CHAPTER II.
BAPTISM AND TEMPATION OF JESUS.

§. 49. WHY DID JESUS RECEIVE BAPTISM FEOM JOHN?

IN conformity with the evangelical view of the fact, the custom-
ary answer given by the orthodox to this question is, that Jesus, by
his submission to John's baptism, signified his consecration to tlie
messianic office; an explanation which is supported by a passage in
Justin, according to which it was the Jewish notion, that the Mes-
siah would be unknown as sucli to himself and others, until Elias
as his forerunner sliould anoint him, and thereby make him distin-
guishable by all.* Tlie Baptist himself, however, as he is repre-
sented by tlie first evangelist, could not have partaken of tins design;

for had lie regarded his baptism as a consecration which tlie Messiah
must necessarily undergo, he would not have hesitated to perform
it on tlie person of Jesus (iii. 14.).

Our former inquiries have shown that John's baptism related
partly e^? T'OV Ep^opsvov, its recipients promising a believing prepara-
tion for the expected Messiah; how then could Jesus, if he was
conscious of being liimself the ep^ojiigvoc, submit himself to this
baptism ? The usual answer from the orthodox point of view is,
that Jesus, altliougli conscious of his Messiaship, yet, so long as it
was not publicly attested by God, spoke and acted, not as tlie Mes-
siah, but merely as an Israelite, who lield liimself bound to obey
every divine ordinance relative to his nation.+ But, here, there is
a distinction to be made.   Negatively, it became Jesus to refrain
from performing any messianic deeds, or using any of the Messiah's
prerogatives, before Ids title was solemnly attested; even positively,
it became him to submit himself to tlie ordinances which were in-
cumbent on every Israelite; but to ioin in a new rite, which sym-
bolized tlie expectation of another and a future Messiah, could
never, without dissimulation, be the act of one who was conscious
of being the actual Messiah himself. More recent theologians liave

-  -   --    •     • --   •L "„„ p-,,«,.h;,.),tB .Ti.au. 1. B. S.

BAPTISM OF JESUS.                  243

therefore wisely admitted, that when Jesus came to John for bap-
tism, he had not a decided conviction of his Messiahship.* They
indeed regard this uncertainty as only the struggle of modesty.
Paulus, for instance, observes that Jesus, notwithstanding he had
heard from his parents of Ills messianic destination, and had felt
this first intimation confirmed by many external incidents, as well
as by his own spiritual development, was yet not over eager to ap-
propriate the honour, wliich had been as it were thrust upon him.
But, if the previous narratives concerning Jesus be regarded as a
history, and therefore, of necessity, as a supernatural one; then must
lie, who was heralded by angels, miraculously conceived, welcomed
into tlie world by the homage of magi and prophets, and who in his
twelfth year knew the temple to be his father's house, have long
held a conviction of his Messiahship, above all tlie scruples of a false
modesty. If on the contrary it be thought possible, by criticism,
to reduce the history of the childhood of Jesus to a merely natural
one, there is no longer anything to account for his early belief tliat
he was the Messiali; and tlie position wliicli lie adopted by tlie re-
ception of John's baptism becomes, instead of an affected diffidence,
a real ignorance of his messianic destiny.  Too modest, continue
these commentators, to declare himself Messiali on his own author-
ity, Jesus fulfilled all that tlie strictest self-judgment could require,
and wislicd to make the decisive experiment, whether tlie Deity
would allow tliat lie, as well as every other, should dedicate liimself
to the coming Messiali, or whether a sign would be granted, that lie
himself was the ep^'o^evoc. But to do something seen to be inap-
propriate, merely to try wliether God will correct tlie mistake, is just
such a challenging of the divine power as Jesus, shortly after his
baptism, decidedly condemns. Thus it must be allowed that, the
baptism of John being a baptism el<; T'OV ep^ofzEvov, if Jesus could
submit liimself to it without dissimulation or presumption, he could
not at the time liave held liimself to be tliat ep^o^eroc, and if lie re-
ally uttered ttie words o^ru Trpe-n-ov EO-I, a. T. X. Suffer it to be so
no'w, &c. (wliicli, however, could only be called forth by the refusal
of tlie Baptist-a refusal that stands or falls with his previous con-
viction of tlie Messiahship of Jesus,) he could only mean by them,
tliat it became him, witli every pious Israelite, to devote liimself by
anticipation to tlie expected Messiali, in baptism, although the evan-
gelist, instructed by tlie issue, put on them a different construction.

But the relation hitherto discussed is only one aspect of John's
baptism ; tlie other, wliicli is yet more strongly attested by history,
shows it as a PaTrnaiia fiKravoiag, a baptism of repentance.  The
Israelites, we are told Matt. iii. 6, were baptized of John, confessing
weir sins: sliall we then suppose that Jesus made such a confes-
sion ? They received tlie command to repent: did Jesus acknow-
ledge such a command ? This difficulty was felt even in the early
church. In the gospel of tlie Hebrews, adopted by tlie Nazarenes,

* Paulus. ut sun- S- S(i2 ff- S.17.  Hase. L. J. S. 48. erste Anss.

246 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

The narrations directly convey no other meaning, than that the

whole scene was externally visible and audible, and thus they have
been always understood by tlic majority of commentators. But in
endeavouring to conceive the incident as a real one, a cultivated and
reflecting mind must stumble at no insignificant difficulties. First,
that for the appearance of a divine being on earth, tlie visible heav-
ens must divide themselves, to allow of his descent from Ins ac-
customed scat, is an idea tliat can liave no objective reality, but
must be the entirely subjective creation of a time when tlic dwell-
ing-place of Deity was imagined to be above the vault of licaven.
Further, how is it reconcileable with the true idea of tlie Holy Spirit
as tlie divine, all-pervading Power, that lie sliould move from ons
place to anotlier, like a finite being, and embody himself in tlie form
of a dove ? Finally, tliat God should utter articulate tones in a na-
tional idiom, lias been justly lield extravagant.*

Even in the early church, tlie more enlightened fathers adopted
the opinion, tliat tlie heavenly voices spoken of in tlie biblical histo-
ry were not external sounds, tlic effect of vibrations in tlie air, but
inward impressions produced by God in tlie minds of those to whom
he willed to impart himself: thus of tlie appearance at tlie baptism
of Jesus, Origen and Theodore of Mopsucstia maintain that it was
a vision, and not a reality, on-aalo., ou ipvoi^.) To the simple in-
deed, says Origen, in their simplicity, it is a light thing to set the
universe in motion, and to sever a solid mass like tlie heavens ; but
those who search more deeply into such matters, will, lie flunks, re-
fer to those higher revelations, by means of wliicli clioscn persons,
even waking, and still more frequently in their dreams, arc led to
suppose tliat they perceive something with their bodily senses, wliilc
their minds only are affected : so tliat consequently, tlic wliole ap-
pearance in question sliould be understood, not as an external inci-
dent, but as an inward vision sent by God; an interpretation which
has also met witli much approbation among modern tlicologians.

In tlie first two Gospels and in the fourth, tills interpretation is
favoured by tlie expressions, were opened to /dm, dveu^Orjaav avru>,
he saw, elSe, and I beheld, TeOea/tai, which seem to imply tliat the
appearance was subjective, in tlie sense intended by Theodore, when
he observes that tlie descent of tlie Holy Spirit VMS not seen by all
•present, bid that, by a certain spiritual contemplation, it was visi-
ble to John alone, ov waiv wi^Oi-] rol<; Trapovoiv, d/l/lo iiard riva •nve.v-
fia-iiifjv Oewpiav ^OT] y.6vu> TU 'ludvvy: to John however ^we must add
Jesus, who, according to Mark, participated in tlie vision. But in
opposition to this stands tlie statement of Luke: the expressions
wliicli lie uses, eywe-ro-avw^Or^vcii-nal ica~a0Tjvai-KW. ipuvi'iv-
yevioOal, it came to pass-was opened-and descended-and a

* Bauer, hebr. Mythologie, 2 S. 223 f. Comp. Gratz, Comm. zum Evang. Matth. i.
S. 172 ff.

+ Those are Theodore's words, in Mimter's Fragmenta patr. grixic. Fasc. 1, S. 142.

n-;~ „ ^..1. ; fa   It.,.;] Af in «,,i..or'a •I'ln.an.irna C IV 117!).

BAPTISM OF JESUS.                  247

voice came, bear a character so totally objective and exterior,* es-
pecially if we add the words, in a bodily form, aui.ia.Ti.nu e'iSei, tliat
(abiding by the notion of the perfect truthfulness of all the evangeli-
cal records,) tlic less explicit narratives must be interpreted by the
unequivocal one of Luke, and the incident they recount must be un-
derstood as something more than an inward revelation to John and
Jesus. Hence it is prudent in Olshausen to allow, in concession to
Luke, that there was present on the occasion a crowd of persons,
who saw and heard something, yet to maintain that tins was nothing
distinct or comprehensible. By this means, on the one liand, the
occurence is again transferred from the domain of subjective visions
to tliat of objective phenomena; while on the other, the descending
dove is supposed visible, not to tlie bodily eye, but only to the open
spiritual one, and tlie words audible to the soul, not to tlie bodily
car. Our understanding fails us in tills pneumatology of Olshausen,
wherein there are sensible realities transcending the senses; and we
hasten out of tills misty atmosphere into the clearer one of those,
who simply tell us, that the appearance was an external incident,
but one purely natural.

This party appeals to the custom of antiquity, to regard natural
occurrences as divine intimations, and in momentous crises, where a
bold resolution was to be taken, to adopt them as guides. To Jesus,
spiritually matured into tlie Messiah, and only awaiting an external
divine sanction, and to tlie Baptist who had already ceded the supe-
riority to tlie friend of his youth, in their solemn frame of mind at
the baptism of the former by tlie latter, every natural phenomenon
that happened at tlic time, must have been pregnant with meaning,
and have appeared as a sign of tlie divine will. But wliat the na-
tural appearance actually was, is a point on which tlie commentators
arc divided in opinon.  Some, with the synoptical writers, include
a sound as well as an appearance ; others give, with John, an ap-
pearance only. They interpret the opening of the heavens, as a
sudden parting of the clouds, or a flash of lightning; the dove they
consider as a real bird of tliat species, wliicli by cliance hovered over
the head of Jesus; or they assume tliat tlie lightning or some me-
teor was compared to a dove. from tlie manner of its descent. They
wlio include a sound as a part of tlie machinery in tlic scene, sup-
pose a clap of thunder, wliicli was imagined by tliose present to be
a Bath Kol, and interpreted into the words given by tlie first evan-
gelist. Others, on tlie contrary, understand what is said of audible
words, merely as an explanation of the visible sign, which was re-
garded as an attestation tliat Jesus was the Son of God.  Tills last
opinion sacrifices tlie synoptical writers, who undeniably speak of an
audible voice, to John, and thus contains a critical doubt as to tlie
historical character of tlie narratives, which, consistently followed
out, leads to quite other ground than that of the naturalistic inter-

* As even Lticke confesses, Comm. zum Evang. Joh. i. S. 370, and Bleeh, lit sup. S.

248 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

pretation. If the sound was mere thunder, and the words only an
interpretation put upon it bv tlie bystanders ; then, as in the sy-
noptical accounts the words are evidently supposed to have been
audibly articulated, we must allow that there is a traditional in-
gredient in these records.  So far as tlie appearance is concerned, it
is not to be denied that tlie sudden parting ol' clouds, or a flash of
lightning, miglit be described as an opening of heaven ; but in no-
wise could tlie form of a dove be ascribed to lightning or a meteor.
The form is expressly tlie point of comparison in Luke only, but it
is doubtless so intended by the other narrators ; although Fritzsche
contends that the words like a dove, wad -reptff-epav, in Matthew
refer only to the rapid motion. Tlie flight of the dove lias nothing
so peculiar and distinctive, that, supposing this to be the point of
comparison, there would not be in any of tlie parallel passagas a
variation, a substitution of some other bird, or an entirely new figure.
As, instead of this, tlie mention of tlie dove is invariable through all
tlie. four Gospels, tlie simile must turn upon something exclusively
proper to the dove, and this can apparently be nothing but its form.
Hence tliose commit the least violence on tlie text, wlio adopt the
supposition of a real dove. Paulus, however, in so doing, incurred
tlie hard task of sliewing by a multitude of facts from natural his-
tory and other sources, tliat tlie dove might be tame enough to fly
towards a man :* how it could linger so long over one, that it might
be said, ^etvev e-r' av-w, it abode vpon him, lie has not succeeded
in explaining, and he tlius conies into collision witli the narrative of
John, by which lie had sustained his supposition of the absence of
a voice.f

§ 51. AN ATTEMPT AT A CRITICISM AND MYTHICAL IXTEEPKETATION
OF THE NAREATIVES.

IF then a more intelligible representation of tlie scene at the
baptism of Jesus is not to be given, without doing violence to the
evangelical text, or without supposing it to be partially erroneous,
we are necessarily driven to a critical treatment of tlie accounts;

and indeed, according to UcWette and Schlcicrmacher, ^ this is the
prevalent course in relation to the above point in tlie evangelical
history. From tlie narrative of John, as the pure source, it is
sought to derive the synoptical accounts, as turbid streams. In the
former, it is said, there is no opening heaven, no heavenly voice ;

only the descent of tlie Spirit is, as liad been promised, a divine
witness to Jolin that Jesus is the Messiah; but in wliat manner
the Baptist perceived that tlie Spirit rested on Jesus, he does not
tell us, and possibly tlie only sign may have been tlie discourse ot
Jesus.

* Comp. Enseliius, II. E. vi. 29.   •(• See Paulus, Bauer, Kuinol, Hase and Thcile.
+ DaWette. liilil. UuErmatik, S 208. Anm. 6. exeg. llandliurh 1, 1, S. ;U f. 1, 3 S. 20 f.

BAPTISM OF JESL'S.                   249

One cannot but wonder at Schleiermacher's assertion, that the
manner in which tlie Baptist perceived the descending spirit is not
given in tlie fourth Gospel, when here also tlie expression uael rrepi-
orspav, like a dove, tells it plainly enough; and this particular
marks tlie descent as a visible one, and not a mere inference from
tlie discourse of Jesus. Usteri, indeed, thinks that the Baptist
mentioned tlie dove, merely as a figure, to denote tlie gentle, mild
spirit wliicli he had observed in Jesus. But had tills been all, ho
would rather have compared Jesus himself to a dove, as on another
occasion lie did to a lamb, than have suggested tlie idea of a sensible
appearance by tlie picturesque description, I saw the Spirit descend-
ing from, heaven like a dove. It is therefore not true in relation
to tlie dove, tliat first in tlie more remote tradition given by the
synoptical writers, wliat was originally figurative, was received in a
literal sense; for in tills sense it is understood by John, and if he
have tlie correct account, tlie Baptist himself must have spoken of
a visible dove-like appearance, as Bleek, Neandcr, and others,
acknowledge.

While tlie alleged distinction in relation to the dove, between
tlie first three evangelists and tlie fourth, is not to be found; witli
respect to tlie voice, tlie difference is so wide, tliat it is inconceivable
how tlie one account could be drawn from the other. For it is said
tliat tlie testimony wliicli John gave concerning Jesus, after tlie
appearance: TIris is tlie Son of tiocKJolm i. 34.), taken in connex-
ion with tlie preceding words: He tliat sent me, to baptize, t/w
same said unto me, &.c., became, in the process of tradition, an
immediate heavenly declaration, such as we sec in Mattliew: This
zs my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.  Supposing sucli
a transformation admissible, some instigation to it must be shown.
Now in Isaiah xhi. 1, Jehovah says of his servant: ("2--^>"ii< 1^2?) in
•'asa n^s"; ''"i-'na; words wliicli, excepting tliose between tlie
parentheses, arc almost literally translated by tlie declaration of tlie
heavenly voice in Matthew.  We learn from Matt. xii. 17 ff. tliat
tins passage was applied to Jesus as tlie Messiali; and in it God
himself is the speaker, as in tlie synoptical account of tlie baptism.

Here then was wliat would much more readily prompt tlie fiction
of a heavenly voice, llian tlie expressions of John.  Since, there-
fore, we do not need a misapprehension of the Baptist's language,
to explain tlie story of tlie divine voice, and since we cannot use it
for the derivation of the allusion to the dove; we must seek for the
source of our narrative, not in one of tlie evangelical documents,
but beyond tlie New Testament,-in the domain of coicmporary
ideas, founded on the Old Testament, tlie total neglect of which lias
greatly diminished tlie value of Schlciermacher's critique on the New
Testament.

To regard declarations concerning tlie Messiali, put by poets
into tlie mouth of Jehovah, as real, audible voices from heaven,

WaS W'hollv 1T1 tllB an;r;+ r,f +l>n lot^,. T^ A n; c, w   T.rliSr.L nitt erJ/Ii-im

250

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

supposed such vocal communications to fall to the lot of distin-
guished rabbins,* and of the messianic prejudices, which the early
Christians both shared tlicmselves, and were compelled, in confront-
ing the Jews, to satisfy. In the passage quoted from Isaiah, there
was a divine declaration, in which the present Messiah was pointed
to as it were with the finger, and which was therefore specially
adapted for a heavenly annunciation concerning him.  How could
tlie spirit of Christian legend be slow to imagine a scene, in which
these words were audibly spoken from heaven of the Messiah ? But
we detect a farther motive for such a representation of tlie case by
observing, tliat in Mark and Luke, the heavenly voice addresses
Jesus in tlie second person, and by comparing tlie words which,
according to the Fathers, were given in the old and lost gospels as
tliose of the voice. Justin, following his .Sfemoirs of the Apostles,
d7TO{ivri[zovEvp.a~a TUV oT-ooTo/lov, thus reports them: vl6<; y,w el av.
eyo) or'ifi.epov yeyevvr]na as ;•)• Thou art my Son, this day have I begot-
ten thee. In tlie gospel of tlie Hebrews, according to Epiplianius,^
tills declaration was combined with tliat which our gospels contain.
Clement of Alexandria § and Augustin |] seem to have read the words
even in some copies of the latter; and it is at least certain that some
of our present manuscripts of Luke liave this addition.^ Here were
words uttered by the heavenly voice, drawn, not from Isaiali, but
from Psalm ii. 7, a passage considered messianic by Jewish inter-
preters ;** in Heb. i. 5, applied to Christ; and, from their being
couched in tlie form of a direct address, containing a yet stronger
inducement to conceive it as a voice sent to the Messiah from heaven.
If then tlie words of tlie psalm were originally attributed to tlie
heavenly voice, or if tlicy were only taken in connexion with tlie
passage in Isaiali, (as is probable from tlie use of tlie second person,
av el, in Mark and Luke, since this form is presented in tlie psalm,
and not in Isaiali,) we have a sufficient indication tliat tills text,
long interpreted of the Messiali, and easily regarded as an address
from heaven to the Messiali on earth, was tlie source of our narra-
tive of tlie divine voice, heard at tlie baptism of Jesus.  To unite
it with tlie baptism, followed as a matter of course, when this was
lield to be a consecration of Jesus to his office.

We proceed to tlie descent of the spirit in tlie form of a dove.
In this examination, we must separate tlie descent of tlie Spirit from
the form of tlie dove, and consider tlie two particulars apart. Tliat
tlie Divine Spirit was to rest in a peculiar measure on tlie Messiali,
was an expectation necessarily resulting from tlie notion, tliat tlie
messianic times were to be tliose of tlie outpouring of the Spirit upon
all flesh (Joel iii. 1 ft.); and in Isaiali xi. 1 f. it was expressly said

* According to Bava Mczia, f. lix. 1, (in Wetstein, p. 427), II. Elieser appealed to
a heavenly sign, in proof that lie liad tradition in his favour: tuiti persofiuit echo cwiesi'ts:

quid vobis cum A*. Eliesere ? nam ubwis secu'tidum ilium obtim't tradUw. f Dial. c. Trypll.
88. t H-eres, xxx. 13.  § Piedagog. i. (i.   [| Ue consens. Evangg. ii. 14. 1 S. Wet-
stein in loc. des Lukas, and De Wette Einl. in das N. T. S. 100.   ** See Kosemnuller's

251

BAPTISM OF JESUS.

of the stem of Jesse, that the spirit of tlie Lord would rest on it in

all its fulness, as the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, of might,
and of the fear of tlie Lord. The communication of tlie Spirit, con-
sidered as an individual act, coincident with the baptism, had a type
in the history of David, on wliom, when anointed by Samuel the
spirit of God came from tliat day forward (1 Sam. xvi. 13). Further,
in tlie Old Testament plirases concerning tlie imparting of tlie Di-
vine Spirit to men, especially in that expression of Isaiali, '^'s nis,
which best corresponds to tlie [liveiv ETT'L of John, there already lay
tlie germ of a symbolical representation ; for that Hebrew verb is
applied also to tlie halting of armies, or, like the parallel Arabic
word, even of animals.  Tlie imagination, once stimulated by such
an expression, would be the more strongly impelled to complete the
picture, by tlie necessity for distinguishing the descent of the Spirit
on tlie Messiah,-in the Jewish view, from tlie mode in which it
was imparted to tlie prophets (c. g. Isaiali Ixi. 1)-in tlie Cliristian
view, from its ordinary communication to tlie baptized (e. g. Acts
xix. 1 ft.).* Tlie position being once laid down, tliat the Spirit was
to descend on tlie Messiah, tlie question immediately occurred: How
would it descend? This was necessarily decided according to the
popular Jcwisli idea, which always represented tlie Divine Spirit
under some form or other. In the Old Testament, and even in the
New (Acts ii. 3), fire is the principal symbol of the Holy Spirit;

but it by no means follows that other sensible objects were not simi-
larly used. In an important passage of the Old Testament (Gen.
i. 2), the Spirit of God is described as hovering (ns;TT-i), a word
which suggests, as its sensible representation, tlie movement of a
bird, rather than of fire.  Thus tlie expression ^"11, Deut. xxxii.
11, is used of tlie hovering of a bird over its young. But the im-
agination could not be satisfied with tlie general figure of a bird; it
must have a specific image, and every thing led to the choice of
the dove.

In the east, and especially in Syria, the dove is a sacred bird,f
and it is so for a reason which almost necessitated its association
with the Spirit moving on tlie face of the primitive waters (Gen. i. 2).
The brooding dove was a symbol of tlie quickening warmth of
nature \\ it tlius perfectly represented the function which, in tlie
Mosaic cosmogony, is ascribed to tlie Spirit of God,-tlie calling
forth of tlie world of life from the chaos of tlie first creation. More-
over, when the earth was a second time covered with water, it is a
dove, sent by Noah, which hovers over its waves, and which, by
plucking an olive leaf, and at length finally disappearing, announces
the renewed possibility of living on tlie eartli. Who tlien can won-
der that in Jewish writings, tlie Spirit hovering over the primeval

* Schleiermacher, fiber den Luhas, S. 57.

•i" Tilmll. Carni. L. 1, eleg. 8, v. 17 f. See tlie remark of Broeckhuis on this passage;

Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. S. 70 f.; Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, S. 3G9.
\ Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. S. 80.

252 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

waters is expressly compared to a dove,* and tliat, apart from the nar-
rative under examination, the dove is taken as a symbol of tlie Holy
Spirit?! How near to this lay the association of the hovering dove
with the Messiah, on whom the dove-like spirit was to descend, is
evident, without our having recourse to the Jewish writings, which
designate the Spirit hovering over tlie waters, Gen. 1. 2, as the
Spirit of the Messiah,! and also connect with him its emblem, the
Noachian dove.S

When, in tills manner, tlie heavenly voice, and tlie Divine Spirit
down-hovering like a dove, gathered from tlie cotemporary Jewish
ideas, had become integral parts of tlie Christian legend concerning
the circumstances of the baptism of Jesus; it followed, of coarse,
that the heavens should open themselves, for tlie Spirit, once em-
bodied, must have a road, before it could descend through the vault
of heaven. ||

The result of the preceding inquiries, viz., tliat tlie alleged mi-
raculous circumstances of the baptism of Jesus have merely a mythi-
cal value, might have been miicli more readily obtained, in the way
of inference from tlie preceding cliaptcr; for if, according to that,
John liad not acknowledged Jesus to be tlie Messiah, tliere could
have been no appearances at tlie baptism of Jesus, demonstrative
•to Jolm of his Messiahsliip.  We have, however, establislied tlie
mythical character of tlie baptismal phenomena, without presuppos-
ing tlie result of the previous cliapter; and thus the two indepen-
dently obtained conclusions may serve to strengthen eacli other.

Supposing all the immediate circumstances of tlie baptism of
Jesus unhistorical, the question occurs, whether the baptism itself
be also a mere mythus. Fritzsche sfems not disinclined to tlie af-
firmative, for lie leaves it undecided whether the first Christians
knew historically, or only supposed, in conformity witli their messi-
anic expectations, that Jesus was consecrated to Ills messianic office
by Jolm, as his Forerunner. This view may be supported by the
observation, tliat in the Jewisli expectation, which originated in the
history of David, combined witli tlie prophecy of Malaclii, there was

* Chagiga c. ii.:, Spiritus Dei J'ercbafv.1' super aquas^ sicut columba, quce j'vrtw super
pullos suos nee tangit illos. Ir Gibborim ad Genes. 1, 2, ap. Schdttgen, liora", i. p. 9.
^ Torgum Koheleth, ii. 12, vox iu'rfuris is interpreted as vox ^pinii/.^ snncii. To regard tins,
with Lucke, as an arbitrary interpretation, seems itself like arbitrariness, in the face of
the above data. ^ Bereshith rabba, S. 2, f. 4, +, ad Genes. T. 2 (ap. ydnittgen ut sup.):

intelltgatur spir'Uus regis Mvssw3^ de quo dtcitnr Jes. xi. 2 ; et yuiescet St/pir Ulum fplritu?
Domini. § Sohar. Kumer. f. 68. col. 271 f. (in Schottgen, hora", 2, p. 537 f.). The pur-
port of this passage rests on the following cabalistic conclusion :  If David, according to
1's. lii. 10, is the olive tree; the Messiah, a scion of David, is the olive leaf: and since
it is said of Noah's dove, Gen. viii. 11, tliat it carried an olive leaf in its mouth ; the
Messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove.-Even Christian interpreters have
compared the dove at the baptism of Jesus to tlie Noachian one ; see Suicer, Thesaurus,
2. Art. ireptOTtpu, p. 688. It has been customary to cite in this connexion, that the Sa-
maritans paid divine honours to a dove under the name of Achiina, on Mount Gerizim ;

but this is a Jewish accusation, grounded on a wilful misconstruction. See fetaudlin's and
Tzschirner's Arcliiv. fur K. G. 1,3, S. W. Lucke, 1, S. 367.   || See Fritzsche, Comm.

BAPTISM OF JESUS.                  253

adequate inducement to assume such a consecration of Jesus by the
Baptist, even without historical warrant; and the mention of John'3
baptism in relation to Jesus (Acts i. 22,) in a narrative, itself tradi-
tional, proves notliing to the contrary. Yet, on tlie other hand, it
is to be considered, tliat the baptism of Jesus by John furnishes the
most natural basis for an explanation of the messianic project of
Jesus. When we have two cotemporaries, one of whom announces
the proximity of the Messiah's kingdom, and the other subsequently
assumes the character of Messiali; tlie conjecture arises, even with-
out positive information, that they stood in a relation to each other,-
that the latter owed his idea to the former. If Jesus had the mes-
sianic idea excited in him by John, yet, as is natural, only so far
that lie also looked forward to tlie advent of tlie messianic indi-
vidual, whom he did not, in tlie first instance, identify with himself;

he would most likely submit himself to tlie baptism of John. Tills
would probably take place without any striking occurrences; and
Jesus, in no way announced by it as tlie Baptist's superior, might,
as above remarked, condnue for some time to demean himself as Ilia
disciple.

If we take a comparative retrospect of our evangelical documents,
tlie pre-eminence which has of late been sought for tlie fourth Gos-
pel, appears totally unmerited.  The single historical fact, tlie bap-
tism of Jesus by John, is not mentioned by the fourth evangelist,
wlio is solicitous about tlie mythical adjuncts alone, and these he in
reality gives no more simply than tlie synoptical writers, his omis-
sion of tlie opening heaven excepted; for the divine speech is not
wanting in his narrative, if we read it impartially. In the words,
i. 33 : lie that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto
me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remain-
ing on him, the same is he which ta.ptizeth with the Holy Ghost,
we have not only substantially the same purport as, that conveyed
by the heavenly voice in tlie synoptical gospels, but also a divine
declaration; tlie only difference being, that here John is addressed
exclusively, and prior to tlie baptism of Jesus. This difference origi-
nated partly in the importance, which the fourth evangelist attached
to tlie relation between the Baptist and Jesus, and wliich required
that tlie criteria of the messianic individual, as well as tlie proximity
of his kingdom, should have been revealed to John at his call to bap-
tize ; and it. might be partly suggested by tlie narrative, in 1 Sam.
xvi., according to which Samuel, being sent by Jehovah to anoint
a king selected from the sons of Jesse, is thus admonished by Je-
hovah, on the entrance of David ; Arise and anoint him, for this
is he (v. 12.). The descent of the Spirit, which in David's case fol-
lows his consecration, is, by the fourth evangelist, made an antece-
dent sign of the Messiahsliip of Jesus.

254 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

§ 52. GELATION OF THE SUPEENATUEAL AT THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
TO THE SUPEENATUEAL IN HIS CONCEPTION.

AT the commencement of tlilg chapter, we inquired into tlie sub-
jective views of Jesus in his reception of John's baptism, or the idea
which lie entertained of its relation to his own diameter. We close
this discussion with an inquiry into the objective purpose of tlie mir-
acles at the baptism of Jesus, or tlie mode in which they were to
subserve the manifestation of his niessiahsliip.

Tlie common answer to sucli an inquiry is, tliat Jesus was
thereby inducted to his public office, and declared to be the Messiah,*
i. e. tliat nothing was conferred on him, and that simply tlie char-
acter which he already possessed was manifested to others. But, it
may be asked, is such an abstraction intended by our narrators? A
consecration to an office, effected by divine, co-operation, was ever
considered by antiquity as a delegation of divine powers for its fulfil-
ment ; hence, in tlie Old Testament, the kings, as soon as they are
anointed, arc filled with tlie spirit of God (1 Sam. x. 6, 10, xvi. 13);

and in the New Testament also, tlie apostles, before entering on their
vocation, are furnished with supernatural gifts (Acts ii.).  It may,
therefore, be beforehand conjectured, tliat according to tlie original
sense of the Gospels, tlie consecration of Jesus at Ills baptism was
attended witli a supply of higher powers; and tills is connrmed by
an examination of our narratives.  For the synoptical writers all
state, tliat after the baptism, tlie Spirit led Jesus into tlie wilderness,
obviously marking this journey as the first effect of tlie higher prin-
ciple infused at his baptism: and in Jolm, tlie words pivsiv err' av-
TOV, applied to tlie descending Spirit, seem to intimate, tliat from
the time of tlie baptism there was a relation not previously subsist-
ing, between tlie irvevfta aywv and Jesus.

This interpretation of tlie marvels at the baptism of Jesus, seems
in contradiction with tlie narratives of Ills conception. If Jesus, as
Matthew and Luke state, was conceived by tlie Holy Gliost; or it,
as Jolin propounds, tlie divine -^oyo?, the word, was made flesh in
him, from the beginning of his earthly existence; why did he yet
need, at his baptism, a special intromission of the n-vev^a ayiov ?
Several modern expositors have seen, and sought to solve, tills dif-
ficulty. Olshausen's explanation consists in tlie distinction between
the potential and the actual; but it is self-contradictory, f Vov if
the character of tlie Xp(ffrbc which was manifested actu, with the
ripened manhood of Jesus, at his baptism, was already present po-
tentia in tlie child and youth; there must have also been an inward
principle of development, by means of which his powers would grad-
ually unfold themselves from within, instead of being first awakened
by a sudden illapse of tlie Spirit from without. Tills, however, does
not preclude the possibility tliat tlie divine principle, existing in Je-
sus, as supernaturally conceived, from tlie moment ot Ins birth,

255

BAPTISM OF JESUS.

might need, owing to the human form of its development, some im-
pulse from without; and Luke* has more justly proceeded on this
contrast between external impulse and inward development. The
/loyo;-, present in Jesus from his birth, needed, he thinks, however
strong might be the inward bent, some external stiniulud and vivi-
tication, in order to arrive at fall activity and manifestation in the
world ; and that which awakens and guides the divine life-germ in
the world is, on apostolic sliowing, the Trvevjia ayiov. Allowing this,
yet the inward disposition and the requisite force of the outward
stimulus stand in an inverse relation to each other; so that the
stronger the outward stimulus required, the weaker is the inward
disposition; but in a case wliere the inward disposition is consum-
mate,-as it must be supposed in Jesus, engendered by the Spirit,
or animated by the /toyoc,-the exterior impulse ought to be a mi-
nimum, that is, every circumstance, even the most common, might
serve as a determination of the inward tendency. But at the bap-
tism of Jesus we see the maximum of exterior impulse, in the visi-
ble descent of the divine Spirit; and although we allow for the spe-
cial nature of the messianic task, for the fulfilment of which he must
be qualified,! yet the maximum of inward disposition, which fitted
him to be the vl'oq Qeov, cannot at the same time be supposed as
existing in him from his birth: a consequence which Lucke only
escapes, by reducing tlie baptismal scene to a mere inauguration,
thus, as lias been already sliown, contradicting the evangelical re-
cords.

We must here give a similar decision to that at which we ar-
rived concerning tlie genealogies ; viz., that, in that circle of the early
Christian church, in which tlie narrative of the descent of tlie "rvevfia
on Jesus at his baptism was formed, the idea that Jesus was gener-
ated by the same Trvevfta cannot have prevailed; and while, at the
present day, the communication of tlie divine nature to Jesus is
thouglit of as cotemporary with his conception, those Christians
must have regarded his baptism as tlie epoch of such communication.
In tact, those primitive Christians whom, in a former discussion, we
found to have known nothing, or to have believed nothing, of the
supernatural conception of Jesus, were also those wlio connected the
first communication of divine powers to Jesus with his baptism in
the Jordan. For no other doctrine did tlie orthodox fathers of tlie
churcli more fiercely persecute the ancient Ebionites,f with their
gnostic fellow-believer Cerinthus,§ than for tills: that the Holy
Spirit first united himself with Jesus at Ills baptism. In the gospel

• Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 1, S. 378 f.   •)- From the orthodox point of view, it can-
not be consistently said, with Hotrmann (p. 301), tliat for the conviction of his messiah-
Bhip and the maintenance of the right position, amid so many temptations and adverse
circumstances, an internally wrought certainty did not suffice Jesus, and external confirma-
tion by a fact was requisite,   j: Epiphan. lucres xxx. 14 : imtSfj -yap pov^ovrai TOV f^'ev
'liJaovv OVTUC uvi)puirov elvai, XptCTOi' de tv avru }'£~yevfia-3ai. TOV iv elfin •irepiaTspuf (cnm-
8e/3linoTa K. r. /<,.:-They maintain that Jesus was reul'y man, but that that which descended

256

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

of the Ebionites it was written that the TrveVfia not only descended
on Jesus in the form of a dove, but entered into him ;* and according
to Justin, it was the general expectation of the Jews, that higher
powers would first be granted to the Messiah, when he should be
anointed by his forerunner Elias.f

The development of tliese ideas seems to liave been tlic follow-
ing. When the messianic dignity of Jesus began to be acknowl-
edged among the Jews, it was thought appropriate to connect his
coming into possession of the requisite gifts, with the epoch from
which he. was in some degree known, and which, from tlie ceremony
that marked it, was also best adapted to represent tliat anointing
with the Holy Spirit, expected by the Jews for their Messiah: and
from flits point of view was formed the legend of the occurrences at
the baptism. But as reverence for Jesus was heightened, and men
appeared in the Christian church who were acquainted with more
exalted messianic ideas, this tardy manifestation of messiahship was
no longer sufficient; his relation with the Holy Spirit was referred
to his conception: and from this point of view was formed the tra-
dition of the supernatural conception of Jesus. Here too, perhaps,
the words of tlie heavenly voice, which might originally be tliosc of
Ps. ii. 7, were altered after Isaiali xlii. 1. For the words, o'/ifiepov
yeyevvrjKa ae, This day have I begotten, thee, were consistent with
the notion that Jesus was constituted tlie Son of God at his bap-
tism ; but they were no longer suitable to that occasion, when tlie
opinion had arisen that tlie origin of his life was an immediate, di-
vine act. By this later representation, however, tlie earlier one was
by no means supplanted, but on the contrary, tradition and her re-
corders being large-hearted, both narratives-tliat of tlie miracles at
the baptism, and tliat of tlie supernatural conception, or the indwell-
ing of the /loyoc in Jesus from tlie commencement of his life, al-
though, strictly, they exclude each other, went forth peaceably side
by side, and so were depicted by our evangelists, not excepting even
tlie fourth. Just as in the case of the genealogies: the narrative of
the imparting of tlie Spirit at the baptism could not arise after the
formation of tlie idea that Jesus was engendered by the Spirit; but
it might be retained as a supplement, because tradition is ever un-
willing to renounce any of its acquired treasures.

§. 53. PLACE AND TIME OF THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS-DIVERGEN-
CIES OF THE EVANGELISTS ON THIS SUBJECT.

THE transition from the baptism to the temptation of Jesus, as
it is made by the synoptical writers, is attended with difficulty in
relation both to place and time.

With respect to the former, it strikes us at once, that according
to all the synoptical gospels, Jesus after his baptism was led into

"' Epiphan. haeres. xxx. 13 :-vepw-epuf Kare^ouo-:]! Kal elae^Sovaw "'(• avrbv:-of a

BAPTISM OP JESUS.                  257

the wilderness to be tempted, implying that he was not previously
in the wilderness, although, according to Matt. iii. 1, John, by whom
he was baptized, exercised his ministry there. This apparent con-
tradiction has been exposed by the most recent critic of Matthew's
gospel, for tlie sake of proving the statement that John baptized in
the wilderness to be erroneous.* But they who cannot resolve to
reject this statement on grounds previously laid down, may here
avail themselves of tlie supposition, that John delivered his prelimi-
nary discourses in tlie wilderness of Judea, but resorted to the Jor-
dan for tlie purpose of baptizing; or, if the banks of the Jordan be
reckoned part of tliat wilderness, of the presumption that the evan-
gelists can only have intended tliat tlie Spirit led Jesus farther into
tlic recesses of the wilderness, but have neglected to state tills with
precision, because their description of the scene at the baptism had
obliterated from their imagination their former designation of the
locality of John's agency.

But there is, besides, a chronological difficulty: namely that
wliile, according to tlie synoptical writers, Jesus, in the plenitude of
tlie Spirit, just communicated to him at the Jordan, betakes liimself,
in consequence of that communication, for forty days to the wilder-
ness, where the temptation occurs, and then returns into Galilee;

John, on tlie contrary, is silent concerning tlie temptation, and ap-
pears to suppose an interval of a few days only, between the baptism
of Jesus and his journey into Galilee; thus allowing no space for a
six weeks' residence in the wilderness.  The fourth evangelist com-
mences his narrative w-ith tlie testimony which the Baptist delivers
to the emissaries of tlie Sanhedrim (i. 19.); the next day (r^ ETravpiov\
lie makes the Baptist recite tlie incident which in the synoptical gos-
pels is followed by the baptism (v. 29.): again, the next day (rfj
erravplov) lie causes two of his disciples to follow Jesus (v. 35); far-
ther, the. next day (rfj sTravplov, y. 44), as Jesus is on the point of
journeying into Galileo, Pliilip and Nathanael join him; and lastly,
on, the thzrd day, rf] fjizepa rij ~piry (ii. 1.), Jesus is at the wedding
in Cana of Galilee.  The most natural inference, is, tliat the baptism
took place immediately before John's narrative of its attendant oc-
currences, and as according to the synoptical gospels the temptation
followed close on tlie baptism, both tliese events must be inserted
between v. 28 and 29, as Euthymius supposed. But between that
which _is narrated down to v. 28, and the sequel from v. 29 inclusive,
there is only the interval of a morrow, s-^avpwv, while the tempta-
tion requires a period of forty days; hence, expositors have thought
it necessary to give enavptov the wider sense of va-repov afterwards;

this however is inadmissible, because tlie expression Ty iifispa ry
Tpiry, the. third day, follows in connexion with Eiravplov, and restricts
its meaning to the morrow. We might therefore be inclined, with
Kuinol, to separate, tlie baptism and the temptation, to place the
baptism after v. 28, and to regard the next day's interview between

258

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

Jesus and John (v. 29) as a parting visit from the former to the lat-
ter: inserting after this the journey into tlie wilderness and tlie
temptation.   But without insisting tliat tlie first three evangelists
seem not to allow even of a day's interval between the baptism and
the departure of Jesus into tlie wilderness, yet even later we liave
tlie same difficulty in finding space for tlie forty days.  For it is no
more possible to place the residence in tlie wilderness between tlie
supposed parting visit and tlie direction of the two disciples to Jesus,
tliat is, between v. 34 and 35, as Kuinol attempts, tlian between
v. 28 and 29, since tlie former as well as tlie latter passages are con-
nected by Tfj ETravplov, on the morrow. Hence we must descend
to v. 43 and 44; but here also there is only tlie interval of a mor-
row, and even cliap. ii. 1, we are shut out by an f]ftKpa Tpiri], third
day, so that, proceeding in tills way, tlie temptation would at last
be carried to the residence of Jesus in Galilee, in direct opposition
to the statement of tlie synoptical writers; wliile, in farther contra-
diction to them, tlie temptation is placed at a farther and farther
distance from the baptism.   Tlius neither at v. 29, nor below it,
can the forty days' residence of Jesus in tlie wilderness with the
temptation be intercalated ; and it must therefore be referred, accord-
ing to the plan of Liicke and others,* to the period before v. 19,
whicli seems to allow of as large an interpolation as can be desired,
inasmuch as tlie fourth evangelist there commences his liistory.
Now it is true tliat wliat follows from v. 19 to 28 is not of a kind
absolutely to exclude tlie baptism and temptation of Jesus as earlier
occurences; but from v. 29 to 34, tlie evangelist is far from making
the Baptist speak as if there liad been an interval of six weeks be-
tween tlie baptism and his narrative of its circumstances, f That
the fourth evangelist sliould have omitted, by chance merely, the
history of tlie temptation, important as it was in tlie view of the
other evangelists, seems improbable; it is rather to be concluded,
either that it was dogmatically offensive to him, so that lie omitted
it designedly, or that it was not current in the circle of tradition from
which he drew his materials.

The period of forty days is assigned by all tliree of the synopti-
cal writers for tlie residence of Jesus in tlie wilderness; but to this
agreement is annexed the not inconsiderable discrepancy, tliat, ac-
cording to Matthew, tlie temptation by tlie devil commences after
the lapse of the forty days, while, according to tlie others, it appears
to have been going forward during this time; for the words of Mark
(L 13), he was in, the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan, rfV
ev rrj eprifzw rfyiEpac; rsaaapdK.ovTa Treipa^ouevoc VTTO rov Sa-ava and the
similar ones of Luke i. 2, can have no other meaning.  Added to
tills, there is a difference between tlie two latter evangelists; Mark
only placing tlie temptation generally within tlie duration of forty
days, without naming tlie particular acts of the tempter, whicli ac-
cording to Matthew, were subsequent to the forty days; while Luke

259

BAPTISM OF JESUS.

mentions both the prolonged temptation (neipa^ea9ai\ of tlie forty
days, and tlie three special temptations (TTeipaap.ol\ wdiich followed.*
It has been thought possible to make tlie three accounts tally by
supposing tliat tlie devil tempted Jesus during tlie forty days, as
Mark states; that after the lapse of tliat time he approached him
with tlie tliree temptations given by Matthew; and tliat Luke's nar-
rative. includes tlie whole, f   Further, the temptations liave been
distinguished into two kinds; tliat wliicli is only generally mentioned,
as continued through tlie forty days being considered invisible, like
tlie ordinary attempts of Satan against men; and the tliree particu-
larized temptations being regarded as personal and visible assaults,
resorted to on the failure of tlie first.t But this distinction is evi-
dently built on the air; moreover, it is inconceivable why Luke
should not specify one of the temptations of the forty days, and
sliould only mention tlie tliree subsequent ones detailed by Matthew.
We might conjecture that tlie tliree temptations narrated by Luke
did not occur after the six weeks, but were given by way of speci-
men from among tlie many that took place during tliat time; and
that Matthew misunderstood them to be a sequel to the forty days'
temptation. § But the challenge to make stones bread must in any
case be placed at the end of that period, for it appealed to tlie hun-
ger of Jesus, arising from a forty days' fast (a cause omitted by
Mark alone.) Now in Luke also this is the first temptation, and if
tills occurred at tlie close of the forty days, the others could not liave
been earlier. For it is not to be admitted that tlie separate temp-
tations being united in Luke merely by KCU, and not by "rd-s and
Tfrf/Uy as in Maithew, we are not bound to preserve the order of
them, and that witliout violating tlie intention of tlie third evangelist
we may place the second and tliird temptation before the first. Thus
Luke is convicted of a want of historical tact; for after representing
Jesus as tempted by tlie devil forty days, lie lias no details to give
concerning this long period, but narrates later temptations; lience
we are not inclined, with tlie most recent critic of Matthew's Gos-
pel to regard Luke's as tlie original, and Matthew's as the traditional
and adulterated narrative. || .Rather, as in Mark the temptation is
noticed witliout farther details than that it lasted forty days, and in
Mattlicw the particular cases of temptation are narrated, the hunger
winch induced tlie first rendering it necessary to place them after
tlie forty days; Luke has evidently tlie secondary statement, for lie
unites tlie two previous ones in a manner scarcely tolerable, giving
tlie forty days' process of temptation, and then su^c'-Huously bring-
ing forward particular instances as additional facts. It is not on
this account to be concluded tliat Luke wrote after Mark, and in de-
pendence on him; but supposing, on the contrary, that Mark here
borrowed from Luke, lie extracted only the first and general part of

* Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., S. 23 ; De Wette exeg. Handb., 1, 2, S. 33.

+ K*llinn1 C'liiTii-ii ;n I >*n  C Q^'(t    + T ;™*l,p^^<- 1^«.» « oil    ff o,.1,^^.,l,^^l,..-.-« JII.A-

260

THE LIFE OP JESUS.

the latter evangelist's narrative, having ready, in lieu of the farther
detail of single temptations, an addition peculiar to himself; namely,
that Jesus, during his residence in the wilderness was perarCiv 6fj-
P'MV, with the wild beasts. •

What was Mark's object in introducing the wild beasts, it is
difficult to say.  The majority of expositors are of opinion that he
intended to complete the terrible picture of the wilderness ;* but to
this it is not without reason objected, that tlie clause would then
have been in closer connection with the words ffv ev ry ep'/jfzy, he
was in the wilderness, instead of being placed after nsipa^op.evcK;,
tempted.^ Ustcri lias hazarded the conjecture that tills particularity
may be designed to mark Christ as the antitype of Adam, wlio, in
paradise, also stood in a peculiar relation to the animals,^ and Ols-
hausen has eagerly laid hold on this mystical notion; but it is an
interpretation which finds little support in tlie context.  Schleier-
macher, in pronouncing this feature of Mark's narrative extrava-
gant^ doubtless means tliat tills evangelist here, as in other in-
stances of exaggeration, borders on the style of the apocryphal
gospels, for whose capricious fictions we are not seldom unable to
suggest a cause or an object, and thus we must rest contented, for
the present, to penetrate no farther into tlie sense of his statement.

With respect to tlie difference between Matthew and Luke in the
arrangement of tlie several temptations, we must equally abide by
Schleiermachcr's criticism and verdict, namely, that Matthew's order
seems to be the original, because it is founded on tlie relative im-
portance of tlie temptations, which is tlie main consideration,-the
invitation to worship Satan, wliich is the strongest temptation, being
made tlie final one; whereas tlie arrangement of Luke looks like a
later and not very liappy transposition, proceeding from tlie con-
sideration-alien to the original spirit of the narrative,-that Jesus
could more readily go with the devil from the wilderness to the ad-
jacent mountain and from thence to Jerusalem, than out of the wil-
derness to the city and from thence back again to the mountain. [|
While tlie first two evangelists close their narrative of tlie tempta-
tion with the ministering of angels to Jesus, Luke lias a conclusion
peculiar to himself, namely, tliat the devil left Jesus for a season,
Sv\f)i. naipov (v. 13.), apparently intimating that tlie sufferings of Je-
sus were a farther assault of tlie devil; an idea not resumed by
Luke, but alluded to in John xiv. 30.

§ 54. THE HISTOBY OF THE TEMPTATION CONCEIVED IN THE SENSE
OF THE EVANGELISTS.

FEW evangelical passages have undergone a more industrious
criticism, or m we, completely run through the circle of all possible

* Thus Euthymius, Kuinol, and others. \ Fritzsche, in loc. \ Beitrag znr Erklii-

flor VB..e,,^h,,r.o-crro«nhi,.ht» in ITIlmBiln'a ami TTmhrpit.'a Stnrlian 18:-t4. 4 8.78!).

TEMPTATION OF JESUS.

261

interpretations, than tlie history in question. For the personal ap-
pearance of tlie devil, which it seems to contain, was a thorn which
would not allow commentators to repose on tlie most obvious inter-
pretation, but incessantly urged them to new efforts. The series
of explanations licncc resulting, led to critical comparisons, among
which tliose of Schmidt,* Fritzsche,f and Usteri,{ seem to have car-
ried tlie inquiry to its utmost limits.

The first interpretation that suggests itself on an unprejudiced
•consideration of tlie text is this ; that Jesus was led by the Divine
Spirit received at his baptism, into the wilderness, tliere to undergo
a temptation by tlie devil, wlio accordingly appeared to him visibly
and personally, and in various ways, and at various places to wliich
he was the conductor, prosecuted his purpose of temptation; but
meeting with a victorious resistance, lie withdrew from Jesus, and
angels appeared to minister to liim.  Sucli is the simple exegesis
of the narrative, but viewed as a history it is encumbered witli dif-
ficulties.

To take tlie portions of tlie narrative in their proper order: if
the Divine Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness with the design of
exposing liim to temptation, as Matthew expressly says, dv^O'i] elg
rfjv 'epi]fiov VTTO TOV TivEvftciro^ Treipa.aO'i'jvat (i\-. 1), of what use was
this temptation ? Tliat it liad a vicarious and redeeming value will.
hardly be maintained, or that it was necessary for God to put Jesus
to a trial; neither can it be consistently shown that by this tempta-
tion Jesus was to be made like us, and, according to Heb. iv. 15,
tempted in all tilings like as we are; for the fullest measure of trial
fell to his share in after life, and a temptation, effected by the devil
in person, would rather make him unlike us, wlio are spared such
appearances.

The forty day's fast, too, is singular. One does not understand
how Jesus could hunger after six weeks of abstinence from all food,
witliout having liungered long before; since in ordinary cases the
human frame cannot sustain a week's deprivation of nourishment.
It is true, expositors § console themselves by calling the forty days a.
round number, and by supposing that tlie expression of Mattliew v'qa-
revaag, and even that of Luke, OVK Scfiayev oudw, are not to be taken
strictly, and do not denote abstinence from all food, but only from
tliat wliich is customary, so that the use of roots and herbs is not
excluded. On no supposition, however, can so much be subtracted
from the forty days as to leave only tlie duration of a conceivable
fast; and tliat nothing short of entire abstinence from all nourish-
ment was intended by the evangelists, Fritzsche lias clearly shown,
by pointing out the parallel between the fast of Jesus and that of
Moses and Elias, the former of wliom is said to liave eaten no bread
and drunk no water for forty days (Exod. xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9,

* Exegetische Beitrage, 1, S. 277 ff. f Comm. in Matt. S. 172 ff. f In the Essay
minted- S. 7fiS-   8 Thni o n. y,,;,,;;l f-- ••- nr-^i. - o-   "     /- .   ~

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

262

18), and tlic latter, to have gone for tlic same period in tlie strength
of a meal taken before his journey (1 Kings xix. 8). Bat such a
fast wants the credentials of utility, as well as of possibility. From
the context it appears, tliat the fast of Jesus wag prompted by tlie
same Spirit which occasioned Ills journey to tlie wilderness, and
which now moved him to a holy self-discipline, whereby men of
God, under tlic old dispensation, purified tliemselves, and became
worthy of divine visions. But it could not be hidden from tliat
Spirit, tliat Satan, in attacking Jesus, would avail himself of thia
very fast, and make tlie hunger thence arising an accomplice in Ins
temptation. And was not tlie fast, in tlnis case, a kind of challenge
to Satan, an act of presumption, ill becoming even the best war-
ranted self-confidence ?*

But the personal appearance of tlic devil is the great stumbling-
block in tlic present narrative.  If, it is said, there be a personal
devil, he cannot take a visible form; and if tliat were possible, he
would hardly demean himself as lie is represented to have done in
tlie gospels.  It is with tlie existence of the devil as with tliat of
angels-even tlie believers in a revelation are perplexed by it, because
the idea did not spring up among tlie recipients of revelation, but
was transplanted by them, during exile, from a profane soil.f More-
over, to tliosc wlio have not quite shut out tlie lights of tlie present
age, the existence of a devil is become in the liiglicst degree doubt-
ful.

On this subject, as well as on tliat of angels, Schlciermacher

may serve as an interpreter of modern opinion. He shows tliat the
idea of a being, such as the devil, is an assemblage of contradic-

0'                                                    '                                            0

tlons: tliat as tlie idea of angels originated in a limited observation
of nature, so tliat of tlie devil originated in a limited observation of
self, and as our knowledge of human nature progresses, must recede
farther into tlic background, and tlie appeal to tlie devil be hence-
forth regarded as tlie resource of ignorance and sloth.j; Even ad-
mitting the existence of a devil, a visible and personal appearance
on his part, sucli as is here supposed, lias its peculiar difficulties.
Olsliausen himself observes, that there is no parallel to it cither in
the Old or New Testament. Farther, if tlic devil, tliat lie might
liave some hope of deceiving Jesus, abandoned his own form, and
took that of a man, or of a good angel; it may be reasonably asked
whether tlie passage, 2 Cor. xi. 14, Satan is transformed into an
angel of light, be intended literally, and if so, whether tills fantastic
conception can be substantially true ? §

As to tlie temptations, it was early asked by Julian, how the
devil could liopc to deceive Jesus, knowing, as lie must, his higher

* Usteri, uber den Taiifer Johannes, die Tanfe und Versuchung Christi. In den tlieol.
Studieii unit Kritikeu, zweiten Jahrganga (1829) dr'ittcs Heft, S. 4,'iO. De Wette, exeg.
Handli., 1, 1, 8. 38. •t" De Wette, Libl. Dogmatik, § 171. Grambcrg, Grundzuge einer
EiiRullehre des A. T., § .'">, in Winer's Zeitsclirift f. wissenschaftlk-he Theologie, 1 Bd. S.
lu.i r   + r.i,>..i,,.^^i^i,,.t, i s ,14. 1;Y di.r zwritin Ausir.   S Scliinidt, excg. Beitrage.

TEMPTATION OF JESUS.                263

nature ?* And Theodore's answer that the divinity of Jesus was
then unknown to the devil, is contradicted by tlie observation, tliat
had he not then beheld a higher nature in Jesus, he would scarcely
have taken the trouble to appear specially to him in person. In re-
lation to the particular temptations, an assent cannot be withheld
from llie canon, tliat, to be credible, the narrative must ascribe noth-
ing to tlie devil inconsistent with his established cunning. f Now the
•first temptation, appealing to hunger, we grant, is not ill-conceived;

if this were ineffectual, tlie devil, as an artful tactician, sliould have
liad a yet more alluring temptation at hand ; but instead of this, we
find him, in Matthew, proposing to Jesus the neck-breaking feat of
casting himself down from tlie pinnacle of the temple-a far less
inviting experiment tlian the metamorphosis of tlie stones. This
proposition finding no acceptance, tliere follows, as a crowning effort,
a suggestion which, whatever might be tlie bribe, every true Israelite
would instantly reject with abhorrence-to fall down and worship the
devil.  So indiscreet a clioicc and arrangement, of temptations has
thrown most modern commentators into perplexity. ^ As the three
temptations took place in three different and distant places, the
question occurs: how did Jesus pass witli tlie devil from one to the
other ? Even the orthodox hold tliat this cliange of place was
effected quite naturally, for they suppose tliat Jesus set out on a
journey, and tliat the devil followed him. § But tlie expressions, the
devil takes him-sets him, vafsaka.y.ftavs.i.-la-r]cnv avr'ov b Sid/So^of,
in Matthew; Hiking, avayaywv, brought, fjyayev, set, MT'TJOEV, in
Luke, obviously imply tliat tlie transportation was effected by the
devil, and moreover, tlie particular given in Luke, tliat tlie devil
showed Jesus all tlie kingdoms of tlie world in a moment of time,
points to sometliing magical; so that witliout doubt tlie evangelists
intended to convey the idea of magical transportations, as in Acts
viii. 29, a power of carrying away, aprrd^eiv, is attributed to the
Spirit of the Lord. But it was early found irreconcileable with
the dignity of Jesus tliat tlie devil should thus exercise a magical
power over him, and carry him about in tlic air : || an idea which
seemed extravagant even to those wlio tolerated tlic personal ap-
pearance of tlic devil. Tlie incredibility is augmented, when we
consider tlie sensation which the appearance of Jesus on the roof of
the temple must have excited, even supposing it to be tlie roof of
Solomon's Porch only, in wliich case tlie gilded spears on the Holy
Place, and tlie prohibition to laymen to tread its roof, would not
be an obstacle.^ Tlie well-known question suggested by the last

* In a fragment of Theodore of Mopsuestia in Hunter's Fragm. Patr. Graic. Fasc. 1,
P. 99 f. \ Paulus. } Hoffinann thinks that the devil, in his second temptation, design-
edly chose so startling an example as the leap from the temple roof, the essential aim of
the temptation being to induce Jesus to a false use of his miraculous power and conscious-
ness of a divine nature. But this evasion leaves the matter where it was, for there is the
Baine absurdity in choosing unlit examples as unlit temptations. § Mess, Gesehichte Jesu,
1, 8. 124.   || See tlie author of the discourse de jejunio et fentationibus Chrlsli, among Cyp-
rian's works. «[ Compare Joseph, b. j. v. v. 6, vi. v. 1. Fritzsche, in Matth., S. Kil. Us

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

264

temptation, as to the situation of tlie mountain, from whose summit
may be seen all the kingdoms of the world, lias been met Ly the in-
formation that KOO|U.OC here means no more than Palestine, and j3ao-(-
^eiac:, its several kingdoms andtetrarchies:* hut this is a scarcely less
ludicrous explanation tlian the one that tlie devil showed Jesus all
the kingdoms of the world on a map! No answer remains Taut that
such a mountain existed only in the ancient idea of the earth as a
plain, and in the popular imagination, which can easily stretch a
mountain up to heaven, and sharpen an eye to penetrate infinity.

Lastly, tlie incident with which our narrative closes, namely,
that angels came and ministered to Jesus, is not without difficulty,
apart from the above-mentioned doubts as to tlie existence of such
beings. For the expression SirjKovovv can signify no other kind of
ministering than that of presenting food; and this is proved not only
by the context, according to which Jesus liad need of such tendance,
but by a comparison of tlie circumstances with 1 Kings xix. 5, where
an angel brings food to Elijah. But of the only two possible sup-
positions, botli are equally incongruous: that ethereal beings like
angels should convey earthly material food, or that the human body
of Jesus should be nourished with heavenly substances, if any such

exist.

§ 55. THE TEMPTATION CONSIDERED AS A NATURAL OCCURRENCE
EITHER INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL; AND ALSO AS A PARABLE.

THE impossibility of conceiving the sudden removals of Jesus to
the temple and tlie mountain, led some even of the ancient commen-
tators to tlie opinion, that at least tlie locality of the second and third
temptations was not present to Jesus corporeally and externally, but
merely in a vision ;f wliile some modern ones, to whom tlie personal
appearance of the devil was especially offensive, have supposed that
the whole transaction with him passed from beginning to end within
the recesses of the soul of Jesus. Herewith they have regarded the
forty day's fast either as a mere internal representation^ (which, how-
ever, is a most inadmissible perversion of tlie plainly historic text:

vijaTEvoac; fjfiKpa^ reoaapditovra va~epov wuvaos, Matt. iv. 2), or as a
real fact, in which case tlie formidable difficulties mentioned in the
preceding section remain valid. The Internal representation of the
temptations is by some made to accompany a state of ecstatic vision,
for which they retain a supernatural cause, deriving it eitlier from
God, or from the kingdom of darkness :§ others ascribe to tlie vision

* The one proposed by Kuinol, in Matth., p. GO; the other by Fritzsclie, p. 168.
\ Theodore of Mopsuestia, ut sup. p. 107, maintained, afiain^t Julian that the devil had
made the imago of a mountain, ijiavTaaiav opouc TOV A.u,8oAov vcTfOi.fjiteva.l, and according
to the author of the discourse already cited, de jejunio et tentatiimibus Clirisii, the first
temptation it is true passed liicaliter in, deserld, lut Jesus only went <o the temple and the
mountain as Ezekiel did from Chalioras to Jerusalem-that is, in spiritii..   ^ Paulus, S.

--    » o.. c,,, (,,„ former. H. Fanner, Gratz, Comm. znm Ev, ilatth. 1, S. 217, for
-• •- • .>..,.. ..,,n,,>i,en,i him.

265

TEMTATION OF JESUS.

more of the nature of a dream, and accordingly seek a natural caixse
for it, in the reflections with which Jesus was occupied during his
waking moments.* According to this theory, Jesus, in the solemn
mood which tlie baptismal scene was calculated to produce, reviews
his messianic plan, and together with the true means for its execu-
tion, he recals their possible abuses; an excessive use of miracles
and a love of domination, by which man, in the Jewish mode of
thinking, became, instead of an instrument of God, a promoter of
the plans of the devil. While surrendering himself to such medita-
tions, his finely organized body is overcome by tlieir exciting in-
fluence; he sinks for some time into deep exhaustion, and tlien into
a dream-like state, in which his mind unconsciously embodies his
previous thoughts in speaking and acting forms.

To support tills transference of tlie whole scene to the inward
nature of Jesus, commentators tliink tliat they can produce some
features of the evangelical narrative itself.  The expression of Mat-
thew (iv. 1), avr^Q't] £((• -n}v KpfJfwv VTTO TOV IIveiyo.-o?, and still more
that of Luke (iv. 1), i/ye-o EV TU HVEV^CITI,, correspond fully to the
forms : eyevofi^v ev TrvevfzaTi,, Rev. i. 10, dmjveyns jiie eic; Sprifnov ev
•nvevji.ari, xvii. 3, and to similar ones in Ezekiel; and as in these
passages inward intuition is alone referred to, neither in the evan-
gelical ones, it is said, can any external occurrence be intended.
But it has been with reason objected,! that tlie above forms may
be adapted eitlier to a real external abduction by the Divine Spirit
(as in Acts viii. 39, 2 Kings ii. 16), or to one merely internal and
visionary, as in tlie quotation from the Apocalypse, so that between
these two possible significations the context must decide ; that in
works replete with visions, as are the Apocalypse and Ezekiel, the
context indeed pronounces in favour of a merely spiritual occurrence;

but in an historical work such as our gospels, of an external one.
Dreams, and especially visions, are always expressly announced as
such in tlie historical books of the New Testament: supposing,
therefore, tliat tlie temptation was a vision, it sliould have been in-
troduced by tlie words, elder ev bpup.a.Ti, ev eitdrdaei,, as in Acts ix.
12 ; x. 10 ; or e(}>dvr] avrw KOT map, as in Matt. i. 20; ii. 13. Be-
sides, if a dream had been narrated, the transition to a continuation
of the real history must have been marked by a (5teyep0e^, being
awaked, as in Matt. i. 24; ii, 14, 21 ; whereby, as Paulus truly
says, much labour would have been spared to expositors.

It is further alleged against the above explanations, that Jesus
does not seem to liave been at any other time subject to ecstaeies,
and that he nowliere else attaches importance to a dream, or even
recapitulates onc.j: To what end God should have excited such a
vision in Jesus, it is difficult to conceive, or how the devil should
have had power and permission to produce it; especially in Christ.

* Paulus, S. 377 ff.   f Friteche, in Matth. 155 f. Usteri, Beitrag zur ErkUrung
der Versuchuiigsgescliichte, S. 774 f.   t Ullmann, tiber die Unsundlichkeit Jesn, in hia
Studien, 1, 1, S. 56. Uiiteri, ut sup. S. 775.

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

266

The orthodox, too, should not forget that, admitting the temptation
to be a dream, resulting from tlie thoughts of Jesus, the false mes-
sianic ideas which were a part of those thoughts, are supposed to

have had a strong influence on his mind.*

If, then, the liistory of tlie temptation is not to be understood as
confined to the soul of Jesus, and if we have before shown that it
cannot be regarded as supernatural; nothing seems to remain but to
view it as a real, yet thoroughly natural, event, and to reduce the
tempter to a mere man. After Jolin had drawn attention to Jesus
as the Messiah, (thinks tlie author of the Natural History of tlie
Prophet of Nazareth,!) the ruling party in Jerusalem commissioned
an artful Pharisee to put Jesus to tlie test, and to ascertain whether
he really possessed miraculous powers, or whether he might not be
drawn into the interest of the priesthood, and be induced to give his
countenance to an entcrprize against tlie Romans. This conception
of tlie c!ta/3o;loc is in dignified consistency with that of tlie dyye/lot,
who appeared after his departure to refresh Jesus, as an approaching
caravan with provisions, or as soft reviving breezes.f But this view,
as Usteri says, has so long completed its phases in the theological

world, that to refute it would be to waste words.

If tlie foregoing discussions have proved that the temptation, as
narrated by the synoptical evangelists, cannot be conceived cither
as an external or internal, a supernatural or natural occurrence, the
conclusion is inevitable, tliat it cannot have taken place in the man-
ner represented.

The least invidious expedient is to suppose that the source of

our histories of the temptation was some real event in the life of
Jesus, so narrated by him to his disciples as to convey no accurate
impression of tlie fact. Tempting thoughts, which intruded them-
selves into his soul during his residence in the wilderness, or at
various seasons, and under various circumstances, but which were
immediately quelled by tlie unimpaired force of his will, were, ac-
cording to the oriental mode of thought and expression, represented
by him as a temptation of tlie devil; and this figurative narrative
was understood literally.§ Tlie most prominent objection to this
view, that it compromises tlie impeccability of Jcsus,|| being founded
on a dogma, lias no existence for the critic: we can, however, gather
from tlie tenor of the evangelical liistory, that tlie practical sense of
Jesus was thoroughly clear and just; but this becomes questionable,
if he could ever feel an inclination, corresponding to tlie second temp-
tation in Matthew, or even if he merely cliose such a form for com-
municating a more reasonable temptation to his disciples. Further,
in sucli a narrative Jesus would have presented a confused mixture
of fiction and truth out of his life, not to be expected from an in-

* Uateri, S. 776. \ 1 Bd. 8. 512 ff. f The former in Henke's n. Magazin 4, 2, 8.
852 ; the latter in the naturlichen Geachichte, 1, S. 591 (f.   § This view is held by Ull-
-T._.. _.,,i yo^nri^,.   ]] Schliaennacher, uber den Lukas, Si 51. Usteri, ut sup. S.

267

TEMPTATION OF JESUS.

ecnuous teacher, as he otherwise appears to be, especially if it be
supposed that the tempting thoughts did not really occur to him
after his forty days' sojourn in the wilderness, and that tins parti-
cular is only a portion of the fictitious investiture; while if it be
assumed, on the contrary, tliat the date is historical, there remains
the forty day's fast, one of the most insurmountable difficulties of
the narrative. If Jesus wislicd simply to describe a mental exercise
in the manner of tlie Jews, wlio, tracing tlie effect to tlie cause, as-
cribed evil thoughts to diabolical agency, nothing more was requisite
than to say that Satan suggested such and sucli thoughts to his
mind; and it was quite superfluous to depict a personal devil and a
journey with him, unless, together with the purpose of narration,
or in its stead, there existed a poetical and didactic intention.

Such an intention, indeed, is attributed to Jesus by tliose who
hold tliat the liistory of the temptation was narrated by him as a
parable, but understood literally by his disciples.  This opinion is
not encumbered with the difficulty of making some real inward ex-
perience of Jesus tlie basis of tlie history ;* it does not suppose tliat
Jesus himself underwent sucli temptations, but only that he sought
to secure his disciples from them, by impressing on them, as a com-
pendium of messianic and apostolic wisdom, tlie three following
maxims: first, to perform no miracle for their own advantage even
in the greatest exigency; secondly, never to venture on a chimerical
undertaking in the hope of extraordinary divine aid; thirdly, never
to enter into fellowship witli tlie wicked, however strong tlie entice-
ment.f It was long ago observed, in opposition to tills interpreta-
tion, tliat tlie narrative is not easily recognized as a parable, and
that its moral is hard to discern.^ With respect to tlie latter ob-
jection, it. is true that the second temptation would be an ill-chosen
image; but tlie former remark is the more important one. To prove
that this narrative lias not the characteristics of a parable, the fol-
lowing definition has been recently given: a parable, being essen-
tially historical in its form, is only distinguishable from real liistory
when its agents are of an obviously fictitious character.S Tills is
the case where tlie subjects are mere generalizations, as in tlie para-
bles of tlie sower, the king, and others of a like kind; or when they
are, indeed, individualized, but so as to be at once recognized as un-
historical persons, as mere supports for the drapery of fiction, of
which even Lazarus, in tlie parable of tlie rich man, is an example,
though distinguished by a name. In neither species of parable is it
admissible to introduce as a subject a person corporcally present,
and necessarily determinate and historical. Thus Jesus could not
make Peter or any other of his disciples the subject of a parable,

* If something really experienced by Jesus is supposed as the germ of the parable,
this opinion is virtually the same as the preceding. •(• J. E. C. Sehmidt, in seiner Biblio-
thek, 1, 1, S. CO f. Schleiermacher, ilber den Lukas, S. 51 f. Usteri, ulier den Taufer
Johannes, die Taufe und Versuchung Cfaristi, in den theolog. Studien, 2, 3, S. 456 ff. j: K.
Ch. L. Schmidt, exeg. Bcitragc, 1, S. 339. § Hasert, Bumerkungen uber die Ansichten

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

268

still less himself, for the reciter of a parable ia pre-eminently present
to his auditors; and hence he cannot have delivered the history of
the temptation, of which he is the subject, to his disciples as a
parable. To assume that the history had originally another subject,
for whom oral tradition substituted Jesus, is inadmissible, because
the narrative, even as a parable, has no definite significance unless

the Messiah be its subject.*

If such a parable concerning himself or any other person, could.

not have been delivered by Jesus, yet it is possible tliat it was made
by some other individual concerning Jesus; and this is tlie view
taken by Thelle, who has recently explained the history of the temp-
tation as a parabolic'admonition, directed by some partisan of Jesus
against the main features of the worldly messianic liope, with the
purpose of establisliing the spiritual and moral view of the new
economy, f Here is tlie transition to tlie mythical point of view,
which the above theologian shuns, partly because tlie narrative is
not sufficiently picturesque (though it is so in a high degree); partly
because it is too pure (though lie tlius imputes false ideas to the pri-
mitive Christians); and partly because tlie formation of the mythus
was too near tlie time of Jesus (an objection wliicli must be equally
valid against tlie early misconstruction of the parable).  If it can
be shown, on tlie contrary, tliat tlie narrative in question is formed
less out, of instructive thoughts and tlicir poetical clotliing, as is the
case with a parable, than out of Old Testament passages and types,
we shall not hesitate to designate it a mythus.

§ 56. THE IIISTOEY OF THE TEMPTATION AS A MYTHUS.

SATAN, the evil being and enemy of mankind, borrowed from
the Persian religion, was by the Jews, whose exclusiveness limited
all that was good and truly human to the Israelitish people, viewed
as the special adversary of their nation, and hence as tlie lord. of the
heathen states with whom they were in hostility.} The interests of
the Jewish people being centred in the Messiah, it followed that Sa-
tan was emphatically his adversary; and thus throughout tlie New
Testament we find the idea of Jesus as the Messiah associated with
that of Satan as the enemy of his person and cause. Christ liaving
appeared to destroy the works of the devil (1 John iii. 8), tlie latter
seizes every opportunity of sowing tares among the good seed (Matt.
xiii. 39), and not only aims, though unsuccessfully, at obtaining tlie
mastery over Jesus himself (John xiv. 30), but continually assails
the faithful (Eph. vi. 11; 1 Pet. 5. 8). As these attacks of tlie
devil on the pious are nothing else than attempts to get them into

* Hasert, ut sup. S. 76. •)• Zur Biographic Jesu, § 23. f See Zechar. iii. 1, where
Satan resists the liiyh priest standing before the angel of the Lord ; farther Vajikra rabba,
f. cli. Cm Bcrthulilt, Cluistol. Jud. p. 183), where, according to Rabbi Jochanan, Jehovah

- - - . -   •   '         -   -1 /\00\.

TEMPTATION OF JESUS.                269

his power, that is, to entice them to sin; and as this can only be
done by tlie indirect suggestion or immediate insinuation of evil, se-
ductive thoughts, Satan had the appellation of 6 iTeipci^uv, the. tempter.
In the prologue to tlie book of Job, lie seeks to seduce tlie pious man
from God, by the instrumentality of a succession of plagues and mis-
fortunes : while the ensnaring counsel wliicli tin' serpent gave to the
woman was early considered an immediate diabolical suggestion.
(Wisdom ii. 24; John viii. 44; Rev. xii. 9.)

In the more ancient Hebrew theology, the idea was current that
temptation ("isl, LXX. TTEipd^eiv) was an act of God himself, who
thus put liis favourites, as Abraham (Gen. xxii. 1), and tlie people
of Israel (Exod. xvi. 4, and elsewhere), to the test, or in just anger
even instigated men to pernicious deeds. But as soon as the idea
of Satan was formed, the office of temptation was transferred to him,
and withdrawn from God, with wliose absolute goodness it began to
be viewed as incompatible (James i. 13). Hence it is Satan, who
by his importunity obtains the divine permission to put Job to the
severest trial through suffering; lience David's culpable project of
numbering the people, which in the second book of Samuel was
traced to the anger of God, is in the later chronicles (1 Chron. xxii.
1) put directly to the account of tlie devil; and even tlie well-meant
temptation with which, according to Genesis, God visited Abraham,
in requiring from him tlie sacrifice of his son, was in tlie opinion of
the later Jews, undertaken by God at the instigation of Satan.*
Nor was this enough-scenes were imagined in which the devil per-
sonally encountered Abraham on his way to tlie place of sacrifice,
and in which lie tempted tlie. people of Israel during the absence of
Moses.f

If tlie most eminent men of piety in Hebrew antiquity were thus
tempted, in the earlier view, by God, in the later one, by Satan,
what was more natural than to suppose tliat the Messiah, the Head
of all the righteous, the representative and champion of God's people,
would be the primary object of tlie assaults of Satan ?{ And we find
this actually recorded as a rabbinical opinioii,§ in tlie material mode

* See the passages quoted by Fabricius in Cod. pseudepigr. V. T. p. 395., from
Gemara Sanhedrin.  -|- Tlie same, p. 396. As Abraham went out to sacrifice his son in
obedience to Jehovah, antevertit eum Sntanas in via, et tali colloquio cum ipso haUto apro-
posito avertere eum ccmatvs est, etc.. Schemoth, K, 41 (ap. Wetstcin in loc. Matth.): Cum.
Moses in allum adscenderef, dix-lt Israeli: post dies XL hora sexta redibo. Cum autem XL
lilt dies elapsi essenf, venit Satanas, et turbavit mundum, dixitque: vbi est Moses, magister
cester? mortuus est. It is worthy of remark that here also the temptation takes place
after the lapse of 40 days. -S, Thus Fritzsche, in Matt. p. 173. His very title is striking,
V- l°'t : Quod in- vulgar! Judaorum opinions erat,fore, ut Satanas saliitaribus Messim con-
suns omni mode, sed sine ejfectu, iamen, nocere studeret, id ipsum Jesu ^{essiw accidif. Nnm
quuin is ad exemplum illustrium majorum quadraginta dierum in dcserto loco egisset jejunium,
Satanas earn comenit, protervisque afque impiis - - consiliis ad impietatem deducere
frust.ra conatus est. ^ Schottgcn, horse, ii. 538, adduces from Fin; Flagellum Judasorum,
I". 3», a passage of Pesikta; Ait Satan: Domine, permitte me tentare Messiam et ejus
gw.eratwiwm.t Cui inguit Dens: Won hitberes ullam adversus eum poiesialem.  Satanas

(irym ait:  Sine me, quia potestatem kabeo. Respondit Dens: S'i in' hoc dilttius persevr--
raozs, Satan, potius (fe) de munde, perdam quam aliqvam animam pvneraftftnis Messifs perdi

270

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

of representation of the later Judaism, under the form of a Irodily

appearance and a personal dialogue.

If a place were demanded where Satan miglit probably under-
take such a temptation of the Messiah, tlie wilderness would present
itself from more tlian one quarter. Not only had it been from Azazel
(Lev. xvi. 8-10), and Asmodeus (Tobit viii. 3), to the demons
ejected by Jesus (Matt. xii. 43), the fearful dwelling-place of tlie in-
fernal powers : it was also tlie scene of temptation for tlie people of
Israel, th&t filius Dei cullectivus* Added to this, it was tlie habit
of Jesus to retire to solitary places for still meditation and prayer
(Matt. xiv. 13; Mark i. 35; Luke vi. 12; John vi. 15); to which
after Ills consecration to the messianic office he would feel more than
usually disposed. It is hence possible that, as some theologians!
have supposed, a residence of Jesus in tlie wilderness after his bap-
tism (though not one of precisely forty days' duration) served as the
historical foundation of our narrative; but even without this con-
necting thread, botli the already noticed clioice of place and that of
time are to be explained by tlie consideration, that it seemed conso-
nant witli tlie destiny of tlie Messiali tliat, like a second Hercules,
lie should undergo sucli a trial on his entrance into mature age and

tlie messianic office.

But wliat liad tlie Messiah to do in tlie wilderness ? That tlie
Messiah, tlie second Saviour, should like his typical predecessor,
Moses, on Mount Sinai, submit himself to the lioly discipline of
fasting, was an idea tlie more inviting, because it furnished a suit-
able introduction to the nrst temptation wliicli presupposed extreme
hunger.  The type of Moses and tliat of Elias (1 Kings xix. 8.),
determined also the duration of tills fast in tlie wilderness, for they
too liad lasted forty days ; moreover, tlie number forty was lield sa-
cred in Hebrew antiquity.:}: Above all, tlie forty days of tlie temp-
tation of Jesus seem, as Olshausen justly observes, a miniature image
of tlie forty years' trial in tlie wilderness, endured by tlie Israelitish
people as a penal emblem of tlie forty days spent by tlie spies in the
land of Canaan (Numb. xiv. 34).  For, that in the temptations of
Jesus there was a special reference to tlie temptation of Israel in tlie
wilderness, is shown by tlie circumstance that all the passages cited
by Jesus in opposition to Satan are drawn from tlie recapitulatory
description of tlie journeyings of tlie Israelites In Dcut. vi. and viii.
Tlie apostle Paul too, 1 Cor. x. 6, enumerates a series of particulars
from tlie behaviour of tlie Israelites in tlie wilderness, with tlie con-
sequent judgments of God, and warns Christians against similar

the devil, was not foreign to the circle of Jewish ideas. Although the author of the above
quotation represents the demand of Satan to have been denied, others, so soon as the im-
agination was once excited, would be sure to allow its completion.

* Dent. viii. 2 (I,XX.) the pocple are thus addressed : p'r/cnSy/Ot) nuaav rriv fiSov, {jv
syycyf (T£ Ki'pcof; 6 Geo^ aov rovro rsacapaKOvrbv ^ro<r sv ry fp?//^, OTTUC KCLKII)C^ ae Kat, Trei-
pa<77/ of, Kal Sia^vi^a-Qy TU iv T^ nap^ia CTOV, u cw^a^rt TU(; svrtiAu(; Q.VTOV, ij ov.   ^ Ziegler,
in Gablere's n. tluol. Joiirn., 5, S. W\. 'Iheile, zur Uiogr. J., § 23.   }: See Wctstein, S.
'.'70 ; De Wette, Kritik der mos. Geselii te, S '.'Ai'i; the same in Daub's and Crauzcr's

TEMPTATION OF JESUS.                271

conduct, pronouncing, v. 6 and 11, the punishments inflicted on the
ancients to be types for the admonition of the living, his cotempo-
raries, on whom the ends of the world were come; wherefore, lie
adds, let Mm that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.  It
is not probable tliat tills was merely the private opinion of the
apostle-it seems rather to have been a current notion tliat the liard
trials of the people led by Moses, as well as of Moses individually,
were types of tliose which awaited the followers of tlie Messiali in
the catastrophe which lie was to usher in, and still more emphati-
cally tlie Messiah himself, wlio here appears as the antitype of tlie
people, gloriously overcoming all the temptations under which they
liad fallen.

The Israelites were principally tempted by hunger during their
wandering in tlie wilderness ;* lience the first temptation of tlie Mes-
siali was determined beforehand. Tlie rabbins, too, among the va-
rious temptations of Abraham which tlicy recount, generally reckon
hunger.t Tliat Satan, when prompting Jesus to seek relief from
his hunger by an exertion of his own will instead of awaiting it in
faith from God, should make use of tlie terms given in our Evan-
gelists, cannot be matter of surprise if we consider, not only that
the wilderness was stony, but that to produce a tiling from stones
was a proverbial expression, denoting the supply of an object alto-
gether wanting (Matt. iii. 9; Luke xix. 40.), and that stone and
bread formed a common contrast (Matt. vii. 9). The reply of Jesus
to tills suggestion is in tlie same train of ideas on wliicli tlie entire
first act of temptation is constructed ; for lie quotes tlie lesson wliicli,
according to Deuteronomy viii. 3, tlie people of Israel tardily learned
from tlie temptation of hunger (a temptation, however, under which
they were not resigned, but were provoked to murmur): namely,
that man shall not live by bread alone, &c.

But one temptation would not suffice. Of Abraham the rabbins
enumerated ten; but this number was too large for a dramatic nar-
rative like that in the Gospels, and among lower numbers tlie sacred
three must have the preference. Thrice during his spiritual contest
in Gethsemane Jesus severed himself from his disciples (Matt. xxvi.);

thrice Peter denied his Lord, and tlirice Jesus subsequently ques-
tioned liis love (Jolm xxi.). In that rabbinical passage which repre-
sents Abraham as tempted by tlie devil in person, the patriarch par-
ries three thrusts from him; in wliicli particular, as well as in the
manner in wliich Old Testament texts are bandied by tlie parties,
the scene is allied to the evangelical one.f

* Dent. viii. 3 nal enuttoce ce Kal KXifiay^ovTfffs. (T£, K. *. 7i»

•t" S. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr. V. T. p. 398 ff.

t Gemara Saiih., as in note 3. The colloquy between Abraham and Satan is thus
continued:

1. Saiarws:  Annon tenfare te (Deum') in tali re agre ferasf Ecce erudiebas multos-
iubaiiiem friybant verba tua-quum nunc advenit ad Ie ^Detts tallter te tertians'} nonne cegre
furres C.lob. iv. 2-,•>- 'I?

272

THE LIFE OF JES-JS.

The second temptation (in Matthew) was not determined by its
relation to the precceding; hence its presentation seems abrupt, and
the clioice fortuitous or capricious. This may be true with respect
to its form, but its substantial meaning is in close connection with
the foregoing temptation, since it also lias reference to tlie conduct
of tlie Jewish people in the wilderness. To tliem tlie warning was
given in Deut. vi. 16. to tempt God no more as they liad tempted
him at Massali; a warning which was reiterated 1 Cor. x. 9. to tlie
members of the new covenant, though more in allusion to Numb.
xxi. 4. To this crying sin, therefore, under wliicli tlie ancient
people of God liad fallen, must tlie Messiah be incited, that by re-
sisting the incitement he might compensate, as it were, for the trans-
gression of tlie people. Now tlie conduct wliicli was condemned in
them as a temptiny of the Lord, eiCTreipd^siv Kvplov, was occasioned
by a dearth of water, and consisted in their murmurs at tills depri-
vation. This, to later tradition, did not seem fully to correspond to
the terms; something more suitable was sought for, and from this
point of view there could hardly be a more eligible clioice than tlie
one we actually find in our history of tlie temptation, for nothing can
be more properly called a tempting of God than so audacious an ap-
peal to his extraordinary succour, as that suggested by Satan in his
second temptation. The reason why a leap from tlie pinnacle of
tlie temple was named as an example of such presumption, is put
into the mouth of Satan himself.

It occurred to the originator of tills feature in tlie narrative, that
the passage Ps. xci. 11. was capable of perversion into a motive for
a rash act. It is there promised to one dwelling under the protec-
tion of Jehovah, (a designation under wliicli the Messiah was pre-
eminently understood,) tliat angels should bear Idm vp in their
hands, lest at any time he should dash his foot against a stone.
Bearing up in their hands to prevent a. fall, seemed to imply a
precipitation from some eminence, and this might induce tlie idea
that tlie divinely-protected Messiah might hurl himself from a height
with impunity. But from wliat height ? There could be no hesita-
tion on this point. To tlie pious man, and therefore to the liead of
all the pious, is appropriated, according to Ps. xv. 1; xxiv. 3, the
distinction of going up to Jehovah's lioly hill, and standing witliin
his holy place: hence tlie pinnacle of tlie temple, in tlie presump-

2. Safanas : Annon fimor fuus^ spcs iua (Job. iv. 6.) ?
Abraham: Kecordare qua'so, quis est iizsons, qui perifrif (v. 7.)?

3. Quare, yuum videret Satanus, se mhil projirere, nee A brahamum sibi obedire, cits-it ad
ilium: et ad me verbum ftirtim aUatum est (v. -12.), atldwi-pecus J'uturum esse pro hoit>-
cat/sfo (Gen. xxii. 7.), non aufew Isancum.

Cm resp. Abraham : llac est plena mendacis, ut ttlam cum vera loquitur, jvks ei noa

haheaiur.

I am far from maintaining that tills rabbinical passage was the model of our history of
tlie temptation ; but since it is impossible to prove, on the other side, that such nar-
ratives were only imitations of the New Testament ones, the supposed independent for-
mation of i.torirs so similar shows plainly enough tlie ease witli which thev sprang out of

LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.        273

tuous mode of inference supposed, might be regarded as the height
whence the Messiah could precipitate himself unhurt.

The third. temptation wliicli Jesus underwent-to worship the
devil-is not apparent among the temptations of God's ancient
people. But one of the most fatal seductions by which tlie Israelites
were led astray in the wilderness was that of idolatry; and the
apostle Paul adduces it as admonitory to Christians. Not only is
this sin derived immediately from the devil in a passage above
quoted ;* but in the later Jewish idea, idolatry was identical with
the worship of tlie devil (Baruch iv. 7; 1 Cor. x. 20). How, then,
could tlie worship of the devil be suggested to tlie Messiah in the
form of a temptation ? The notion of the Messiali as he who, being
tlie King of the Jewish people, was destined to be lord of all other
nations, and that of Satan as tlie ruler of the heathen worldf to be
conquered by the Messiah, were here combined.  That dominion
over the world which, in tlie christianized imagination of the period,
the Messiah was to obtain by a long and painful struggle, was
offered him as an easy bargain if he would only pay Satan, the
tribute of worship. This temptation Jesus meets with the maxim
inculcated on the Israelites, Deut. vi. 13, that God alone is to be
worshipped, and thus gives the enemy a final dismissal.

Matthew and Mark crown their history of the temptation with
the appearance of angels to Jesus, and their refreshing him with
nourishment after his long fast and the fatigues of temptation. This
incident was prefigured by a similar ministration to Elijah after his
forty days' fast, and was brought nearer to tlie imagination by the
circumstance that the manna which appeased the hunger of the
people in the wilderness was named, ap-oc dv-ysXuv, angels' food.
(Ps. Ixxviii. 25. LXX.; Wisdom xvi. 20).f