2, 281 sq.; on the contrary, see Richter, De morte Servatoris in cruce, Gott. 1757, also in his Diss. 4 med. p. 1 sq.; Gruner, De Jes. C. morte vera, non simulata, Jena, 1805; Schmidtmann, Medic.-philos. Beweis, dass J. nach s. Kreuzigung nicht von einer todtahnl. Ohnmacht befallen gewesen, Osnabr. 1830). The piercing of the side of Jesus by the lance of a Roman soldier (Joh 19:34; his name is traditionally given as Longinus, see Thilo, Apocr. p. 586) has been regarded as the chief circumstance upon which everything here depends (Triller, De mirando lateris cordisque Christi vulnere, in Gruner's Tract. de doemoniacis, Jena, 1775; Eschenbach, Scripta med.-bibl. p. 82 sq.; Bartholini, De latere Christi aperto, Lugd. Bat. 1646), inasmuch as before this puncture the above cited physicians assume but a torpor and swoon, which might seem the more probable because crucifixion could hardly have caused death in so short a time (Mr 15:44). SEE CRUCIFY. But the account of the wound in the side is not such as to allow the question to be by that means fully and absolutely determined (see Briefe über Rationalismus, p. 236 sq.), since the evangelist does not state which side (πλευρά) was pierced, nor where, nor how deeply. It is therefore surely a precarious argument to presume the left side (although the position of the soldier, holding the spear in his right hand and thrusting it opposite him, would strongly countenance this supposition), and equally so to assume a very deep incision, penetrating the pericardium and heart, thus changing a swoon into actual death; nevertheless, comp. Joh 20:25-26, in favor of this last particular. The purpose of the stab — to ascertain whether the crucified person was still alive — also demanded a forcible thrust, and the issue of blood and water vouched for by the evangelist (ἐξῆλθεν εὐθύς αϊvμα καὶ ὕδωρ, perhaps a hendiadys for bloody water) would certainly point to real death as immediately resulting. By this we must understand the clotted blood (cruor) in connection with the watery portion (serum), which both flow together from punctures of the larger blood vessels (veins) of bodies just dead (from the arteries of the breast, as supposed by Hase [Heb. Jesu, 2d ed. p. 193], no blood would issue, for these are usually empty in a corpse), and the piercing of the side would therefore not cause, but only indicate death. SEE BLOOD AND WATER. In fine, the express assertion of the evangelists, that Jesus breathed his last (ἐξέπνενσε [Mr 15:37; Lu 23:46], a term exactly equivalent to the Latin expiravit, he expired, and so doubtless to be understood in its common acceptance of death), admits no other hypothesis than that of actual and complete dissolution. SEE AGONY.
The fact of the return of Jesus alive from the grave (comp. Ammon, De vera J. C. reviviscentia, Erlang. 1808; Griesbach, De fontib. unde Evangel. suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint, Jena, 1783; Friedrich, in Eichhorn's Biblioth. 7, 204 sq.; Doderl. De J.C. in vit. reditu, Utr. 1841)
is not invalidated by Strauss's ingenious hypotheses (2, 645; see Hase, p. 212; Theile, p. 105 sq.; comp. Kihn, Wie ging Ch. durch des Grabes Thur, Strals. 1838); but if Jesus had been merely dead in appearance, so delicate a constitution, already exhausted by sufferings before crucifixion, would certainly not have revived without special — that is, medical — assistance (Neander, p. 708): in the cold rock vault, in an atmosphere loaded with the odor of aromatics, bound hand and foot with grave clothes, in utter prostration, he would, in the ordinary course of things, have rather been killed than resuscitated. His return to life must therefore be regarded as a true miracle. SEE RESURRECTION. On the grave of Jesus, SEE GOLGOTHA.
After he had risen (he lay some thirty-six hours in the grave; not three full days, as asserted by Seyffarth, Summary of Chronol. Discov. N.Y. 1857, p. 188), he first showed himself to Mary Magdalene (Mt 28:9. Mr 16:9; Joh 20:14; but about the same hour to the other women, see Strong's Greek Harmony, p. 364), then to his apostles in various places in and about Jerusalem (Lu 24:13 sq., 36 sq.; Joh 20:19 sq.), and was recognized by them — not immediately, it is true (for the few past days of suffering may have considerably disfigured him bodily), but yet unequivocally — as their crucified teacher (Neander, p. 715 sq.), and even handled, although with some reserve (Lu 24:37; Joh 21:12). He did not appear in public; had he done so, his enemies would have found opportunity to remove him a second time out of the way, or to represent him to the people as a sham Jesus: his resurrection could have its true significance to his believers only (see generally Jahn, Nachtrage, p. 1 sq.). After a stay of 40 days, he was visibly carried up into the sky before the eyes of his disciples (Lu 24:51; Ac 1:9. Mr 16:19, is of doubtful authenticity). Of this, three evangelical witnesses (Matthew, Mark, and John) relate nothing (for very improbable reasons of this, see Flatt's Magaz. 8, 55 sq.), although the last implies it in the words of Jesus, "I ascend to my Father," and closes his Gospel with the last interview of Jesus in Galilee, at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21; compare Mt 28:16). The apostles, in the doctrinal expositions, occasionally allude to this ascension (ἀνάληψις) of Jesus (Ac 3:21; 1Ti 3:16; Re 12:5), and often speak (Ac 2:33; Ac 5:31; Ac 7:55-56; Ro 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1) of Christ as seated at the right hand of God (see Griesbach, Sylloge locor. N.T. ad adscens. Christi in coel. spectantium, Jena, 1793; also in his
Opuscal. 2, 471 sq.; B. Crusius, Bibl. Theol. p. 400). Over the final disposal of the body of Christ after its ascension from the earth, an impenetrable veil must ever rest. The account of the ascension (see Stud. und Krit. 1841, 3, 597 sq.) is still treated by many of the critical theologians (comp. Ammon, Ascensus J. C. in coel. histor. Bibl. Gotting. 1800, also in his Nov. opusc. theol.; Horst, in Horn's Gotting. Museum f. Theol. 1, 2, 3 sq.; Br. über Rational. p. 238 sq.; Strauss, 2, 672 sq.; Hase, p. 220) as one of the myths (molded on the well known O.T. examples, Ge 5:24; 2Ki 2:11, and serving as a basis of the expectation of his visible return from heaven, Ac 1:11; for, that the Jews of that day believed in an ascension of the Messiah to heaven [comp. Joh 6:62], appears from the book Zohar [Schottgen, Horoe Hebr. 2, 596]: the comparisons with heathen apotheoses are not in point [B. Hasse, Historioe de Chr. in vitum et coel. redeunte ex narraat. Liv. de Romulo illustratio, Regiom. 1805; Gfrorer, Urchristenth. 1, 2, 374 sq.], and the theories of Bauer in Flatt's Mag. 16, 173 sq., Seller, Weichert, and Himly [see Bretschneider, Syst. Entwickel. p. 589; Otterbein, De adscensione in coelum adspectabili modo facta, Duisb. 1802; or Fogtmann, Comm. de in coelum adscensu, Havn. 1826] are as little to the purpose that originated among the Christians, or were even invented by the apostles (Gramberg, Religionsid. 2, 461) — a view that is forbidden by the close proximity of the incident in point of time (London [Wesleyan] Review, July, 1861). It can, therefore, only be regarded as a preternatural occurrence (Neander, p. 726). SEE ASCENSION.
13. Respecting the personal appearance of Jesus we know nothing with certainty. According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 7, 18), the woman who was cured of her hemorrhage (Mt 9:20) had erected from thankfulness a brazen statue (see Hasaei Dissertat. sylloge, p. 314 sq.; comp. Heinichen, Exc. 10 ad Eusebius, 3, 397 sq.; Thilo, Cod. apocr. 1, 562 sq.) of Jesus at Paneas (Caesarea-Philippi), which was destroyed (Sozom. Hist. Eccl. 5, 21) at the command of the emperor Julian (compare Niceph. Hist. Eccl. 6, 15). Jesus himself, according to several ancient (but scarcely trustworthy) statements (Evagr. 4:27; Niceph. 2:7), sent his likeness to Abgarus (q.v.) at Edessa (comp. Bar-Hebr. Chron. p. 118), where was also said to have been found the handkerchief of Christ with an imprint of his countenance (Cedrenus, Hist. p. 176; Bar-Hebraeus, Chron. p. 168). Still another figure of Jesus is also mentioned (Nicephorus, ut sup.; this credulous historian names the evangelist Luke as the painter successively of Jesus, Mary, and several apostles), and a certain Publius Lentulus, a Roman officer (according to one MS. a proconsul) is reported to have composed a description of Christ's personal appearance, which (with great variation of the text) is still exhibited as extant (comp. Fabricii Cod. apocr. N, Test. 1, 301 sq.; Pseudolentuli, Joa. Damasc. et Niceph [Hist. Eccles. 1, 40] prosopograph. J. C. edit. Carpzov, Helmst. 1774). This last, according to the text of Gabler (in Latin), reads as follows: "A man of tall stature, good appearance, and a venerable countenance, such as to inspire beholders both with love and awe. His hair worn in a circular form and curled, rather dark and shining, flowing over the shoulders, and parted in the middle of the head, after the style of the Nazarenes. His forehead, smooth and perfectly serene, with a face free from wrinkle or spot, and beautified with a moderate ruddiness, and a faultless nose and mouth. His beard full, of an auburn color like his hair, not long, but parted. His eyes quick and clear. His aspect terrible in rebuke, placid and amiable in admonition, cheerful without losing its gravity: a person never seen to laugh, but often to weep," etc. (compare Niceph. 1, 40). (See Volbeding, p. 6.) The description given by Epiphanius (Monach. p. 29, ed. Dressel) has lately been discovered by Tischendorf (Cod. Ven. cl. 1, cod. 3, No. 12,000) in a somewhat different and perhaps more original form (in Greek), as follows: "But my Christ and God was exceedingly beautiful in countenance. His stature was fully developed, his height being six feet. He had auburn hair, quite abundant, and flowing down mostly over his whole person. His eyebrows were black, and not highly arched; his eyes brown, and bright. He had a family likeness, in his fine eyes, prominent nose, and good color, to his ancestor David, who is said to have had beautiful eves and a ruddy complexion. He wore his hair long, for a razor never touched it; nor was it cut by any person, except by his mother in his childhood. His neck inclined forward a little, so that the posture of his body was not too upright or stiff. His face was full, but not quite so round as his mother's; tinged with sufficient color to make it handsome and natural; mild in expression, like the blandness in the above description of his mother, whose features his own strongly resembled." This production bears evident marks of being a later fabrication (see Gabler, 2 Progr. in authentiam epist. Lentuli, etc., Jen. 1819, 1822; also in his Opusc. 2, 638 sq.). There is still another notice of a similar kind (see the Jen. Lit.-Zeit. 1821, sheet 40), and also an account of the figure of Jesus, which the emperor Alexander Severus is said to have had in his lararium or household shrine (see Zeibich in the Nov. Miscell. Lips. 3, 42 sq.). SEE CHRIST, IMAGES OF.
From the New Test. the following particulars only may be gathered: Jesus was free from bodily defects (for so much is implied in the type of an unblemished victim under the law, and otherwise the people would not have recognized in him a prophet, while the Pharisees would have been sure to throw any physical deformity in his teeth), but his exterior could have presented nothing remarkable, since Mary Magdalene mistook him for the gardener (Joh 20:15), and the two disciples on the way to Emmaus (Lu 24:16), as well as the apostles at his last appearance by the Sea of Gennesareth (Joh 21:4 sq.), did not at first recognize him; but his form then probably bore many permanent marks of his severe sufferings. The whole evangelical narrative indicates sound and vigorous bodily health. In look and voice he must have had something wonderful (Joh 18:6), but at the same time engaging and benevolent: his outward air was the expression of the high, noble, and free spirit dwelling within him. The assertions of the Church fathers (Clem. Alex. Poedag. 3, 92; Strom. 6, 93; Origen, Cels. 6, 327, ed. Spenc.) that Christ had an unprepossessing appearance are of no authority, being evidently conformed to Isaiah 53 (but see Piiartii Assertio de singulari J. Ch. pulchritudine, Par. 1651; see generally, in addition to the above authorities, F. Vavassor, De forma Christi, Paris, 1649; on the portraits of Jesus, Reiske, De imaginibus Christi, Jena, 1685; Jablonsky, Opusc. edit. Te Water, 3, 377; Junker, Ueber Christuskopfe, in Ieusel's Miscell. artist. Inh. pt. 25, p. 28 sq.; Ammon, Ueb. Christuskopfe, in his Magazin. f. christl. Pred. 1, 2, 315 sq.; Tholuck, Literar. Anzeig. 1834, No. 71; Grimm, Die Sage und Ursprung der Christusbilder, Berl. 1843; Mrs. Jameson, Hist. of our Lord exemplified in Works of Art [Lond. 1865]). (See further in Volbeding, p. 19; Hase, p. 65; Meth. Quart. Rev. Oct. 1862, p. 679.)
14. It might be an interesting question, had we the means of accurately determining, how and by what instrumentalities Jesus, in a human point of view, attained his spiritual power, or to what influence (aside from divine inspiration) he owed his intellectual formation as a founder of religion (Ammon, Bibl. Theolog. 1, 234 sq.; Handbuch der christl. Sittenlehre, 1, 43 sq.; Kaiser, Bibl. Theolog. 1, 234 sq.; De Wette, Bibl. Dogm. p. 185 sq.; Colln, Bibl. Theolog. 2, 8 sq.; Hase, p. 56 sq.; compare Rau, De momentis us quoe ad Jes. divinar. rerum scientia imbuendum viri habuisse, videantur, Erlang. 1796; Greiling, Leben Jesu, p. 58 sq.; Planck, 1, 23 sq.; Briefe über Rational. p. 154 sq.). But while there has evidently been on the one side a general tendency to exaggerate the difficulties which the natural improvement of Jesus had to overcome (Reinhard, Plan Jesu, p. 485 sq.), yet none of the hypotheses proposed for the solution of the question has satisfied the conditions of the problem, or been free from clear historical difficulties. Many, for instance, suppose that Jesus had his religious education in the order of the Essenes (q.v.), and they think that in the Christian morals they especially find many points of coincidence with the doctrines of that Jewish sect (Reim, Christus und die Vernunft. p. 668 sq.; Staudlein, Gesch. d. Sittenlehre Jesu, 1, 570 sq.; see, on the contrary, Luderwald, in Helke's Magaz. 4, 378 sq.; Bengel, in Flatt's Magaz. 7, 126 sq.; J. H. Dorfmüller, De dispari Jesu Essoeorumque disciplina Wunsidel. 1803; Wegnern, in Illgen's Zeitschr. 1841, pt. 2; comp. Heubner, 5th Append. to his edit. of Reinhard's Plan Jesu). Others attribute the culture of Jesus to the Alexandrio-Jewish religious philosophy (Bahrdt, Briefe über die Bibel in Volkston, 1, 376 sq.; Gfrorer, in the Gesch. des Urchristenth.). Still others imagine that Sadduceeism, SEE SADDUCEE , or a comparison of this with Pharisaism, SEE PHARISEE, was the source of the pure religious views of Jesus (Henke, Mgaz. 5, 426 sq.; Des Cotes, Schutzschr. fur Jesus von Nazareth, p. 128 sq.). Although single points in the teaching and acts of Jesus might be illustrated by each of these theories (as could not fail to be the case with respect to one who threw himself into the midst of the religious efforts of the age, and combined efficiency with right aims), yet the whole of his spiritual life and deeds, the high clearness of understanding, the purity of sentiment, and, above all, the independence of spirit and matchless moral power which stamp each particular with a significance that was his alone, cannot be thus explained (Thomson, Land and Book, 2, 86 sq.). A richly-endowed and profound mind is, moreover, presupposed in all such hypotheses (comp. Paulus, Leb. Jesu, 1, 89), Our object is simply to investigate the influences that aroused these spiritual faculties, unfolded them, and directed them in that path. And in determining these, it is clear at the outset that a powerful impulse must have been given to the natural development of Jesus' mind (Lu 2:52) by a diligent study of the Holy Scriptures, especially in the prophetical books (Isaiah and the Psalms, Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 119 sq.), which contained the germs of an improved monotheism, and are, for the most part, free from Jewish niceties. He would also derive assistance from a comparison of the Pharisaical statutes, which were unquestionably known to Jesus, and particularly of the Jewish Hellenism, Alexandrianism; SEE ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL, with those simple doctrines of the old Mosaism, especially as spiritualized by the prophets. How much may have been derived from outward circumstances we do not know; that the maternal training, and even the open (Lu 4:29) and romantic situation of Nazareth, had a beneficial influence in unfolding and cultivating his mind (Greiling, Leb. Jesu, p. 48), scarcely admits a doubt, nor that the neighborhood of Gentile inhabitants in the entire vicinity might have already weakened and repressed in the youthful soul of Jesus the old Jewish narrow mindedness. The age also afforded a crisis for bringing out and determining the bent of his genius. Learned instruction (see No. 6 above) Jesus had not enjoyed (Mt 13:54 sq.; Joh 7:15), although the Jewish fables (Toledoth Jesu, p. 5) assign him a youthful teacher named Elhanan (אֶלחָנָן), and Christian tradition (Histo in Joseph, c. 48 sq.) attributes to him wonderful aptness in learning (see generally Paulus, Leben Jesu, 1, 121 sq.). In addition to all these natural influences operating upon his human spirit, there was, above all, the plenary inspiration (Joh 3:34) which he enjoyed from the intercommunication of the divine nature; for the bare facts of his career, even on the lowest view that can be taken of the documents attesting these, are incapable of a rational explanation on the ground of his mere humanity (see J. Young, Christ of History, Lond. 1855, N.Y. 1857). SEE CHRIST. (For additional literature, see Volbeding, p. 36 sq.) His prediction of future events would not of itself be an evidence of a higher character than that of other prophets. SEE PROPHECY.
15. Respecting the enterprise on behalf of mankind which Jesus had conceived, and which he undeviatingly kept in view (see especially Reinhard, Versuch. ub. d. Plan den der Stifter der chr. Rel. zum Besten der Mensch. entwarf, 5th edit. by Heubner, Wittemb. 1830 [compare the Neues theol. Journ. 14, 24 sq.]; Der Zweck Jesu geschichtl. u. seelkundl. dargestellt, Leipz. 1816; Planck, 1, 7 sq., 86 sq.; Greiling. p. 120 sq.; Strauss, 1, 463 sq.; Neander, p. 115 sq.; Weisse, 1, 117 sq.), a few observations only can here be indulged. SEE REDEMPTION. That Jesus sought not simply to be a reformer of Judaism (Joh 4:22; Mt 15:24; compare Mt 5:17), SEE LAW, much less the founder of a secret association (Klotzsch, De Christo ab instituenda societate clandestina alieno, Viteb. 1786), but to unite all mankind in one great sacred family, is vouched for by his own declarations (Joh 4:23; Joh 10:16), by the whole tendency of his teaching, by his constant expression of the deepest sympathy with humanity in general, and finally by the selection of the apostles to continue his work; only he wished to confine himself personally to the boundaries of Judaea in the publication of the kingdom of God (Mt 15:24), whereas his disciples, led by the Holy Spirit, should eventually traverse the world as heralds of the truth (Mt 27:19 sq.). It is evident that to Jesus himself the outline of his design was always clearly defined in the course of his labors, but, on account of the dogmatic conformity of the delineations in John's Gospel, and the loose, unchronological development of it in the synoptical gospels, it is impossible accurately to show historically the gradual realization of this subjective scheme. But that Jesus at any moment of his life whatever had stated the political element of the theocracy as being blended with his spiritual emoluments (Hase, Leb. Jesu, p. 86 sq., 2d edit.) is an unwarrantable position (comp. Heubner, in Reinhard, ut sup. p. 394 sq.; Lücke, Pr. examinatur sententia de mutato per eventa adeogue sensim emendato Christi consilio, Gott. 1831; Neander, p. 121 sq.). The reason why he did not directly announce himself to the popular masses as the expected Messiah (indeed, he even evaded the question, Lu 20:1 sq., and forbade the spread of this report, Mt 16:20) unquestionably was, that the minds of the Jews were incapable of separating their carnal anticipations from the true idea of the Messiah (q.v.). He strove, therefore, on every occasion to set this idea itself in a right position before them, and occasionally suggested the identification of his person with the Messiah, partly by the epithet "Son of Man," which he applied to himself (see especially Mt 12:8), partly by explicit statements (Mt 13:16 sq.; Lu 4:21). Hence it is not surprising that the opinion of the people respecting him declined, and the majority regarded him only as a great prophet, chiefly interesting for his wonder working. He decidedly announced himself as the Messiah only to individual susceptible hearts (Joh 4:26; Joh 9:36 sq.), and also to the high priest at the conclusion of his career (Mt 26:64). The disciples required it merely for the confirmation of the faith they had already attained (Mt 16:13 sq.; Lu 9:20). SEE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
The moral and religious character of Jesus (humanly considered), which even in the synoptical gospels, that are certainly chargeable with no embellishment, appears in a high ideality, has never yet been depicted with accurate psychological skill (see Volbeding, p. 35), but usually as a model of virtue in general (yet see Jerusalem, Nachgelass. Schrift, 1, 75 sq.; Greiling, p. 9 sq.; E.G. Winckler, Vers. e. Psychocographie Jesu, Lpz. 1826; Ullmann, Sundlosig. Jes. p. 35 sq.; Ammon, Leb. Jes. 1, 240 sq.; Thiele, in the Darmst. Kirch.-Zeit. 1844, No. 92-94). (Comp. Hase, p. 62, 64.) On the (choleric) temperament of Jesus, see J.G. Walch, De temperamento Christi hom. Jen. 1753. Deep humility before God (Lu 18:19), and ardent love towards men in view of the determined sacrifice (Joh 10:18), were the distinguishing traits of his noble devotion, while the divine zeal that stirred his great soul concentrated all his virtues upon his one grand design. Jesus appears as the harmonious complete embodiment of religious resignation; but this was so far from being a result of innate weakness (although Jesus might have had a slender physical constitution), that his natural force of character subsided into it (for examples of high energy in feeling and act, see Joh 2:16 sq.; 8:44 sq.; Mt 16:23; Mt 23:5, etc.). Everywhere to this deep devotion was joined a clear, prudent understanding — a combination which alone can preserve a man of sensibility and activity from the danger of becoming a reckless enthusiast or a weak sentimentalist. This is most unmistakably exhibited in the account of his passion and death. Neither do we find in Jesus any trace of the austerity and gloomy sternness of other founders of religion, or even of his contemporary the Baptist (Mt 11:18 sq.). In the midst of eager listeners in the public streets or in the Temple, he spoke with the high dignity of a messenger of God; yet how affectionately sympathetic (Joh 11:35), how solicitous, how self-sacrificing did he exhibit himself in the bosom of the family, in the dear circle of his friends! What tender sympathy expressed itself in him on every occasion (Lu 7:13; Matthew 9:36: 14:14; 30:34). He was both (compare Ro 12:15) tearful among the tearful (Joh 11:35), and cheerful among the cheerful (Joh 2:1 sq.; Lu 7:34). On this very account the character of Jesus has at all times so irresistibly won the hearts of the good and noble of all people, since it evinces not merely the rarest magnanimity, such as to cause amazement, but at the same time the purest, most disinterested humanity, and thus presents to the observer not simply an object of esteem, but also of love. The history of Jesus' life is equally interesting to the child and the full-grown man, and certainly his example has effected at all times not less than his precepts. In accordance with this unmistakable sum of his character, certain single passages of the Gospels (e.g. Mt 12:46 sq.; 15:21 sq.; Joh 2:4), which, verbally apprehended, SEE CANA, might perplex us concerning Jesus (comp. J.F. Volbeding, Utrum Christus matrem genusque suum dissimulaverit et despexerit, Viteb. 1784; K.J. Klemm, De necessitudine J. Christo c. consanguineis intercedente, Lips. 1846), may be more correctly explained see Ammon, Leb. Jesu, 1, 243 sq.), and may be placed in harmony with others (e.g. Lu 2:51; compare Lange, De subjectione Chr. sub parentib. Lips. 1738). SEE ENSAMPLE.
The task of the world's redemption, acting as an ever present burden upon the Savior's mind, produced that pensiveness, not to say sadness, which was a marked characteristic of all his deportment. Rarely did his equanimity rise to exuberant joy, and that only in connection with the great ruling object of his life (Lu 10:21); oftener did it experience dejection of spirit (Joh 12:27), at times to the depths of mental anguish (Mr 14:34). SEE AGONY. It was this interior pressure that so frequently burst forth in sighs and tears (Joh 11:33; Lu 19:41), and made Jesus the ready sympathizer with human affliction (Joh 11:35). It is such spiritual and unselfish trials that ripen every truly great moral character, and it was accordingly needful that God, "in bringing many sons unto glory, should make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." The fact that Jesus was emphatically "a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," is the real key to the subdued and self-collected tone of his entire demeanor. SEE KENOSIS.
For an adequate explanation of the astonishing power which our Savior exercised over his auditors, and, indeed, exerted over all who came within his circle of influence, we are doubtless to look to two or three facts which have never yet been exhibited, at least in connection, with such graphic portraiture as to make his life stand out to the modern reader in its true moral grandeur, force, and vividness. These elements are partly suggested in the evangelist's statement that those who first hung upon the Redeemer's lips found in his discourses a new and divine assurance: "He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes" (Mt 7:29).
(1.) His doctrines were novel to his hearers. It was not so much because he announced to them the ushering in of a new dispensation, for upon this he merely touched in his introductory addresses and by way of arresting their attention; all details respecting that fresh era which could gratify curiosity, or even awaken it, he sedulously avoided, and he seemed anxious to divert the popular expectation from himself as the central figure in the coming scenes. It was the spiritual truths he communicated that burned upon the hearts of the listening populace with a strange intensity. True, the essential features of a religious life had been illustrated in their sacred books for centuries by holy men of old, and the most vital doctrines of the Gospel may be said to have been anticipated in the Mosaic code and the prophetical comments; nay, living examples were not wanting to confirm the substantial identity of religious experience under whatever outward economy. Yet, at the time of our Lord's advent, the fundamental principles of sound piety seem to have been forgotten or overlooked, especially by the Pharisees whose views and practices were regarded as the models by the nation at large. When, therefore, our Lord brought back the popular attention to the simple doctrines of love to God and man, not only as lying at the foundation of the O.T. ethics, but as comprising the whole duty of man, the simplicity, pertinence, and truthfulness of the sentiment came with an irresistible freshness of conviction to the minds of the humblest hearers. For this, too, they had already been prepared by the sad contrast between the precepts and the conduct of the highest sectaries of the day, by the tedious burden of the Mosaic ritual, and, above all, by the bitter yearnings after religious liberty in their own souls, which the current system of belief failed to supply. Sin yet lay as a load of anguish upon their hearts, and they eagerly embraced the gentle invitations of the Redeemer to the bosom of their offended heavenly Father. It was precisely the resurrection of these again obscured teachings that gave such power to the preaching of Luther, Whitefield, Wesley, Edwards, and others in subsequent times, and which converted the moral desert of their day into a spiritual Eden. But there was this to enhance the effect in the Savior's promulgations, that they awakened the expectation of a millennial reign; an idea misconstrued, indeed, by many of the Jews into that of a temporal dominion, but on that very account productive of a more boundless and extravagant enthusiasm. The national spirit was roused, and Jesus even found it necessary to repress and avoid the fanatical and disloyal manifestations to which it was instantly prone. Yet in those hearts which better understood "the kingdom of heaven," there arose the dawn of that Sabbatic day of which the Pentecostal effusion brought the meridian glory. (For the best elucidation of this difference between Christ's and his predecessors', as well as rivals' teaching, see Stier's Words of Jesus, passim.)
(2.) He spoke as God. Later preachers and reformers have felt a heroic boldness, and have realized a marvelous effect in their utterances, when fully impressed with the conviction of the divinity of their mission and the sacred character of their communications; but Jesus was no mere ambassador from the court of heaven; he was the Word of the Lord himself. Ancient prophets had made their effata by an inspired impulse, and corroborated them by outward miracles that enforced respect, if they did not command obedience; but Jesus possessed no restricted measure of the Spirit, and wrought wonders in no other's name; in him dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and the Sheknah stood revealed in his every act, look, and breath. "Never man spake like this," was the significant confession extorted from his very foes. He who came from the bosom of the Father told but the things he had seen and known when he unveiled eternal verities to men. His daily demeanor, too, under whatever exigency, or temptation, or provocation, was a most pungent and irrefragable comment on all he said — a faultless example reflecting a perfect doctrine. Unprecedented as were his miracles, his life itself was the greatest wonder of all. The manner, it is often truly observed, is quite as important in the public speaker as the matter; and, we may add, his personal associations with his hearers are often more influential with them than either. In all these particulars Christ has no parallel — he had no defect. (See this argument admirably treated in Bushnell's Nature and the Supernatural, chap. 10)
(3.) The author of Ecce Homo (a work which admirably illustrates the human side of Christ and his religion, although it lamentably ignores the divine element in both) forcibly points (chap. 5) to the fact that the bare miracles of Jesus, although they were so public and so stupendous as to compel the credit and awe of all, were in themselves not sufficient to command even reverence, much less a loving trust; nay, that, had they been too freely used, they were even calculated to repel men in affright (comp. Lu 5:8) and consternation (see Lu 8:37). It was the self- restraint which the Possessor of divine power evidently imposed upon himself in this respect, and especially his persistent refusal to employ his supernatural gift either for his own personal relief and comfort, or for the direct promotion of his kingdom by way of a violent assault upon hostile powers, that intensified the astonished regard of his followers to the utmost pitch of devoted veneration. This penetrating sense of attachment to one to whom they owed everything, and who seemed to be independent of their aid, and even indifferent to his own protection while serving others, culminated at the tragedy, which achieved a world's redemption at his own expense. "It was the combination of greatness and self-sacrifice which won their hearts, the mighty powers held under a mighty control, the unspeakable condescension, the Cross of Christ" (p. 57) — a topic that ever called forth the full enthusiasm of Paul's heart, and that fired it with a heroic zeal to emulate his Master.
III. Narrative of our Savior's Life and Ministry.(For the further literature of each topic, see the articles referred to at each.) SEE GOSPELS. About four hundred years had elapsed since Malachi, the last of the prophets, had foretold the coming of the Messiah's forerunner, and nearly the same interval had transpired since Ezra closed the sacred canon, and composed the concluding psalm (119); a still greater number of years had intervened since the latest miracle of the Old Test. had been performed, and men not only in Palestine, but throughout the entire East, were in general expectation of the advent of the universal Prince (Suetonius, Vesp. 4; Tacitus, Hist. 5, 13) an event which the Jews knew, from their Scriptures (Da 9:25), was now close at hand (see Lu 2:26,38). SEE ADVENT. It was under such circumstances, at a time when the Roman empire, of which Judea then formed a part, was in a state of profound and universal peace (Orosius, Hist. 6, fin.), under the rule of Augustus (Lu 2:1), that an incident occurred which, although apparently personal and inconsiderable, broke like a new oracle the silence of ages (comp. 2Pe 3:4), and proved the dawn of the long looked for day of Israel's glory (see Lu 1:78). A priest named Zachariah was performing the regular functions of his office within the holy place of the Temple at Jerusalem, when an angel appeared to him with the announcement that his hitherto childless and now aged wife, Elisabeth, should bear him a son, who was to be the harbinger of the promised Redeemer (Lu 1:5-25). SEE ZACHARIAS. To punish and at the same time remove his doubts, the power of articulate utterance was miraculously taken from him until the verification of the prediction (probably May, B.C. 7). SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST. Nearly half a year after this vision, a still more remarkable annunciation (q.v.) was made by the same means to a maiden of the now obscure lineage of David, resident at Nazareth, and betrothed to Joseph, a descendant of the same once-royal family, SEE GENEALOGY: namely, that she was the individual selected to become the mother of the Messiah who had been expected in all previous ages (Lu 1:26-38). SEE MARY. Her scruples having been obviated by the assurance of a divine paternity, SEE INCARNATION, she acquiesced in the providence, although she could not have failed to foresee the ignominy to which it would expose her, SEE ADULTERY, and even joined her relative Elizabeth in praising God for so high an honor (Lu 1:39-56). As soon as her condition became known, SEE CONCEPTION, Joseph was divinely apprised, through a dream, of his intended wife's innocence, and directed to name her child Jesus (see above), thus adopting it as his own (Mt 1:18-25; probably April, B.C. 6). SEE JOSEPH.
Although the parents resided in Galilee, they had occasion just at this time to visit Bethlehem (q.v.) in order to be enrolled along with their relatives in a census now in progress by order of the Roman authorities, SEE CYRENIUS, and thus Jesus was born, during their stay in the exterior buildings of the public khan, SEE CARAVANSERAI, at that place (Lu 2:1-7), in fulfilment of an express prediction of Scripture (Mic 5:2), prob. Aug. B.C. 6. SEE NATIVITY. The auspicious event was heralded on the same night by angels to a company of shepherds on the adjacent plains, and was recognized by two aged saints at Jerusalem, SEE SIMEON; SEE ANNA, where the mother presented the babe at the usual time for the customary offerings at the Temple, the rite of circumcision (q.v.) having been meanwhile duly performed (Lu 2:8-39; prob. Sept. B.C. 6). Public notice, however, was not attracted to the event till, on the arrival at the capital of a party of Eastern philosophers, SEE MAGI, who had been directed to Palestine by astronomical phenomena as the birthplace of some noted infant, SEE STAR OF THE WISE MEN, the intelligence of their inquiries reached the jealous ears of Herod (q.v.), who thereupon — first ascertaining from the assembled Sanhedrim the predicted locality — sent the strangers to Bethlehem, where the holy family appear to have continued, pretending that he wished himself to do the illustrious babe reverence, but really only to render himself more sure of his destruction (Mt 2:1-12). This attempt was foiled by the return of the Magi home by another route, through divine intimation, and the child was preserved from the murderous rage of Herod by a precipitous flight of the parents (who were in like manner warned of the danger) into Egypt, SEE ALEXANDRIA, under a like direction (prob. July, B.C. 5). Here they remained SEE EGYPT until, on the death of the tyrant, at the divine suggestion, they returned to Palestine; but, avoiding Judea, where Archelaus, who resembled his father, had succeeded to the throne, they settled at their former place of residence, Nazareth, within the territory of the milder Antipas (Mt 2:19-23; prob. April, B.C. 4). SEE NAZARENE. The evangelists pass over the boyhood of Jesus with the simple remark that his obedience, intelligence, and piety won the affections of all who knew him (Lu 2:40,51-52). A single incident is recorded in illustration of these traits, which occurred when he had completed his twelfth year — an age at which the Jewish males were expected to take upon them the responsibility of attaching themselves to the public worship, as having arrived at years of discretion (Lu 2:41-50; see Lightfoot and Wetstein, ad loc.). Having accompanied his parents, on this occasion, to the Passover at Jerusalem, the lad tarried behind at the close of the festal week, and was discovered by them, as they turned back to the capital from their homeward journey, after considerable search, sitting in the midst of the Rabbis in one of the anterooms of the sacred edifice, seeking information from them on sacred themes (or probably rather imparting than eliciting truth, after the manner of the Socratic questionings) with a clearness and profundity so far beyond his years and opportunities as to excite the liveliest astonishment in all beholders (April, A.D. 8). His pointed reply to his mother's expostulation for his seeming neglect of filial duty evinces a comprehension already of his divine character and work: "Knew ye not that I must be at my Father's?" (ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατρός μου).
1. Introductory Year. — Soon after John the Baptist had opened his remarkable mission at the Jordan, among the thousands of all classes who flocked to his preaching and baptism (q.v.), Jesus, then thirty years old, presented himself for the same initiatory rite at his hands as the only acknowledged prophet extant who was empowered to administer what should be equivalent to the holy anointing oil of the kingly and priestly offices (Mt 3:13-17; Lu 3:1-18,23; and parallels). SEE MESSIAH. John did not at once recognize Jesus as the Messiah, although he had just declared to the people the near approach of his own Superior; yet, being doubtless personally well acquainted with his relative, in whom he must have perceived the tokens of an extraordinary religious personage, he modestly declined to perform a ceremony that seemed to imply his own preeminence; but upon his compliance with the request of Jesus, on the ground of the propriety of this preliminary ordinance, a divine attestation, both in a visible, SEE DOVE, and an audible, SEE BATH-KOL, form, was publicly given as to the sacred character of Jesus, and in such clear conformity to a criterion which John himself had already received by the inward revelation, that he at once began to proclaim the advent of the Messiah in his person (prob. August, A.D. 25). SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST. After this inauguration of his public career, Jesus immediately retired into the desert of Judaea, where, during a fast of forty days, he endured those interior temptations of Satan which should suffice to prove the superiority of his virtue to that power to which Adam had succumbed; and at its close he successfully resisted three special attempts of the devil in a personal form to move him first to doubt and then to presume upon the divine care, and finally to bribe him to such barefaced idolatry that Jesus indignantly repelled him from his presence (Mt 4:1-11, and parallels). SEE TEMPTATION. The effect of John's open testimony to the character of Jesus, as he began his preaching afresh the next season on the other side of the Jordan, was such as not only to lead to a deputation of inquiry to him from the Sanhedrim on the subject, but also to induce two of the Baptist's disciples to attach themselves to Christ, one of whom immediately introduced his own brother to his newly found Master, and to these, as he was departing for Galilee, were added two others of their acquaintance (Joh 1:19-36). On arriving at Cana (q.v.), whither he had been invited with his relatives and friends to a wedding festival, Jesus performed his first miracle by changing water into wine for the supply of the guests (Joh 2:1-11; prob. March, A.D. 26).
2. First more public Year. — After a short visit at Capernaum, Jesus returned to Judea in order to attend the Passover; and finding the entrance to the Temple choked with various kinds of merchant stalls, he forcibly expelled their sacrilegious occupants, and vindicated his authority by a prediction of his resurrection, which was at the time misunderstood (Joh 2:12-22). His miracles during the Paschal week confirmed the popular impression concerning his prophetic character, and even induced a member of the Sanhedrim to seek a private interview with him, SEE NICODEMUS; but his doctrine of the necessity of a spiritual change in his disciples, SEE REGENERATION, and his statement of his own passion, SEE ATONEMENT, were neither intelligible nor agreeable to the worldly minds of the people (Joh 2:23-25; Joh 3:1-21). Jesus now proceeded to the Jordan, and by the instrumentality of his disciples continued the inaugural baptism of the people instituted by John, who had meanwhile removed further up the river, where, so far from being jealous of Jesus' increasing celebrity, he gave still stronger testimony to the superior destiny of Jesus (Joh 3:22-36); but the imprisonment of John not long afterwards by order of Herod (Mt 14:3 sq.; Mr 6:17 sq.; Lu 3:19) rendered it expedient (Mt 4:12; Mr 1:14), in connection with the odium excited by the hierarchy (Joh 4:1-3), that Jesus should retire into Galilee (Lu 4:14). On his way thither, his conversation with a Samaritan female at the well of Jacob (q.v.), near Shechem, on the spiritual blessings of God's true worshippers, led to her conversion, with a large number of her fellow citizens, among) whom he tarried two days (Joh 4:4-42; prob. December, A.D. 26). On his arrival in Galilee he was received with great respect (Joh 4:43-45), and his public announcements of the advent of the Messianic age (Mt 4:17; Mr 1:14-15) in all the synagogues of that country spread his fame still more widely (Lu 4:14-15). In this course of preaching he revisited Cana, and there, by a word, cured the son of one of Herod's courtiers that lay at the point of death at Capernaum (Joh 4:46-54). Arriving at Nazareth, he was invited by his townsmen to read the Scripture lesson (Isa 61:1-2) in the synagogue, but they took such offence at his application of it to himself, and still more at his comments upon it, that they hurried him tumultuously to the brink of a precipice, and would have thrown him off had he not escaped from their hands (Lu 4:16-30). Thenceforward he fixed upon Capernaum (q.v.) as his general place of residence (Mt 4:13-16). In one of his excursions in this neighborhood, after addressing the people on the lake shore from a boat on the water, he directed the owners of the boat to a spot further out from the shore, where they caught so evidently miraculous a draft of fish as to convince both them and their partners of his superhuman character, and then invited all four of the fishermen to become his disciples, a call which they promptly obeyed (Lu 5:1-10; Mt 4:19-22; and parallels). On his return to Capernaum he restored a daemoniac among the assembly whom he addressed in the synagogue, to the astonishment of the audience and vicinity (Mr 1:21-29, and parallels), and, retiring to the house of one of these lately chosen followers, he cured his mother-in-law of a fever, as well as various descriptions of invalids and deranged persons, at sunset of the same day (Mr 1:29-34; Mt 8:17; and parallels). Rising the next morning for solitary prayer before any of the family were stirring, he set out, notwithstanding the remonstrances of his host as soon as he had discovered him, to make a general tour of Galilee, preaching to multitudes who flocked to hear him from all directions, and supporting his doctrines by miraculous cures of every species of physical and mental disease (Mr 1:35-38; Mt 4:23-25; and parallels; prob. February, A.D. 27). One of these cases was a leper, whose restoration to purity caused such crowds to resort to Jesus as compelled him to avoid public thoroughfares (Mr 1:40-45, and parallels). On his return to Capernaum his door was soon thronged with listeners to his preaching, including many of the learned Pharisees from Jerusalem; and the cavils of these latter at his pronouncing spiritual absolution upon a paralytic whom earnest friends had been at great pains to let down at the feet of Jesus by removing the balcony roof above him, he refuted by instantly enabling the helpless man to walk home, carrying his couch (Lu 5:17-26, and parallels; prob. March, A.D. 27). On another excursion by the lake shore, after preaching to the people, he summoned as a disciple the collector of the Roman imposts (Mr 2:13-14, and parallels; probably April, A.D. 27). SEE MATTHEW.
3. Second more public Year. — The Passover now drew near, which Jesus, like the devout Jews generally, was careful to attend at Jerusalem (Saturday, April 12, A.D. 27). SEE PASSOVER. As he passed by the pentagonal pool of Bethesda, near the sheep gate of the city, he observed in one of its porches an invalid awaiting the intermittent influx of the water, to which the populace had attributed a miraculously curative power to the first bather thereafter; but, learning that he had been thus infirm for thirty- eight years, and ascertaining from him that he was even too helpless to reach the water in time to experience its virtue, he immediately restored him to vigor by a word. SEE BETHESDA. This, happening to occur on the Sabbath, so incensed the hierarchy that they charged the author of the cure with a profanation of the day, and thus drew from Jesus a public vindication of his mission and an exposure of their inconsistency (John 5:1-47). As he was preparing to return to Galilee, on the Sabbath ensuing the Paschal week (Saturday, April 19, A.D. 27), his disciples chanced to pluck, as strangers were privileged to do (De 23:25), a few of the ripe heads from the standing barley, through which they were at the time passing, in order to allay their hunger; and this being captiously alleged by some Pharisee bystanders as a fresh violation of the sacred day, Jesus took occasion to rebuke their over scrupulousness as being confuted by the example of David (1Sa 21:1-6), the practice of the priests themselves (Nu 28:9-19), and the tenor of Scripture (Ho 6:6; compare Samuel 15:22), and, at the same time, to point out the true design of the Sabbath (q.v.), namely, man's own benefit (Mt 12:1-8, and parallels). On an ensuing Sabbath (prob. Saturday, April 26, A.D. 27), entering the synagogue (apparently of Capernaum), he once more excited the same odium by curing a man whose right hand was palsied; but his opponents, who had been watching the opportunity, were silenced by his appeal to the philanthropy of the act, yet they thenceforth began to plot his destruction (Mr 3:1-6, and parallels). Retiring to the Sea of Galilee, he addressed the multitudes who thronged here from all quarters, and cured the sick and daemoniacs among them (Mr 3:7-12; Mt 12:17-21, and parallels). After a night spent in prayer on a mountain in the vicinity, he now chose twelve persons from among his followers to be his constant attendant and future witnesses to his career (Lu 6:12-16, and parallels). SEE APOSTLE. Then, descending to a partial plain, he cured the diseased among the assembled multitude (Lu 6:17-19), and, seating himself upon an eminence, he proceeded to deliver his memorable sermon exhibiting the spirituality of the Gospel in opposition to the formalism of the prevalent theology (Mt 5:1-12; Lu 6:24-26; Mt 5:17-24,27-30,33-48; Mt 6:1-8,16-18; Mt 7:1-5,12,15-18,20-21,24-27; Mt 8:1, and parallel passages; prob. May. A.D. 27). SEE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. On his return to Capernaum, Jesus, at the instance of the Jewish elders, cured the son of a modest and pious centurion, who, although a Gentile, had built the village synagogue, and whose faith in the power of Jesus to restore by his mere word the distant invalid excited the liveliest interest in the mind of Jesus himself (Lu 7:1-10, and parallel). The ensuing day, passing near Nain, he met a large procession issuing from the village for the interment of the only son of a widow, and, commiserating her double bereavement, he restored the youth instantly to life, to the astonishment of the beholders (Lu 7:11-17). John the Baptist, hearing while in prison of these miracles, sent two messengers to Jesus to obtain more explicit assurance from his own lips as to the Messiah, which he seemed so slow plainly to avow; but, instead of returning a direct answer, Jesus proceeded to perform additional miracles in their presence, and then referred them to the Scripture prophecies (Isa 61:1; Isa 35:5-6) of these distinctive marks of the Messianic age; but as soon as the messengers had departed, he eulogized the character of John, although the introducer of an sera less favored than the period of Jesus himself, and concluded by severe denunciations of the cities (especially Capernaum, Chorazin, and Bethsaida) which had continued impenitent under his own preaching (Lu 7:18-35; Mt 11:20,24; and parallels). About this time, a Pharisee invited him one day to dine with him, but, while he was reclining at the table, a female notorious for her immorality came penitently behind him and bedewed with her tears his unsandaled feet extended beyond the couch, then wiped them with her hair, and finally affectionately anointed them with ointment brought for that purpose, while the host scarcely restrained his surprise that Jesus should suffer this familiarity; but, in a pointed parable of two debtors released from dissimilar amounts, Jesus at once justified the love of the woman and rebuked the sordidness of the host, who had neglected these offices of respect, and then confirmed the woman's trembling hopes of pardon for her past sins (Lu 7:36-50). He next set out on his second tour of Galilee (summer of A.D. 27), accompanied by several grateful females who bore his expenses (Lu 8:1-3). No sooner had he returned to Capernaum (prob. Oct. A.D. 27) than such crowds reassembled at his house that his friends sought to restrain what they deemed his excessive enthusiasm to address them, while the jealous hierarchy from Jerusalem, who were present, scrupled not to attribute to collusion with Satan the cure of a blind and dumb daemoniac which he wrought. But, refuting this absurd cavil (since his act was directly in opposition to diabolical influences), he denounced it as an unpardonable crime against the Holy Spirit, who was the agent, and proceeded to characterize the rancor of heart that had prompted it; then, after refusing to gratify the curiosity of one of his enemies, who interrupted him by demanding some celestial portent in confirmation of his claims (for he declared no further miracle should be granted to them except his eventual resurrection, which he compared to the restoration of Jonah from the maw of the fish), he contrasted the obduracy of the generation that heard him with the penitence of the Ninevites and the eagerness of the queen of Sheba to listen to far inferior wisdom, and closed by comparing their aggravated condition to that of a relapsed demoniac (Mr 3:19-21; Mt 12:22-45; and parallels). A woman present pronounced his mother happy in having such a son, but he declared those rather happy who obeyed his teaching (Lu 11:27). At that moment, being informed of the approach of his relatives, and their inability to reach him through the crowd, he avowed his faithful followers to be dearer than his earthly kindred (Mt 12:46-50, and parallels). A Pharisee (q.v.) present invited him to dinner, but, on his evincing surprise that his guest did not perform the ablutions customary before eating, Jesus inveighed against the absurd and hypocritical zeal of the sect concerning externals, while they neglected the essentials of piety; and when a devotee of the law, SEE LAWYER complained of the sweeping character of these charges, he denounced the selfish and ruinous casuistry of this class likewise with such severity that the whole party determined to entrap him, if possible, into some unguarded expression against the religious or civil power (Lu 11:37-42,44-46,52-54, and parallel). SEE SCRIBE. On his way home he continued to address the immense concourse, first against the hypocrisy which he had just witnessed, and then taking occasion from the demand of a person present that he would use his authority to compel his brother to settle their father's estate with him, which he refused on the ground of its irrelevancy to his sacred functions — he proceeded to discourse on the necessity and propriety of trust in divine Providence for our temporal wants, illustrating this duty by the parable of the sudden death of a rich worldling, by a comparison with various natural objects, by contrast with the heathen, and by the higher importance of a preparation for heaven (Lu 12:1,6-7,13-31,33-34, and parallels). Being informed of a recent atrocity of Herod against some Galileans, he declared that an equally awful fate awaited the impenitent among his hearers, and enforced the admonition by the parable of the delay in cutting down a fruitless tree (Lu 13:1-9). Again leaving his home the same day, he delivered, while sitting in a boat, to a large audience upon the lake shore, the several parables of the different fate of various portions of seed in a field, the true and false wheat growing together till harvest, the gradual but spontaneous development of a plant of grain, the remarkable growth of the mustard shrub from a very small seed, and the dissemination of leaven throughout a large mass of dough (Mt 13:1-9,24-30; Mr 4:26-29; Mt 13:31-36; and parallels); but it was only to the privileged disciples (as he informed them) in private that he explained, at their own request, the various elements of the first of these parables as referring to the different degrees of improvement made by the corresponding classes of his own hearers, adding various admonitions (by comparisons with common life) to diligence on the part of the apostles, and then, after explaining the parable of the false wheat as referring to the divine forbearance to eradicate the wicked in this scene of probation, he added the parable of the assortment of a heterogeneous draft of fish in a common net, indicative of the final discrimination of the foregoing characters, with two minor parables illustrating the paramount value of piety, and closed with an exhortation to combine novelty with orthodoxy in religious preaching, like the varied stores of a skilful housekeeper (Mt 13:10-11,13-23; Mt 5; Mt 14-16; Mt 6:22-23; Mt 10:26-27; Mt 13:12,36-43,47-50,44-46,51-53; and parallels). SEE PARABLE, As Jesus was setting out, towards evening of the same day, to cross the lake, a scribe proposed to become his constant disciple, but was repelled by being reminded by Jesus of the hardships to which he would expose himself in his company; two others of his attendants were refused a temporary leave of absence to arrange their domestic affairs, lest it might wean them altogether from his service (Mt 8:18-22; Lu 11:54,54; and parallels). While the party were crossing the lake, Jesus, overcome with the labors of the day, had fallen asleep on the stern bench of the boat, when so violent a squall took them that, in the utmost consternation, they appealed to him for preservation, and, rebuking their distrust of his defending presence, he calmed the tempest with a word (Mt 8:23-27, and parallels). SEE GALILEE, SEA OF. On reaching the eastern shore, they were met by two frantic daemoniacs, roaming in the deserted catacombs of Gadara, who prostrated themselves before Jesus, and implored his forbearance; but the Satanic influence that possessed them, on being expelled by him, with his permission seized upon a large herd of swine feeding near (probably raised, contrary to the law, for supplying the market of the Greek-imitating Jews), and caused them to rush headlong into the lake, where they were drowned, SEE DAEMONIAC; and this loss offended the worldly-minded owners of the swine that the neighbors generally requested Jesus to return home. which he immediately did, leaving the late maniacs to fill the country with the remarkable tidings of their cure (Mr 5:1-21, and parallels). Not long afterwards, on occasion of a large entertainment made for Jesus by Matthew, the Pharisees found fault with the disciples because their Master head condescended to associate with the tax gatherers and other disreputable persons that were guests; but Jesus declared that such had most need of his intercourse, his mission being to reclaim sinners (Mt 9:10-13, and parallels). At the same time he explained to an inquirer why he did not enjoin seasons of fasting like the Baptist, that his presence as yet should rather be a cause of gladness to his followers, and he illustrated the impropriety of such severe requirements prematurely by the festivity of a marriage week, and by the parables of a new patch on an old garment, and new wine in old skin bottles (Mt 9:14-17, and parallels). In the midst of these remarks he was entreated by a leading citizen named Jairus (q.v.) to visit his daughter, who lay at the point of death; and while going for that purpose he cured a female among the crowd of a chronic hemorrhage (q.v.) by her secretly touching the edge of his dress, which led to her discovery and acknowledgment on the spot; but in the meantime information arrived of the death of the sick girl: nevertheless, encouraging the father's faith, he proceeded to the house where her funeral had already begun, and, entering the room with her parents and three disciples only, restored her to life and health by a simple touch and word, to the amazement of all the vicinity (Mark 5, 22-43, and parallels). As he was leaving Jairus' house two blind men followed him, whose request that he would restore their sight he granted by a touch; and on his return home he cured a dumb demoniac, upon which the Pharisees repeated their calumny of his collusion with Satan (Mt 9:27-34). Visiting Nazareth again shortly afterwards, his acquaintances were astonished at his eloquence in the synagogue on the Sabbath, but were so prejudiced against his obscure family that but few had sufficient faith to warrant the exertion of his miraculous power in cures (Mr 6:1-6, and parallel). About this time (probably Jan. and Feb. A.D. 28), commiserating the moral destitution of the community, Jesus sent out the apostles in pairs on a general tour of preaching and miracle working in different directions (but avoiding the Gentiles and Samaritans), with special instructions, while he made his third circuit of Galilee for a like purpose (Mt 9:35-38; Mt 10:1,5-14,40-42; Mt 11:1; Mr 6:12-13; and parallels). Upon their return, Jesus, being apprized of the execution of John the Baptist by Herod (Mr 6:21-29; probably March, A.D. 28), and of the tetrarch's views of himself (Mr 6:14-16; SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST ), retired with them across the lake, followed by crowds of men, with their families, whom at evening he miraculously fed with a few provisions at hand (Mr 6:30-44, and parallels), an act that excited such enthusiasm among them as to lead them to form the plan of forcibly proclaiming him their political king (Joh 6:14-15); this design Jesus defeated by dismissing the multitude, and sending away the disciples by themselves in a boat across the lake, while he spent most of the night alone in prayer on a neighboring hill; but towards daylight he rejoined them, by walking on the water to them as they were toiling at the oars against the wind and tempestuous waves, and suddenly calming the sea, brought them to the shore, to their great amazement; then, as he proceeded through the plain of Gennesareth, the whole country brought their sick to him to be cured (Mt 14:22-36, and parallels), the populace whom he had left on the eastern shore meanwhile missing him, returned by boats to Capernaum (Joh 6:22-24; prob. Thursd. and Friday, March 25 and 26, A.D. 28). Meeting them in their search next day in the synagogue, he took occasion, in alluding to the recent miracle, to proclaim himself to them at large as the celestial "manna" for the soul, but cooled their political ambition by warning them that the benefits of his mission could only be received through a participation by faith in the atoning sacrifice shortly to be made in his own person; a doctrine that soon discouraged their adherence to him, but proved no stumbling block to the steadfast faith of eleven of his apostles (Joh 6:25-71; prob. Saturday, March 27, A.D. 28).
4. Third more public Year. — Avoiding the malicious plots of the hierarchy at Jerusalem by remaining at Capernaum during the Passover (Joh 7:1; probably Sunday, March 28, A.D. 28), Jesus took occasion, from the fault found by some Pharisees from the capital against his disciples for eating with unwashed hands, SEE ABLUTION, to rebuke their traditional scrupulousness as subversive of the true intent of the Law, and to expound to his disciples the true cause of moral defilement, as consisting in the corrupt affections of the heart (Mr 7:1-16; Mt 15:12-20; and parallels). Retiring to the borders of Phoenicia, he was besought with such importunity by a Gentile woman to cure her daemoniac daughter, that, after overcoming with the most touching arguments his assumed indifference, her faith gained his assent, and on reaching home she found her daughter restored (Mt 15:21-28, and parallel; prob. May, A.D. 28). Thence returning through the Decapolis, publicly teaching on the way, he cured a deaf and dumb person, with many other invalids, and, miraculously feeding the great multitude that followed him, he sailed across to the western shore of the lake (Mr 7:31-37; Mt 15:30-39; and parallels), where he rebuked the Pharisees' demand of some celestial prodigy by referring them to the tokens of the existing sera, which were as evident as signs of the weather, and admonishing them of the coming retribution (Mt 16:1-3; Mt 5:25-26), and, again hinting at the crowning miracle of his resurrection, he returned to the eastern side of the lake, warning his disciples on the way of the pernicious doctrine of the sectaries, which he compared to leaven (Mt 16:4-12, and parallels). Proceeding to Bethsaida (in Peraea), he cured a blind man in a gradual manner by successive touches of his eyes (Mr 8:22-26), and on his way through the environs of Caesarea-Philippi, after private devotion, he elicited from the disciples a profession of their faith in him as the Messiah, and conferred upon them the right of legislating for his future Church, but rebuked Peter for demurring at his prediction of his own approaching passion, and enjoined the strictest self denial upon his followers, in view of the eventual retribution shortly to be foreshadowed by the overthrow of the Jewish nation (Mt 16:13-28, and parallels;
prob. May, A.D. 28). A week afterwards, taking three disciples only with him, he ascended a lofty mountain in the vicinity (prob. Hermon), where his person experienced a remarkable luminousness, SEE TRANSFIGURATION, with other prodigies, that at first alarmed the disciples; and, on descending the mountain, he explained the allusion (Mal 4:5-6) to Elijah (who, with Moses, had just conversed with him in a glorified state) as meaning John the Baptist, lately put to death (Mt 17:1-13, and parallels). On his return to the rest of the disciples, he found them disputing with the Jewish sectaries concerning a daemoniac deaf mute child whom the former had vainly endeavored to cure; the father now earnestly entreating Jesus to exercise his power over the malady, although of long duration, he immediately restored the lad to perfect soundness, and privately explained to the disciples the cause of their failure as lying in their want of faith (Mr 9:14-28, and parallels), which would have rendered them competent to any requisite miracle (Lu 17:5-6, and parallel) if coupled with devout humility (Mr 9:29, and parallel). Thence passing over into Galilee, he again foretold his ignominious crucifixion and speedy resurrection to his disciples, who still failed to apprehend his meaning (Mr 9:30-32, and parallels). On the return of the party to Capernaum, the collector of the Temple tax waited upon Peter for payment from his Master, who, although stating his exemption by virtue of his high character, yet, for the sake of peace, directed Peter to catch a fish, which would be found to have swallowed a piece of money sufficient to pay for them both (Mt 17:24-27; prob. June, A.D. 28)., About this time Jesus rebuked the disciples for a strife into which they had fallen for the highest honors under their Master's reign by placing a child in their midst as a symbol of artless innocence; and upon John's remarking that they had lately silenced an unknown person acting in his name, he reprimanded such bigotry, enlarging by various similes upon the duty of tenderly dealing with new converts, and closing with rules for the expulsion of an unworthy. member from their society, adding the parable of the unmerciful servant to enforce the doctrine of leniency (Mr 9:33-40,42,49-50; Mt 18:10,15-35; and parallels). Some time afterwards (prob. September, A.D. 28) Jesus sent seventy of the most trusty among his followers, in pairs, through the region which he intended shortly to visit, with instructions similar to those before given to the apostles, but indicative of the opposition they would be likely to meet with (Lu 10:1-3; Mt 7:6; Mt 10:23-26; and parallels); and then, after declining to accompany his worldly minded brothers to the approaching festival of Tabernacles at Jerusalem, to which they urged him as a favorable opportunity for exhibiting his wonderful powers, near the close of the festal week he went thither privately (Joh 7:2-10), experiencing on the way the inhospitality of the Samaritans with a patience that rebuked the indignation of one of his disciples (Lu 9:51-56), and receiving the grateful acknowledgments of a single Samaritan among ten lepers whom he cured (Lu 17:11-19).
5. Last half Year. — On the opening of the festival at Jerusalem (Sunday, Sept. 21, A.D. 28), the hierarchy eagerly inquired for Jesus among the populace, who held discordant opinions concerning him; but, on his arrival, he boldly taught in the Temple, vindicating his course and claims so eloquently that the very officers sent by his enemies to arrest him returned abashed, while the people continued divided in their sentiments, being inclined to accept his cordial invitations (Mt 11:28-30), but deterred by the specious objections of the hierarchy (Joh 7:11-53). Next morning, returning from the Mt. of Olives (prob. the residence of Lazarus at Bethany), in the midst of his teaching in the Temple he dismissed, with merely an admonition, a female brought to him as an adulteress (q.v.), with a view to embarrass him in the disposal of the case, none of his conscience-stricken accusers daring to be the first in executing the penalty of the law when allowed to do so by Jesus (Joh 8:1-11). He then continued his expostulations with his captious hearers respecting his own character, until at length, on his avowing his divine preexistence, they attempted to stone him as guilty of blasphemy, but he withdrew from their midst (Joh 8:12-59). The seventy messengers returning shortly afterwards (prob. Oct. A.D. 28) with a report of great success, Jesus expressed his exultation in thanks to God for the humble instrumentality divinely chosen for the propagation of the Gospel (Lu 10:17-21, and parallel). Being asked by a Jewish sectary the most certain method of securing heaven, he referred him to the duty, expressed in the law (De 6:5; Le 19:8), of supreme love to God and cordial philanthropy, and, in answer to the other's question respecting the extent of the latter obligation, he illustrated it by the parable of the benevolent Samaritan (Lu 10:25-37). Returning at evening to the home of Lazarus, he gently reproved the impatient zeal of the kind Martha in preparing for him a meal, and defended Mary for being absorbed in his instructions (Lu 10:38-42). After a season of private prayer (prob. in Gethsemane, on his way to Jerusalem, next morning), he dictated a model of prayer to his disciples at their request, stating the indispensableness of a placable spirit towards others in order to our own forgiveness by God, and adding the parable of the guest at midnight to enforce the necessity of urgency in prayer, with assurances that God is more willing to grant his children's petitions for spiritual blessings than earthly parents are to supply their children's temporal wants (Lu 11:1-13, and parallels). As he entered the city, Jesus noticed a man whom he ascertained to have been blind from his birth, and to the disciples' inquiry for whose sin the blindness was a punishment, he answered that it was providentially designed for the divine glory, namely, in his cure, as a means to which he moistened a little clay with spittle, touched the man's eyes with it, and directed him to wash them in the Pool of Siloam (Saturday, Nov. 28, A.D. 28); but the hierarchy, learning the cure from the neighbors brought the man before them, because the transaction had taken place on the Sabbath, and disputed the fact until testified to by his parents, and then alleging that the author of the act, whose name was yet unknown even to the man himself, must have been a sinner, because a violator of the sacred day, they were met with so spirited a defense of Jesus by the man himself, that, becoming enraged, they immediately excommunicated him. Jesus, however, meeting him shortly after, disclosed to his ready faith his own Messianic character, and then discoursed to his captious enemies concerning the immunities of true believers in him under the simile of a fold of sheep (Joh 9; Joh 10:1-21). The same figure he again took up at the ensuing Festival of Dedication, upon the inquiry of the Jewish sectaries directly put to him in Solomon's portico of the Temple, as to his Messiahship, and spoke so pointedly of his unity with God that his auditors would have stoned him for blasphemy had he not hastily withdrawn from the place (cir. Dec. 1, A.D. 28), and retired to the Jordan, where he gained many adherents (Joh 10:22-42). Lazarus at this time falling sick, his sisters sent to Jesus, desiring his presence at Bethany; but after waiting several days, until Lazarus was dead, he informed his disciples of the fact (which he assured them would turn out to the divine glory), and proposed to go thither. On their arrival, he was met first by Martha and then by Mary, with tearful expressions of regret for his absence, which he checked by assurances (not clearly apprehended by them) of their brother's restoration to life; then causing the tomb to be opened (after overruling Martha's objection), he summoned the dead Lazarus forth to life, to the amazement of the spectators (Joh 11:1-46; probably Jan. A.D. 29). SEE LAZARUS. This miracle aroused afresh the enmity of the Sanhedrim, who, after consultation, at the haughty advice of Caiaphas, determined to accomplish his death, thus unwittingly fulfilling the destined purpose of his mission (Joh 11:47-53). Withdrawing in consequence to the city of Ephron (Joh 11:54), and afterwards to Perea, Jesus continued his teaching and miracles to crowds that gathered about him (Mr 10:1, and parallel). As he was preaching in one of the synagogues of this vicinity one Sabbath, he cured a woman of chronic paralysis of the back, and refuted the churlish cavil of one of the hierarchy present at the day on which this was done, by a reference to ordinary acts of mercy even to animals on the Sabbath (Lu 13:10-17; prob. Feb. A.D. 29). Jesus now turned his steps towards Jerusalem, teaching on the way the necessity of a personal preparation for heaven, without trusting to any external recommendations (Lu 13:22-30); and replying to the Pharisees' insidious warning of danger from Herod, that Jerusalem alone was to a destined place of peril for him (Lu 13:31-33). On one Sabbath, while eating at the house of an eminent Pharisee, he cured a man of the dropsy, and silenced all objections by again appealing to the usual care of domestic animals on that day; he then took occasion, from the anxiety of the guests to secure the chief places of honor at the table, to discourse to the company on the advantages of modesty and charity, closing by an admonition to prompt compliance with the offers of the Gospel in the parable of the marriage feast and the wedding garment (Lu 14:1-15; Mt 22:1-14, anti parallel; prob. March, A.D. 29). To the multitudes attending him he prescribed resolute self denial as essential to true discipleship (Lu 15:25-26, and parallel), under various figures (Lu 14:28-33) ; while he corrected the jealousy of the Jewish sectaries at his intercourse with the lower classes (Lu 15:1-2), by teaching the divine interest in penitent wanderers from him (Lu 19:10, and parallel), under the parables of stray sheep (Lu 15:3-7, and parallel), the lost piece of money, and the prodigal son (Lu 15:8-32). At the same time, he illustrated the prudence of securing the divine favor by a prudent use of the blessings of this life in the parable of the fraudulent steward (Lu 16:1-12), showing the incompatibility of worldliness with devotion (Lu 16:13, and parallel); and the self sufficiency of the Pharisees he rebuked in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lu 16:14-15,19-31), declaring to them that the kingdom of the Messiah had already come unobserved (Lu 17:20-21). He impressed upon both classes of his hearers the importance of perseverance, and yet humility, in prayer, by the parables of the importunate widow before the unjust judge, and the penitent publican in contrast with the self-
righteous Pharisee (Lu 18:1-14). To the insidious questions of the Jewish sectaries concerning divorce, he replied that it was inconsistent with the original design of marriage, being only suffered by Moses (with restrictions) on account of the inveterate customs of the nation, but really justifiable only in cases of adultery; but at the same time explained privately to the disciples that the opposite extreme of celibacy was to be voluntary only (Mt 19:3-12, and parallels). He welcomed infants to his arms and blessing, as being a symbol of the innocence as required by the Gospel (Mr 10:13-16, and parallels). A rich and honorable young man visiting him with questions concerning the way of salvation, Jesus was pleased with his frankness, but proposed terms so humbling to his worldly attachments that he retired with, out accepting them, which furnished Jesus an opportunity of discoursing to his followers on the prejudicial influence of wealth on piety, and (in reply to a remark of Peter) of illustrating the rewards of self-denying exertion in religious duty by the parables of the servant at meals after a day's work, and the laborers in the vineyard (Mr 10:17-29; Mt 19:28-29; Lu 17:37; Mt 20:1-16; and parallels). As they had now arrived at the Jordan opposite Jerusalem, Jesus once more warned the timid disciples of the fate awaiting him there (Mr 10:32-34); but they so little understood him (Lu 17:34), that the mother of James and John ambitiously requested of him a prominent post for her sons under his administration, they also ignorantly professing their willingness to share his sufferings, until Jesus checked rivalry between them and their fellow disciples by enjoining upon them all a mutual deference in imitation of his self-sacrificing mission (Mt 20:20-28). As they were passing through Jericho, two blind men implored of him to restore their sight, and, although rebuked by the by-standers, they urged their request so importunately as at length to gain the ear of Jesus, who called them, and with a touch enabled them to see (Mr 10:46-52, and parallels). Passing along, he observed a chief publican, named Zacchaeus (q.v.), who had run in advance and climbed a tree to get a sight of Jesus, but who now, at Jesus' suggestion, gladly received him to his house, and there vindicated himself from the calumnies of the insidious hierarchy by devoting one half his property to charity, an act that secured his commendation by Jesus (Lu 19:2-9), who took occasion to illustrate the duty of fidelity in improving religious privileges by the parable of the "talents" or "pounds" (Lu 19:11-28, and parallel). Reaching Bethany a week before the Passover, when the Sanhedrim were planning to seize him, Jesus was entertained at the house of Lazarus, and vindicated Mary's act in anointing (q.v.) his head with a flask of precious ointment, from the parsimonious objections of Judas, declaring that it should ever be to her praise as highly significant in view of his approaching burial (Joh 11:55-57; Joh 12:1-11; and parallels).
6. Passion Trek. — The entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem next morning (Monday, March 14, A.D. 29) was a triumphal one, the disciples having mounted him upon a young ass, which, by his direction, they found in the environs of the city, and spread their garments and green branches along the road, while the multitude escorting him proclaimed him as the expected descendant of David, to the chagrin of the hierarchy, who vainly endeavored to check the popular declamations, SEE HOSANNA; Jesus meanwhile was absorbed in grief at the ruin awaiting the impenitent metropolis (Mt 21:19; Joh 12:16-17,19; Lu 19:39-44; and parallels). Arriving at the Temple amid this general excitement, he again cleared the Temple courts of the profane tradesmen, while the sick resorted to him for cure, and the children prolonged his praise till evening, when he returned to Bethany for the night (Mt 21:10-17. and parallels). On his way again to the city, early in the morning, he pronounced a curse upon a green but fruitless fig tree (q.v.) (to which he had gone, not having yet breakfasted, as if in hopes of finding on it some of last year's late figs), as a symbol of the unproductive Jewish nation, the day being occupied in teaching at the Temple (where the multitude of his hearers prevented the execution of the hierarchal designs against him), and the night, as usual, at Bethany. On the ensuing morning the fig tree was found withered to the very root, which led Jesus to impress upon the disciples the efficacy of faith, especially in their public functions (Mt 21:18-19; Lu 21:37-38; Lu 19:47-48; Mt 21:20-22). This, the last day of Jesus' intercourse with the public, was filled with various discussions (Wednesday, March 16, A.D. 29). The hierarchy, demanding the authority for his public conduct, were perplexed by his counter question as to the authority of the Baptist's mission, and he seized the occasion to depict their inconsistency and criminality by the parables of the two sons sent by their father to work, and the murderous gardeners, with so vivid a personal reference as to cover them with confusion (Mt 21:23-46, and parallels). The mooted question of the lawfulness of tribute to a Gentile power, being insidiously proposed to him by a coalition of the Pharisees and Herodians, was so readily solved by him by an appeal to the very coin paid in tribute, that they again retired, unable to make it a ground for public charges against him (Mt 22:15-22, and parallels). The case of seven brothers successively married (under the Levirate law) to the same woman being next supposed by the Sadducees, he as easily disposed of the imaginary difficulty concerning her proper husband in the other world by declaring the non-existence of such relations there, and refuted their infidelity as to the future life by citing a passage of Scripture (Mt 22:23-33, and parallels). Seeing the Sadducees so completely silenced, one of the Pharisaical party undertook to puzzle Jesus by raising that disputed point, What Mosaic injunction is the most important? but Jesus cited the duties of supreme devotion to God and general benevolence to man as comprising all other moral enactments, to which the other so cordially assented as to draw a commendation from Jesus on his hopeful sentiments (Mr 12:28-34, and parallel). Jesus now turned the tables upon his opponents by asking them, Whose descendant the Messiah should be? and on their replying, David's, of course, he then asked how (as in Psalm ex, 1) he could still be David's Lord? which so embarrassed his enemies that they desisted from this mode of attack (Mt 22:41-46). Jesus then in plain terms denounced before the concourse the hypocrisy and ostentation of the hierarchy, especially their priest craft, their sanctimony, their ambition, their extortion, their casuistry, and their intolerance, and bewailed the impending fate of the city (Mt 23:1-12,14-21,29-39, and parallels). Observing a poor widow drop a few of the smallest coins into the contribution box in the Temple, he declared that she had shown more true liberality than wealthier donors, because she had given more in proportion to her means, and with greater self-denial (Mr 12:41-44, and parallel). A number of proselytes, SEE HELENIST requesting through Philip an interview with Jesus, he met them with intimations of his approaching passion, while a celestial voice announced the glory that should thereby accrue to God, and he then retired from the unbelieving public with an admonition to improve their present spiritual privileges (Joh 12:20-50). As he was crossing the Mount of Olives, his disciples calling his attention to the noble structure of the Temple opposite, he declared its speedy demolition, and on their asking the time and tokens of this catastrophe, he discoursed to them at length, first on the coming downfall of the city and nation (warning them to escape betimes from the catastrophe), and then (by a gradual transition, in which, under varied imagery, he represented both events more or less blended) he passed to the scenes of the final judgment (described as a forensic tribunal), interspersing constant admonitions (especially in the parable of the ten virgins) to preparation for an event the date of which was so uncertain (Mt 24:1-8; Mt 10:17-20,34-36; Mt 24:9-10; Mt 10:28; Mt 24:13-37; Lu 21:34-36; Mt 24:3,44; Lu 12:41-42; Mr 13:31,34; Mt 24:45-51; Lu 12:47-48; Mt 24:42; Mt 25:1-12; Lu 12:35-38; Mt 25:13,31-46). As the Passover was now approaching, the Sanhedrim held a secret meeting at the house of the high priest, where they resolved to get possession, but by private means, of the person of Jesus (Thursday, March 17, A.D. 29), and Judas Iscariot, learning their desire, went and engaged to betray his Master into their hands, on the first opportunity, for a fixed reward (Mt 26:1-5,14-16, and parallels).
The same day Jesus sent two of his disciples into the city, with directions where to prepare the Passover meal (Lu 22:7-13), and at evening, repairing thither to partake of it with the whole number of his apostles, SEE LORDS SUPPER, he affectionately reminded them of the interest gathering about this last repast with them; then, while it was progressing, he washed their feet to reprove their mutual rivalry and enforce condescension to one another by his own example, SEE WASHING THE FEET, and immediately declared his own betrayal by one of their number, fixing the individual (by a sign recognized by him alone) among the amazed disciples (Lu 22:14-17,24; Joh 13:1-15; Lu 22:25-30; Joh 13:17-19,21-22; Mt 26:22-24; Joh 13:23-26; Mt 26:25; and parallels). Judas immediately withdrew, full of resentment, but without the rest suspecting his purpose; relieved of his presence, Jesus now began to speak of his approaching fate, when he was interrupted by the surprised inquiries of his disciples, who produced their weapons as ready for his defense, while Peter stoutly maintained his steadfastness, although warned of his speedy defection (Joh 13:27-33,36-38; Mt 26:31-33; Lu 22:31-38; and parallels); then, closing the meal by instituting the Eucharist (q.v.) (Mt 26:26-29, and parallels), Jesus lingered to discourse at length to his disciples (whose questions showed how little they comprehended him) on his departure at hand, and the gift (in consequence) of the Holy Spirit, with exhortations to religious activity and mutual love, and, after a prayer for the divine safeguard upon them (Joh 14:1-15,17; Joh 13:34-35; Joh 15:17-18,26), he retired with them to the Mount of Olives (Joh 18:1, and parallels). Here, entering the garden of Gethsemane, he withdrew, with three of the disciples, a short distance from the rest, and, while they fell asleep, he three times prayed, in an agony (q.v.) that forced blood-tinged sweat from the pores of his forehead, for relief from the horror-stricken anguish of his soul, SEE BLOODY SWEAT, and was partially relieved by an angelic message; but Judas, soon appearing with a force of Temple guards and others whom he conducted to this frequent place of his Master's retirement, indicated him to them by a kiss (q.v.); Jesus then presented himself to them with such a majestic mien as to cause them to fall back in dismay, but while Peter sought to defend him by striking off with his sword the ear of one of the assailants (which Jesus immediately cured with a touch, at the same time rebuking his disciple's impetuosity), Jesus, after a short remonstrance upon the tumultuous and furtive manner of his pursuers' approach, and a stipulation for his disciples' security, suffered himself to be taken prisoner, with scarcely one of his friends remaining to protect him (Mt 26:36-50; Joh 18:4-9; Lu 22:49; Mt 26:51-56; Mr 14:51-52; and parallels). SEE BETRAYAL. He was first led away to the palace of the ex-pontiff Annas, who, after vainly endeavoring to extract from him some confession respecting himself or his disciples (while Peter, who, with John, had followed after, three times denied any connection with him, SEE PETER, when questioned by the various servants in the courtyard, but was brought to pungent penitence by a look from his Master within the house), sent him for further examination to the acting high priest Caiaphas (Joh 18:13-16,18,17,25,19-23,26-27; Lu 22:61-62; John 23:24; and parallels). This functionary, assembling the Sanhedrim at daylight (Friday, March 18, A.D. 29), at length, with great difficulty, procured two witnesses who testified to Jesus' threat of destroying the Temple (see Joh 2:19), but with such discrepancy between themselves that Caiaphas broke the silence of Jesus by adjuring him respecting his Messianic claims, and on his avowal of his character made use of his admission to charge him with blasphemy, to which the Sanhedrim present assented with a sentence of death; the officers who held Jesus thereupon indulged in the vilest insults upon his person (Mt 26:57,59-63; Lu 22:67-71,63-65; and parallels). SEE CAIAPHAS. After a formal vote of the full Sanhedrim (q.v.) early in the forenoon, Jesus was next led to the procurator Pilate's mansion for his legal sanction upon the determination of the religious court, where the hierarchy sought to overcome his reluctance to involve himself in the matter (which was increased by his examination of Jesus himself, who simply replied to their allegations by giving Pilate to understand that his claims did not relate to temporal things) by charging him with sedition, especially in Galilee, an intimation that Pilate seized upon to remand the whole trial to Herod (who chanced to be in Jerusalem at the time), as the civil head of that province (Joh 18:28-38; Mt 27:12-14; Lu 23:4-7). Herod, however, on eagerly questioning Jesus, in hopes of witnessing some display of his miraculous power, was so enraged at his absolute silence that he sent him back to Pilate in a mock attire of royalty (Lu 23:8-12). The procurator, thus compelled to exercise jurisdiction over the case, convinced of the prisoner's innocence (especially after a message from his wife to that effect), proposed to the populace to release him as the malefactor which custom required him to set at liberty on the holiday of the Passover (q.v.); but the hierarchy insisted on the release of a notorious criminal, Barabbas, instead, and enforced their clamor for the crucifixion of Jesus with so keen an insinuation of Pilate's disloyalty to the emperor, that, after varied efforts to exonerate himself and discharge the prisoner (whose personal bearing enhanced his idea of his character), he at length yielded to their demands, and, after allowing Jesus to be beaten, SEE FLAGELLATION and otherwise shamefully handled by the soldiers, SEE MOCKING, he pronounced sentence for his execution on the cross (Lu 23:13-16; Mt 15:17-19,16,20-30; Joh 19:4-16; and parallels). SEE PILATE. The traitor Judas, perceiving the enormity of his crime, now that, in consequence of his Master's acquiescence, there appeared no chance of his escape, returned to the hierarchy with the bribe, which, on their cool reply of indifference to his retraction, he flung down in the Temple, and went and hung himself in despairing remorse (Mt 27:3-10). SEE JUDAS. On his way out of the city to Golgotha, where he was to be crucified, Jesus fainted under the burden of his cross, which was therefore laid upon the shoulders of one Simon, who chanced to pass at the time, and as they proceeded Jesus bade the disconsolate Jewish females attending him to weep rather for themselves and their nation than for him; on reaching the place of execution, SEE GOLGOTHA, after refusing the usual narcotic, he was suspended on the cross between two malefactors, while praying for his murderers; and a brief statement of his offence (which the Jews in vain endeavored to induce Pilate to change as to phraseology) was placed above his head, the executioners meanwhile having divided his garments among themselves: while hanging thus, Jesus was reviled by the spectators, by the soldiers, and even by one of his fellow sufferers (whom the other penitently rebuking, was assured by Jesus of speedy salvation for himself, SEE THIEF ON THE CROSS ), and committed his mother to the care of John; then, at the close of the three hours' preternatural darkness SEE ECLIPSE, giving utterance (in the language of Psalm 22) to his agonized emotions, SEE SABACTHANI amid the scoffs of his enemies, he called for something to quench his thirst. which being given him, he expired with the words of resignation to God upon his lips, while an earthquake (q.v.) and the revivification of the sleeping dead bore witness to his sacred character, as the by standers, SEE CENTURION were forced to acknowledge (Mt 27:31-32; Lu 23:27-31; Mr 15:22-23,25,27-28; Lu 23:34; Joh 19:19-24; Mt 27:36,39-43; Luke 23:36, 37, 39. 43; Joh 19:25-27; Mt 27:45-47,49; Joh 19:28-30; Lu 23:46; Mt 27:51-53; Lu 23:47-48; and parallels). SEE PASSION. Towards evening, on account of the approaching. Sabbath, the Jews petitioned Pilate to cause the crucified persons to be killed by the usual process of hastening their death, SEE CRUCIFIXION, and their bodies removed from so public a place; and as the soldiers were executing this order, they were surprised to find Jesus already dead; one of the soldiers, however, tested the body by plunging a spear into the side, when water mixed with clots of blood issued from the wound (Joh 19:31-37). SEE BLOOD AND WATER. A rich Arimathaean, named Joseph (q.v.), a secret believer in Jesus, soon came and desired the body of Jesus for burial. and Pilate, as soon as he had ascertained the actual death of Jesus, gave him permission; accordingly, with the help of Nicodemus, he laid it in his own new vault, temporarily wrapped in spices, while the female friends of Jesus observed the place of its sepulture (Mr 15:42-44; Joh 19:38-42; Lu 23:25-26; and parallels). SEE SEPULCHRE. Next day (Saturday, March 19, A.D. 29) the hierarchy, remembering Jesus' predictions of his own resurrection, persuaded Pilate to secure the entrance to the tomb by a large stone, a seal, and a guard, SEE WATCH, at the door (Mt 27:62-66). The women, meanwhile, prepared additional embalming materials in the evening for the body of Jesus (Mr 16:1). SEE EMBALM.
Very early next morning (Sunday, March 20, A.D. 29) Jesus arose alive from the tomb, SEE RESURRECTION, which an angel opened, the guards swooning away at the sight (Mt 28:2-4, and parallel). The women soon appeared on the spot with the spices for completing the embalming, but, discovering the stone removed from the door, Mary Magdalene hastily returned to tell Peter, while the rest, entering, missed the body, but saw two angels at the entrance, who informed them of the resurrection of their Master, and. as they were returning to inform the disciples, they met Jesus himself; but the disciples, on their return, disbelieved their report (Mark 21:2-4; Joh 20:2; Lu 24:3-8; Mt 28:7-10; Lu 24:9-10; and parallels). The guard, however, had by this time recovered, and, on reporting to the hierarchy, they were bribed to circulate a story of the abreption of the body during their sleep (Matthew 33:11-15). Mary Magdalene meanwhile had roused Peter and John with the tidings of the absence of the body, and, on their hastening to the tomb, they both observed the state of things there, without arriving at any satisfactory explanation of it); but Mary, who arrived soon after they had left, as she stood weeping, saw a person of whom, mistaking him for the keeper of the garden, she inquired for the body, but was soon made aware by his voice that it was Jesus himself, when she fell at his feet, being forbidden a nearer approach, but bidden to announce his resurrection to the disciples (Joh 20:11-18; Mr 16:11; and parallels). On the same day Jesus appeared to two of the disciples who were going to Emmaus, and discoursed to them respecting the Christology of the Old Test., but they did not recognize him till they were partaking the meal to which, at their journey's end, they invited him, and then they immediately returned with the news to Jerusalem, where they found that he had in the meanwhile appeared also to Peter (Lu 24:13-33, and parallels). At this moment Jesus himself appeared in their midst, and overcame their incredulity by showing them his wounds and eating before them, and then gave them instructions respecting their apostolical mission (Lu 24:36-49; Joh 20:21; Mr 16:15-18; Joh 10:4,22-23; and parallels). Thomas, who had been absent from this interview, and therefore refused to believe his associates' report, was also convinced, at the next appearance of Jesus a week afterwards (Sunday evening, March 27, A.D. 29), by handling him personally (Joh 20:24-29). Some time afterwards (prob. Wednesday, March 30, A.D. 29) Jesus again appeared to his disciples on the shore of the Sea of Tiberias, as they were fishing; and, after they had taken a preternatural quantity of fish at his direction, coming ashore, they partook of a meal which he had prepared, after which he tenderly reproved Peter for his unfaithfulness, and intimated to him his future martyrdom (Mt 28:16; Joh 21:1-23). Soon afterwards (probably Thursday. March 31, A.D. 29) he appeared to some five hundred of his disciples (1Co 15:6) at an appointed meeting on a mountain in Galilee, where he commissioned his apostles afresh to their work (Mt 28:16-20). Next he appeared to James (1Co 15:7), and finally to all the apostles together, SEE APPEARANCE (OF RISEN CHRIST), to whom, at the end of forty days from his passion (Thursday, April 28, A.D. 29), he now gave a general charge relative to their mission, SEE APOSTLE, and, leading them towards Bethany, while blessing them he was suddenly carried up bodily into the sky, SEE ASCENSION and enfolded from their sight in a cloud, SEE INTERCESSION; angels at the same time appearing and declaring to them, in their astonishment, his future return in a similar manner (Ac 1:2-12, and parallels): (For a fuller explanation of the details of the foregoing narrative, see Strong's Harmony and Exposition of the Gospels, N.Y., 1852.) SEE GOSPELS.
IV. Literature. — Much of this has been cited under the foregoing heads. We present here a general summary.
1. The efforts to produce a biography of the Savior of mankind may be said to have begun with the attempts to combine and harmonize the statements of the evangelists (see Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 20). SEE HARMONIES. The early Church contented itself simply with collating the narratives of the different apostles and an occasional comment on some passages. SEE MONOTESSARON. In the Middle Ages, as also later in the Roman Catholic Church, the works written on the life of Christ were uncritical, fantastic, and fiction like, being mere religious tracts (Hase, p. 26). Even after the Reformation had given rise to speculation and religious theory, the works on the life of Christ continued to be of a like character. It was not till near the close of the 18th century, when the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentists had attacked Christianity, SEE LESSING, that the Apologists felt themselves constrained to treat the history of Christ in his twofold nature, as God and also as man. This period was therefore the first in which the life of Christ was treated in a critical and pragmatical manner (comp. Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1864, p. 1). Soon, however, these efforts degenerated into humanitarianism, and even profanity. Herder, the great German poet and theologian, wrote distinct treatises on the life of "the Son of God" and on the life of the Son of man." Some treated of the prophet of Nazareth (Bahrdt, Venturini; later Langsdorf); others even instituted comparisons with men like Socrates, oftentimes drawing the parallel in favor rather of the latter. Others (Paulus, Greiling), in order to suit the tendency of the age, hesitated not to strip the life of Christ of all the miraculous, and painted him simply as the humane and wise teacher. Such a theory was, of course, "the reductio ad absurdum of a rationalism pure and simple" (compare Plumptre, Christ and Christendom, Boyle Lect. 1866, p. 329). The more modern theology (we refer here mainly to German theology since Schleiermacher) attempted to crowd forward the ideal. Thus Hase proposed for his task the treatment "how Jesus of Nazareth, according to divine predestination, by the free exercise of his own mind, and by the will of his age, had become the Savior of the world." A still more destructive attitude (comp. Lange, 1, 10 sq.) was assumed by Strauss, who, while not denying that Jesus had lived, yet recognized in the accounts of the gospels simply a mythical reflex of what the young Christian society had invented to connect with the prophetical announcements of the old covenant, though, of course, he added that it had been done unconsciously and thoughtlessly. Thus the (poetico-speculative) truth of the ideal Christ was to be maintained, but it soon vanished in the clouds like a mist. In a modified form this mythical theory was advocated by Weisse, who, like others before him, endeavored to solve the miraculous in .the life of Christ by the introduction of higher biology (magnetism, etc.), and used Strauss's hypotheses in order to dispose of whatever he found impracticable in his own view. The Tübingen theologian, Bruno Bauer (Kritik. der evangel. Gesch. vol. 3), went further, and declaring that he could not see in the accounts of the apostles a harmless poesy, branded them as downright imposture. A much more moderate position was taken by one who utterly disbelieved the fulfilment of the prophecies, Salvador the Jew. He acknowledged the historical personality of Jesus, though the Savior, in his treatment, came to be nothing but a Jewish reformer (and, of course, a demagogue also).
It must be acknowledged, however, that these criticisms provoked a more thorough study of the subject, and that orthodox Christianity is therefore in no small measure indebted to German rationalism for the great interest which has since been manifested in the history of our Lord. The rationalistic works called forth innumerable critiques and rejoinders (most prominent among: which were those of W. Hoffman, Stuttg. 1838 sq.;
Hengstenberg. in the Evangel. Kirchenzeitung, 1836; Schweizer, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837, No. 3; Tholuck,. Hamburg, 1838; Ullmann, Hamb. 1838); and finally resulted in the publication of a vast number of protections on the life of Jesus.
We call attention, likewise, to the efforts of the Dutch theologians, among whom are Meijboom (Groning. I861), Van Osterzee, and others. A new treatment of the-subject was promised by the late chevalier Bunsen (Preface to his Hippolytus, p. 49) but it never made its appearance. Ewald, however, continued his work on the Jews (Gesch. d. Volkes Israel), closing in a fifth volume with the life of Christ (Lebenz Christus). The author evidently is a non-believer in our Lord's godhead (compare Liddon, Bampt. Lecture, 1866, p. 505). His method of dealing with the subject has something of the same indefiniteness which characterized the work of Schleiermacher (compare Plumptre, Boyle Lecture, 1866; p. 336). Ewald views Jesus "as the fulfilment of the O.T. as the final, highest, fullest, clearest revelation of God — as the true Messiah, who satisfies all right longing for God and for deliverance from the curse-as the eternal King of the kingdom of God. But with all: this, and while he depicts our Lord's person and work in its love, activity, and majesty, with a beauty that is not often met with, there is but one nature accorded to this perfect Person, and that nature is human." Of a very different character from all these works are the lectures of Prof. C. J. Riggenbach, of Basle, who presents us the picture of our Lord from a harmonistico-apologetic point of view.
Here deserve mention also the labors of Neander, who, "in the conviction, which runs through his Church History, that Christendom rests upon the personality of Christ," was not a little alarmed by the production of Strauss, and "with fear and trembling, feeling that controversy was a duty, and yet also that it marred the devotion of spirit in which alone the life of his Lord and Master could be contemplated rightly," entered the lists against rationalistic combatants. His excellent work has found a worthy translator in the late Rev. Dr. M'Clintock. We pass over men like Hare, "who reproduce more or less the rationalism of Paulus" (perhaps the first conspicuous work of the rationalistic Germans, though it failed to awaken the general interest that Strauss's work did; comp. Plumptre, Boyle Lect. 1866, p. 329); others also, who, like Ebrard and Lange, "avowedly assume the position of apologists, though their works are at least evidence (as are bishop Ellicott's Hulsean Lect., and the many elaborate commentaries on the Gospels in our country and abroad) that orthodox theologians do not shrink from the field of inquiry thus opened." A time of quiet and rest seemed now to have dawned upon this polemical field of Christian theology, when suddenly, in 1863, the learned Frenchman Renan appeared with his Vie de Jesus, and stirred anew the spirits, as Strauss had done thirty years before. Most arbitrarily did Mr. Renan deal with the data upon which his work professed to be based; while theologically he proceeded throughout "on a really atheistic assumption, disguised beneath the veil of a pantheistic phraseology ... It is, however, when we look at the Vie de Jesus from a moral point of view that its shortcomings are most apparent in their length and breadth. Its hero is a fanatical impostor, who pretends to be and to do that which he knows to be beyond him, but who, nevertheless, is held up to our admiration as the ideal of humanity" (Liddon, p. 506). It is sufficient to reply to this caricature by Mr. Renan that, "If this be the founder of Christianity, and if Christianity be the right belief, then all religion must cease from the earth; for not only is this character unfit to sustain Christianity, but it is unfit to sustain any religion; it wants the bond" (Lange, 1, 18). Yet "it may be that to the thousands whose thoughts have either rested in the symbols of the infancy and the death which the cultures of the Latin Church brings so prominently before them, or who, having rejected these, have accepted nothing in their place, the Vie de Jesus has given a sense of human reality to the Gospel history which they never knew before, and led them to study it with a more devout sympathy" (Plumptre, p. 337). Countless editions and translations were made of the work, and it was read everywhere with as much interest as if it had been simply a work of fiction; indeed German theologians, even the Rationalists, hesitated not to rank it among French novels. Innumerable are the works which were written against and in defense of this legendary hypothesis. In Germany, especially, the contest raged fiercely, and for a time it seemed as if the materialistic Frenchman was to uproot all Christian feelings in the hearts of the common people of Germany when Strauss suddenly reappeared on the stage in behalf of his mythical theory with a new edition of his Leben Jesu, this time prepared for the wants of the German people, "and the new work, more popular in form, more caustic and sneering in its hostility, has been read as widely as the old. Mustering all old objections and starting anew, he seeks to prove that the first three gospels contradict each other and the forth. Without entering into the more elaborate theories as to their origin and their relation to the several parties and sects in early Christendom, as Baur did afterwards, he has a general theory which accounts for them. Men's hopes and wishes, their reverence and awe, tend at all times to develop themselves into myths ... The myths were not 'cunningly devised,' but were the spontaneous, unconscious growth of the time in which they first appeared. If men asked what, then, was left them to believe in what was the idea which had thus developed itself through what had been worked on as the facts of Christianity, the answer was that God manifested himself, not in Christ, but in humanity at large humanity is the union of the two natures, the finite and the infinite, the child of the visible mother and the invisible father ... The outcry against the book was, as might be expected, enormous. It opened the eyes of those who had dallied with unbelief to see that they were naked, and it stripped off the fig leaf covering of words and phrases with which they had sought to hide their nakedness. What was offered as the compensation for all this work of destruction; if it were offered in any other spirit than that of the mockery even then, and yet more now, so characteristic of the author, was hardly enough to give warmth and shelter to any human soul" (Plumptre, p. 334). The ablest among Christian divines and scholars came forward to refute, the naked falsehoods, and up to our day the contest rages, nor can it be said how soon it will be ended; it is certain, however, that orthodox Christianity is daily gaining ground, even in the very core of the heart of Rationalism. In France it drew forth the able work of Pressense, Jesus Christ son Temps, sa Vie son (OEuvre (Paris, 1865), which has since appeared in an English dress in this country. In England, Ecce Homo, a survey of the life and work of Jesus Christ (London, 1866), was a response to French and German Rationalists, in so far as the reality of our Savior's human career is concerned. (See above, 2, 3.)
Great service has also been done for the truth by the productions of Weiss (Sechs Vortrage über die Person Jesut Christi, Ingolst. 1864), Liddon (Bampton Lecture, 1866; see Christiac Remembrancer, Jan. 1868, article 6), and particularly by Row (London, 1868; N.Y. 1871; see Princeton Rev. 1810, art. 5), Plumptre' (Boyle Lect. 1866), R. Payne Smith (Bampton Lecture, 1869), Leathes, Witness of St. John to Christ (Boyle Lect. 1870), Andrews, and Hanna. Several popular treatises on the subject were also produced in Germany, England, and America, among which are those of Abbott and Eddy. Henry Ward Beecher has just published vol. 1 of a similar work.
2. The following is a list of the most important of the very numerous works relating to the person and history of Christ, of which Germany has been especially fruitful (comp. Walch, 3, 404; Hase, p. 28, 37, 41; Andrews, Preface).
(1.) Of a general character are treatises by the following authors, respecting the proper method of investigating the career of Christ: Doderlein (Jena, 1783 sq.), Semler (Hal. 1786), Eberhard (Hal. 1787), Albers (Gbtt. 1793), Ammon (Gitt. 1794), Bruggeman (Gott. 1795), Stuckert (Francfort, 1797), Muller (Stuttg. 1785), Piper (Gott. 1835), Sextroth (Gott. 1785), Peterson (Lub. 1838), Scholten (Traj. 1840), Wiggers (Rost. 1837). On profane and apocryphal materials: Kocher (Jena, 1726), Meyer (Hamb. 1805), Augusti (Jena, 1799), Huldric (L.B. 1705), Werner (Stad. 1781). Diatessura of the Gospel history have been composed by the following: J.F. Bahrdt (Lpz. 1772), Roos (Tübingen, 1776), Mutschelle (Munch. 1784), C.F. Bahrdt (Berl. 1787), Bergen (Giessen, 1789 sq.),White (Oxon. 1800), Keller (Stuttg. 1802). Hom (Nurnburg, 1803), Sebastiani (Lpzg. 1806), Muller (Wien, 1807), Langsdorf (Mannheim, 1830), Kuchler (Lips. 1835), and others. SEE HARMONIES.
Discussions on the life of Jesus, in a more historical form; of a hostile character, are by the following: Reimar (Braunschweig, 1778 sq.), C.F. Bahrdt (Halle, 1782; Berl. 1784 sq.), J. G. Schulthess (Zur. 1783),Venturini (Kopen. 1800), Langsdorf (Mannh. 1831), D. F. Strauss (Tibing. 1835, 1837, 1838 [the work which provoked the innumerable critiques and rejoinders, as above stated], Sack (Bonn, 1836), Theile (Lpzg. 1832), Hahn (Leipzig, 1839).
Of an apologetic character [besides those in express opposition to Strauss] are the following: Reinhard (Wittenburg, 1781; 5th edition, with additions by Heubner, 1830), Hess (Zurich, 1774, rewritten 1823), Vermehren (Halle, 1799), Opitz (Zerbst, 1812), Planck (Gott. 1818), Bodent [Rom. Cath.] (Gernund. 1818 sq.), Paulus (Heidell). 1828), J. Schulthess (Zurich, 1830), Hase (Lpzg. 1829,1835), Neander (Hamb. 1837; translated M'Clintock and Blumenthal, N.Y. 1840), Kleuker (Brem. 1776; Ulm. 1793), Basedow (Lpz. 1784), Wizenman (Lpz. 1780), Herder (Riga, 1796), Hacker (Leipzig, 1801-3), Schorch (Lpzg. 1841), Kolthoff (Hafn. 1852), Hofmann (Leipzig, 1852), Keim (Zir. 1861,1864), Wisenmann (1864), Weiss (Ingolst. 1864). SEE RATIONALISM.
Among those of a more practical character are the following: Walch (Jena, 1740), Huniber (Frankf. 1763), Hoppenstedt (Hannov. 1784 sq.), Hunter (Lond. 1785), Fleetwood (Lond.), Cramer (Lpz. 1787), Marx (Munster, 1789, 1830), Gosner (Leipzig, 1797; Zurich, 1818), Sintenis (Zerbst, 1800), Meister (Basel, 1802), Reichenberger (Wien, 1793, 1826), Gerhard and Muller (Erfurt, 1801), Bauriegel (Neustadt, 1801,1821), Greiling (Halle, 1813), Jacobi (Gotha, 1817; Sonders. 1819), Pflaum (Nurnburg, 1819), Ammon (Lpzg. 1842-7, 3 vols.), Muller (Berlin, 1819,1821), Schmidt (Wien, 1822,1826), Francke (Bresl. 1823, Lpzg. 1838,1842), Buchfelner (Münch. 1826), Neavels (Aachen, 1826), Stephani (Magdeb. 1830), Onymus (Sulzb. 1831), Blunt (London, 1835), Hartmann (Stuttg. 1837), Weisse (Lpzg. 1838), Kuhn (Mainz, 1838), Lehrreich (Quedl. 1840), Hirscher (Tubing. 1839), Wurkerts (Meiss. 1840), Hug (1840), Krane (Cass. 1850), Lichtenstein (Erl. 1855), Rougemont (Paris and Lausanne, 1856), J. Bucher (Stuttgard, 1859), Krummacher (Bielf. 1854), Baumgarten (Brunsw. 1859), Uhlhorn (Hamb. 1866; Bost. 1868), Ellicott (London, 1859), Andrews (N.Y. 1862).
Among those pictorially illustrated are the works of Schleich (Munch. 1821), Langer (Stuttgart, 1823), Kitto (Loud. 1847), Abbott (N.Y. 1864), Crosby (N.Y. 1871).
Among those of a poetical character are Juvencus, ed. Arevalus (Rom. 1792),Vida (L.B. 1566, ed. Muller; Hamb. 1811), Wilmsen (Berlin, 1816, 1826), Gittermann (Hannov. 1821), Schincke (Hal. 1826), Klopstock (Hal. 1751, and often), Lavater (Winterth. 1783), Halem (Hannov. 1810), Weihe (Elberf. 1822, 1824), Wilmy (Sulzb. 1825), Kirsch (Lpz. 1825), Gopp (Lpz. 1827).
(2.) Of a more special nature are treatises on particular portions of Christ's outward history or circumstances, e.g. his relatives: Walther (Berl. 1791), Oertel (Germ. 1792), Hasse (Regiom. 1792; Berl. 1794), Ludewig (Wolfenb. 1831). Tiliander (Upsal. 1772), Gever (Viteb. 1777), Blom (L. Bat. 1839), Oosterzee (Traj. a. R. 1840); and his country: Konigsman (Slesvic. 1807). Among those on his birth: Korb (Lpz. 1831), Meerheim (Viteb. 1785), Reimer (Lubec, 1653), Oetter (Numbers, 1774); and in a chronological point of view, among others: Masson (Roterd. 1700), Maius (Kilon. 1708; id. 1722), Reineccius (Hal. 1708), Liebknecht (Giess. 1735), Hager (Chemnit. 1743), Mann (Lond. 1752), Jost (Wirceb. 1754), Haiden (Prague, 1759), Reccared (Region. 1768; id. 1766), Horix (Mogunt. 1789), Sanclemente (Rome, 1795), Michaelis (Wien, 1797), Munter (Kopenh. 1827), Feldhoff (Frankf 1832), Mayer (Gryph. 1701), Hardt (Helmstadt, 1754), Korner (Lipsiae, 1778), Mynster (Kopenh. 1837), Huschke (Bresl. 1840), Caspari (Hamb. 1869); compare Stud. u. Krit. 1870, 2, 357; 1871, 2; Baptist Quarterly, 1871, p. 113 sq.; and see Zumpt, Das Geburtsjahr Christi (Leipzig, 1869). On his infancy, education, etc.: Niemeyer (Halle, 1790), Ammon (Gitting. 1798), Schubert (Gryph. 1813), Carpzov (Helmst. 1771), Weise (Helmst. 1798), Lange (Ald. 1699), Arnold (Regiom. 1730), Rau (Erl. 1796), Bandelin (Lub. 1809). On the duration of his ministry: Chrysander (Brunsw. 1750), Pisanski (Regiom. 1778), Loeber (Altenb. 1767), Korner (Lips. 1779), Priestley (Birmingham, 1780), Newcome (Dublin, 1780), Priess (Rost. 1789), Hinlein (Erlang. 1796). SEE APOSTLE. On his baptism, SEE JOHN THE BAPTIST. On his travels: Schmidt (Ilmenau, 1833; Paris, 1837). On his celibacy: Niedner (Schneeberg, 1815). On his teaching: Tschucke (Lipsiae, 1781), Bahrdt (Berlin, 1786), Manderbach (Elberf. 1813), Martini (Rost. 1794), Stier (Leipzig, 1853 sq.; Edinb. 1856 sq.). SEE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. On his alleged writings: Ittig (Lipsiae, 1696), Epistola apocrypha J.C. ad Petrum (Rom. 1774), Sartorius (Basil. 1817), Gieseke (Lunenb. 1822), Witting (Braunschw. 1823). SEE ABGAR On his miracles (q.v.): Heumann (Gott. 1747), Pfaff (Tübingen, 1752), Pauli (Riga, 1773), Trench (Lond. 1848; N.Y. 1850). On his transfiguration (q.v.): Reusmann (Getting. 1747), Georgi (Viteb. 1744), anonymous Essay (Lond. 1788), Haubold (Gott. 1791), Eger (1794), Rau (Erl. 1797); and his white garment, Franke (Lips. 1672), Sagittarius (Jena, 1673). On his temptation (q.v.): Baumgarten (Halle, 1755), De Saga (Gdtt. 1757), Farmer (London, 1671), Sauer (Bonn, 1789), Postius (Zweibr. 1791), Ziegenhagen (Franckfort, 1791), Domey (Upsal. 1792), Schutze (Hamb. 1793), Dahl (Upsal. 1800), Bertholdt (Erl. 1812), Gellerichts (Altenb. 1815), Richter (Viteb. 1825), Schweizer (Zurich, 1833), Ewald (Bayreuth, 1833); comp. the Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1870, p. 188 sq. On his passion (q.v.): Iken (Brem. 1743 Tr. a. R. 1758), Baumgarten (Halle, 1757), Glanz (Stuttg. 1809), Henneberg (Lpzg. 1823), Schlegel (Lpzg. 1775), Mosche (Franckfort, 1785), Ewald (Lemgo, 1785), Fischer (Lpzg. 1794), Kindervater (Lpzg. 1797), Mosler (Eisenb. 1816), Krummacher (Berl. 1817), Jongh (Tr. a. R. 1827), Adriani (Tr. a. R. 1827),Walther (Bresl. 1738; Lpzg. 1777). On his crucifixion (q.v.): Schmidtman (Osnabr. 1830), Neubig (Erl. 1836), Hasert (Berl. 1839), Karig (Lpzg. 1842), Stroud (Lond. 1847). SEE AGONY; SEE ATONEMENT. On his words upon the cross: Hopner (Lips. 1641), Dankauer (Arg. 1641), Luger (Jena, 1739), Scharf (Viteb. 1677), Niemann (Jena, 1671), Lokerwitz (Viteb. 1680). On his burial: Te Water [i.e. Wesseling] (Traj. a. Rh. 1761). SEE CALVARY. On his resurrection (q.v.): among others, Buttstedt (Gerae, 1749), Sherlock (London, 1751), Seidel (Helmst. 1758), Weickhmann (Viteb. 1767), Burkitt (Meining. 1774), Rehkopf (Helmstadt, 1775), Lüderwald (Helmst. 1778). Less (Gott. 1779), Scheibel (Frankf. 1779), Mosche (Frankf. 1779), Semler (Halle, 1780), Moldenhauer (Hamb. 1779), Velthusen (Helmst. 1780), Pfeiffer (Erlang. 1779,1787), Michaelis (Hal. 1783), Schmid (Jena, 1784), Plessing (Hal. 1788), Volkmar (Bresl. 1786), Henneberg (Lpzg. 1826), Frege (Hamb. 1833), Griesbach (Jena, 1784), Niemeyer (Hal. 1824), Rosenmüller (Erlang. 1780), Paulus (Jena, 1795), Pisansky. (Regiom. 1782), Zeibich (Gerae, 1784), Rusmeyer (Gryph. 1734), Feuerlein (Gott. 1752), Gutschmidt (Halle, 1753), Miller (Hafi. 1836). On his ascension (q.v.), among others: Griesbach (Jena, 1793), Seller (Erlang. 1798,1803), Ammon (Gott. 1800), Otterbein (Duisb. 1802), Flügge (Argent. 1811),Weichert (Viteb. 1811), Fogtmann (Havn. 1826), Hamna, The Forty Days after our Lord's Resurrection (London, 1863).
The following are some of the treatises on the personal traits of Jesus, e.g. his physical constitution: Weber (Hal. 1825), Engelmann (Lpz. 1834), Gieseler (Götting. 1837). On his dress: Zeibich (Witt. 1754), Gerberon (Par. 1677). His language: Reiske (Jena, 1670), Kleden (Viteb. 1739), Diodati (Neapol. 1767), Pfannkuche (in Eichhorn's Allg. Bibl. 7, 365-480), Wiseman (in his Hor. Seyr. Rome, 1828), Zeibich (Viteb. 1791), Paulus (Jena, 1803). On his mode of life: Lunze (Lips. 1784), Rau (Erl. 1787, 1796), Jacobaeus (Hafn. 1703), Schreiber (Jena, 1743), Tragard (Gryph. 1781). On his intercourse with others: Gesenius (Helmstadt, 1734), Jetze (Liegn. 1792). Respecting the inner nature of his character, the following may be named, e.g. on his (human) disposition and temperament: Woytt (Jena, 1753), Bucking (Stendal. 1793), Schinmaier (Flensb. 1774 sq.), Winkler (Lpz. 1826), Dorner (Stuttg. 1839); on his psychology, see the Biblioth. Sacra, April, 1870. On his sinlessness, among others: Walther (Viteb. 1690), Baumgarten (Hal. 1740), Erbstein (Meiss. 1787), Weber (Viteb. 1796), Ewald (Hannov. 1798; Gerae, 1799), Ullmann (Hamburg, 1833, translated in Clark's Biblical Cabinet, Edinburgh), Fritzsche (Halle, 1835). SEE MESSIAH.