John is probably correct. The rebuke of Judas (Jn. xii. 4-8) was probably a.s.sociated in the thought of the disciples with his later treachery; consequently the synoptists report the plot of Judas and this supper in close connection.

72. _The Messianic entry into Jerusalem_ is regarded by Reville as a surrender by Jesus of his lofty Messianic ideal in response to the temptation to seek a popular following. Keim with finer insight says, "Even if it had certainly been his wish to bring the kingdom of heaven near in Jerusalem quietly and gradually, and with a healthy mental progress, as in Galilee, yet ... in the face of the irritability of his opponents, in the face of the powerful means at their disposal of crushing him ... there remained but one chance,--reckless publicity, the conquest of the partially prepared nation by means, not of force, but of idea....

He came staking his life upon the venture, but also believing that G.o.d must finish his work through life or death" (JN V. 100f.).

73. _The question about the resurrection_ was probably a familiar Sadducean problem with which they made merry at the expense of the scribes. On the resurrection in Jewish thought see Charles, _Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian_, by index. For the scepticism of the Sadducees see also Ac. xxiii. 8; Jos. Wars, ii, 8. 14.

74. On the "_great commandment_" see EdersLJM II. 403 ff.

75. The eschatological discourse presents serious exegetical difficulties.

Many cut the knot by a.s.suming that Mk. xiii. and ?s contain a little Jewish apocalypse written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, which has been blended with genuine predictions of Jesus concerning his second coming. See Charles, _Eschatology_, 323-. 329; WendtLJ I. 9-21; HoltzmannNtTH I. 325 ff.; and Bruce's criticism in _Expos. Gk. Test_. I.

287f., also Sanday's note in HastBD II. 635f.

76. On _the relation of proselytes_ to Judaism see SchurerJPTX II. ii.

291-327. The synagogue in heathen lands drew to itself by its monotheism and its pure ethics the finest spirits of paganism. But few of them, however, submitted to circ.u.mcision, and became thus proselytes. Most of them const.i.tuted the cla.s.s of "them that fear G.o.d" to whom Paul constantly appealed in his apostolic mission. The Greeks of Jn. xii. 20 ff. were probably circ.u.mcised proselytes.

77. On _Judas_ see Plummer in HastBD II. 796 ff.; EdersLJM II. 471-478; WeissLX III. 285-289; AndLOL by index. De Quincey's essay on _Judas Iscariot_ is an elaborate defence.

VII

The Last Supper

78. GilbertLJ 335-354; WeissLX III. 273-318; EdersLJM II. 479-532; AndLOL 450-497; KeimJN V. 275-343; BeysLJ II. 434-448; SandayHastBD II. 633-638.

79. _The day of the last supper_. John seems clearly to place it on the day before the Pa.s.sover--13 Nisan. See xiii. I, 29; xviii. 28; xix. 14, 31, 42. Synoptists as clearly declare that the supper was prepared on the "first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the Pa.s.sover" (Mk.

xiv. 12; see also Lk. xxii. 15); this is confirmed by the similarity between the Pa.s.sover ritual as tradition has preserved it, and the course of events at the supper. Unless interpretation can remove the contradiction, John must have the preference. WeissLX III. 273-282, BeysLJ II. 390-399, accept John and correct the synoptists by him; thus the supper antic.i.p.ated the Pa.s.sover. Some hold that John can be interpreted harmoniously with synoptists, and be shown to indicate that the supper was on the 14th Nisan. So EdersLJM II. 508, 566f., 612f.; AndLOL 452-481; GilbertLJ 335-339. Others believe that a true interpretation of synoptists shows that in calling the last supper a Pa.s.sover they correctly represent the character, but misapprehend the time, of the meal. For this argument see Muirhead, _Times of Xt_, 163-169, and read SandayHastBD II. 633-636 and his references. The debate is still on, but the advantage seems to be with those who a.s.sign the supper to the 13th and the crucifixion to the 14th Nisan.

80. _Did Jesus inst.i.tute a memorial sacrament_? Read SandayHastBD II.

636-638, and Thayer, in Jour. Bib. Lit. 1899, 110-131; see also McGiffert, _Apostolic Age_, 68 ff. note; HoltzmannNtTh I. 296-304.

81. _The Pa.s.sover ritual_. The order according to the rabbis was the following: the first cup of wine and water was taken by the leader, who gave thanks over it, and then it was shared by all (compare Lk. xxii. 17); then the head of the company washed his hands--Dr. Edersheim connects with this the washing of the disciples' feet, which changed the ceremony from an act of distinction into one of humble service; after this the dishes were brought on the table, then the leader dipped some of the bitter herbs into salt water or vinegar, spoke a blessing, and partook of them, then handed them to each of the company; then one of the loaves of unleavened bread was broken; after this a second cup was filled, and before it was drunk the significance of the Pa.s.sover was explained by the leader in reply to a question by the youngest of the company, after which the first part of the Hallel (Ps. cxiii., cxiv.) was sung, and then the cup was drunk; then followed the supper itself beginning with "the sop,"--a piece of the paschal lamb, a piece of unleavened bread, and bitter herbs, wrapped together and dipped in the vinegar,--which was pa.s.sed around the company (compare the sop which Jesus gave to Judas); after the supper came a third cup, known as "the cup of blessing" (see I. Cor. x. 16); then followed grace after meat; then a fourth cup, in connection with which the remainder of the Hallel was sung (Ps. cxv. to cxviii.), followed by certain other songs and prayers. See EdersLJM II. 496-512; AndLOL 488-494.

82. _The washing of the disciples' feet_. John (xiii. 1-11) says this occurred "during supper" (v. 2), and before the designation of the traitor. Luke (xxii. 23-30) tells of a dispute about greatness among the disciples. This dispute may have arisen over the a.s.signment of places at table (compare Lk. xiv. 7 ff.; Mk. x. 33-45); if so, the reason for the lesson in humility is apparent. See AndLOL 482-484; EdersLJM II. 492-503.

83. _Did Jesus twice predict Peter's denials_? Mark (xiv. 26-31) and Matthew (xxvi. 30-35) place the prediction after the departure for Gethsemane; Luke (xxii. 31-34) and John (xiii. 36-38), during the supper.

AndLOL 494 ff. thinks Peter was warned twice, EdersLJM. II. 535-537 holds to one warning on the way to Gethsemane. Antecedent probability favors this view.

84. _Where in John should the inst.i.tution of the sacrament be placed_?

Probably after the departure of Judas (Mark xiv. 21f.; Matt. xxvi. 26), thus not before xiii. 30. The most likely place is between, verses 32 and 33. There is no break at this point, and it remains a mystery why John's account of the pa.s.sion omitted this central feature of early Christian belief and practice. The omission argues for rather than against apostolic authorship, as a forger would not have ventured to disregard the leading service of the church in an account of the life of its Lord. See Westcott, _Comm. on John_, 188.

85. On the possible _disarrangement of the last discourses_ (xiii. 31 to xvi. 33) in our text of John see Spitta, _Urchristentum_, I. 168-193; Bacon, Jour. Bib. Lit. 1894, 64-76; Burton, Bib. Wld. 1899 I. 32.

VIII

The Shadow of the Cross

86. See GilbertLJ 354-384; AndLOL 497-588; WeissLX III. 319-381; BeysLJ I.

390-432, II. 448-473; EdersLJM II. 533-620; KeimJN VI. 1-274; SandayHastBD II. 632f.

87. On the location of _Gethsemane and Golgotha_ see AndLOL 499f., 575-588; and HastBD II. 164, 226f.

88. On the progress of _Jesus' trial by the Jewish authorities, _ see AndLOL 505-516; GilbertLJ 359-363. The _legality of the trial_ has been carefully discussed by A. T. Innes, _The Trial of Jesus Christ_.

89. On the form and sequence of _Peter's denials_, see Westcott, _Comm.

on John_, 263-266; AndLOL 516-521.

90. The _Words from the Cross_. Matthew (xxvii. 46) and Mark (xv. 34) report one; Luke (xxiii. 34?, 43, 46) adds three, omitting the one found in Matthew and Mark; John adds three more (xix. 26f., 28, 30). Luke xxiii.

34 is bracketed by Westcott and Hort because omitted by a very important group of MSS. ([Hebrew: aleph]^aBD*) and some early versions. The saying is almost certainly authentic, though it may have been added to Luke by some early copyist. See Westcott and Hort, _N.T. in Greek_, II. Appendix, 68; and Plummer, _Comm. on Luke_, 544f.

IX

The Resurrection and Ascension

91. Read SandayHastBD II. 638-643; see KeimJK VI. 274-383, for a still valid criticism of the position of RevilleJN II. 428-478; see also WeissLX III. 382-409; BeysLJ I. 433-481, II. 474-493; BovonNTTh I. 350-375; GilbertLJ 385-405; Loofs, _Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert_; EdersLJM II. 621-652; AndLOL 589-639.

92. The last twelve verses of Mark (xvi. 9-20) are omitted by the oldest MSS ([Hebrew: aleph]B) and by the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac, as well as by other versions and fathers. An Armenian MS. has been found ascribing the section to one Ariston, or Aristion, a second century elder, and this explanation of the origin of the verses is widely accepted. The gospel cannot have ended with the words "for they were afraid," but no satisfactory explanation of the condition of its text has been found. For a recent hypothesis see Rohrbach, _Der Schluss des Markusevangeliums_; on Aristion as the author, see Conybeare in Expos. IV. viii. (1893) 241, IV.

x. 219, V. ii. 401; see also SandayHastBD II. 638f., Bruce, _Expos. Gk.

Test_. I. 454f. For discussion of textual evidence see Westcott and Hort, _NT in Greek_, II. Appendix, 28-51, and Burgon, _The last twelve verses of St. Mark_ (a pa.s.sionate defence).

Luke xxiv. 51 is omitted by [Hebrew: aleph]*D and several old Latin MSS.

See Plummer and Bruce on the pa.s.sage.

93. "_After three days_." This formula, which appears often in Mark, is altered in parallels in Matthew and Luke to "on the third day" (see Concordance). Jesus died on Friday, lay in the tomb over Sat.u.r.day, and rose very early Sunday morning. Thus he spent a part of Friday, and a part of Sunday, and all of Sat.u.r.day in the grave. According to Jewish reckoning this was counted three days.

94. _Emmaus_. A village about 60 furlongs from Jerusalem. Cannot have been the Emmaus in the Shephelah, 20 m. from Jerusalem. May have been el Kubeibeh, 63 furlongs distant on the road from Jerusalem to Lydda. See AndLOL 617-619; but also HastBD I. 700.

Part III.--The Minister

I

The Friend of Men

95. Head Mathews, _The Social Teachings of Jesus, _ especially 132-174; see also Robinson, _The Saviour in the Newer Light_, 343 ff.

II

The Teacher with Authority

96. See WendtTJ I. 106-151; Stevens, _Theol. of the N.T._ 1-16; Beyschlag, _N.T. Theology, I_. 31-34. In particular on the Parables see references in sect. A 56. On the content of Jesus' teaching see WendtTJ 2 vols.; Dalman, _Die Worte Jesu; Stevens, Theol. of the N.T._ 17-244; Beyschlag, _N.T. Theol_. I. 27-299; Mathews, _Social Teaching of Jesus_; Gilbert, _The Revelation of Jesus_; Bruce, _The Kingdom of G.o.d_.

III