THE

LIFE

OF

JESUS

BY

ERNEST RENAN

INTRODUCTION BY

JOHN HAYNES HOLMES

[Transcriber's note: Introduction by John Haynes Holmes not includedin this etext due to copyright restrictions. ]

MODERN LIBRARYNEW YORK

INTRODUCTION COPYRIGHT, 1927, BY THE MODERN LIBRARY, INC. 

_Random House_ IS THE PUBLISHER OF

THE MODERN LIBRARY

BENNETT A. CERF * DONALD S. KLOPPER * ROBERT K. HAAS

Manufactured in the United States of America

Printed by Parkway Printing Company * Bound by H. Wolff

TO THE PURE SOUL OF

MY SISTER HENRIETTE

_Who Died at Byblus on the 24th of September, 1861_

Dost thou recall, from the bosom of God where thou reposest, thoselong days at Ghazir, in which, alone with thee, I wrote these pages, inspired by the places we had visited together? Silent at my side, thou didst read and copy each sheet as soon as I had written it, whilst the sea, the villages, the ravines, and the mountains, werespread at our feet. When the overwhelming light had given place to theinnumerable army of stars, thy shrewd and subtle questions, thydiscreet doubts, led me back to the sublime object of our commonthoughts. One day thou didst tell me that thou wouldst love thisbook--first, because it had been composed with thee, and also becauseit pleased thee. Though at times thou didst fear for it the narrowjudgments of the frivolous, yet wert thou ever persuaded that alltruly religious souls would ultimately take pleasure in it. In themidst of these sweet meditations, the Angel of Death struck us bothwith his wing: the sleep of fever seized us at the same time--I awokealone!. .. Thou sleepest now in the land of Adonis, near the holyByblus and the sacred stream where the women of the ancient mysteriescame to mingle their tears. Reveal to me, O good genius, to me whomthou lovedst, those truths which conquer death, deprive it of terror, and make it almost beloved. 

PREFACE

In presenting an English version of the celebrated work of M. Renan, the translator is aware of the difficulty of adequately rendering awork so admirable for its style and beauty of composition. It is notan easy task to reproduce the terseness and eloquence whichcharacterize the original. Whatever its success in these respects maybe, no pains have been spared to give the author's meaning. Thetranslation has been revised by highly competent persons; but althoughgreat care has been taken in this respect, it is possible that a fewerrors may still have escaped notice. 

The great problem of the present age is to preserve the religiousspirit, whilst getting rid of the superstitions and absurdities thatdeform it, and which are alike opposed to science and common sense. The works of Mr. F. W. Newman and of Bishop Colenso, and the "Essaysand Reviews, " are rendering great service in this direction. The workof M. Renan will contribute to this object; and, if its utility may bemeasured by the storm which it has created amongst the _obscurantists_in France, and the heartiness with which they have condemned it, itsmerits in this respect must be very great. It needs only to be added, that whilst warmly sympathizing with the earnest spirit which pervadesthe book, the translator by no means wishes to be identified with allthe opinions therein expressed. 

_December 8, 1863. _

CONTENTS

 PAGE

Introduction, by John Haynes Holmes 15

Introduction, in Which the Sources of This History Are PrincipallyTreated 25

CHAPTER I

Place of Jesus in the History of the World 67

CHAPTER II

Infancy and Youth of Jesus--His First Impressions 81

CHAPTER III

Education of Jesus 89

CHAPTER IV

The Order of Thought Which Surrounded the Developmentof Jesus 99

CHAPTER V

The First Saying of Jesus--His Ideas of a Divine Fatherand of a Pure Religion--First Disciples 119

CHAPTER VI

John the Baptist--Visit of Jesus to John, and His Abode inthe Desert of Judea--Adoption of the Baptism of John 135

CHAPTER VII

Development of the Ideas of Jesus Respecting the Kingdomof God 148

CHAPTER VIII

Jesus at Capernaum 160

CHAPTER IX

The Disciples of Jesus 173

CHAPTER X

The Preachings on the Lake 184

CHAPTER XI

The Kingdom of God Conceived as the Inheritance of thePoor 194

CHAPTER XII

Embassy from John in Prison to Jesus--Death of John--Relationsof His School with That of Jesus 206

CHAPTER XIII

First Attempts on Jerusalem 213

CHAPTER XIV

Intercourse of Jesus with the Pagans and the Samaritans 227

CHAPTER XV

Commencement of the Legends Concerning Jesus--His OwnIdea of His Supernatural Character 235

CHAPTER XVI

Miracles 248

CHAPTER XVII

Definitive Form of the Ideas of Jesus Respecting the Kingdomof God 259

CHAPTER XVIII

Institutions of Jesus 273

CHAPTER XIX

Increasing Progression of Enthusiasm and of Exaltation 285

CHAPTER XX

Opposition to Jesus 295

CHAPTER XXI

Last Journey of Jesus to Jerusalem 305

CHAPTER XXII

Machinations of the Enemies of Jesus 319

CHAPTER XXIII

Last Week of Jesus 329

CHAPTER XXIV

Arrest and Trial of Jesus 344

CHAPTER XXV

Death of Jesus 360

CHAPTER XXVI

Jesus in the Tomb 370

CHAPTER XXVII

Fate of the Enemies of Jesus 376

CHAPTER XXVIII

Essential Character of the Work of Jesus 381

AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION, In Which the Sources of This History Are Principally Treated

A history of the "Origin of Christianity" ought to embrace all theobscure, and, if one might so speak, subterranean periods which extendfrom the first beginnings of this religion up to the moment when itsexistence became a public fact, notorious and evident to the eyes ofall. Such a history would consist of four books. The first, which Inow present to the public, treats of the particular fact which hasserved as the starting-point of the new religion, and is entirelyfilled by the sublime person of the Founder. The second would treat ofthe apostles and their immediate disciples, or rather, of therevolutions which religious thought underwent in the first twogenerations of Christianity. I would close this about the year 100, atthe time when the last friends of Jesus were dead, and when all thebooks of the New Testament were fixed almost in the forms in which wenow read them. The third would exhibit the state of Christianity underthe Antonines. We should see it develop itself slowly, and sustain analmost permanent war against the empire, which had just reached thehighest degree of administrative perfection, and, governed byphilosophers, combated in the new-born sect a secret and theocraticsociety which obstinately denied and incessantly undermined it. Thisbook would cover the entire period of the second century. Lastly, thefourth book would show the decisive progress which Christianity madefrom the time of the Syrian emperors. We should see the learnedsystem of the Antonines crumble, the decadence of the ancientcivilization become irrevocable, Christianity profit from its ruin, Syria conquer the whole West, and Jesus, in company with the gods andthe deified sages of Asia, take possession of a society for whichphilosophy and a purely civil government no longer sufficed. It wasthen that the religious ideas of the races grouped around theMediterranean became profoundly modified; that the Eastern religionseverywhere took precedence; that the Christian Church, having becomevery numerous, totally forgot its dreams of a millennium, broke itslast ties with Judaism, and entered completely into the Greek andRoman world. The contests and the literary labors of the thirdcentury, which were carried on without concealment, would be describedonly in their general features. I would relate still more briefly thepersecutions at the commencement of the fourth century, the lasteffort of the empire to return to its former principles, which deniedto religious association any place in the State. Lastly, I would onlyforeshadow the change of policy which, under Constantine, reversed theposition, and made of the most free and spontaneous religious movementan official worship, subject to the State, and persecutor in its turn. 

I know not whether I shall have sufficient life and strength tocomplete a plan so vast. I shall be satisfied if, after having writtenthe _Life of Jesus_, I am permitted to relate, as I understand it, thehistory of the apostles, the state of the Christian conscience duringthe weeks which followed the death of Jesus, the formation of thecycle of legends concerning the resurrection, the first acts of theChurch of Jerusalem, the life of Saint Paul, the crisis of the time ofNero, the appearance of the Apocalypse, the fall of Jerusalem, thefoundation of the Hebrew-Christian sects of Batanea, the compilationof the Gospels, and the rise of the great schools of Asia Minororiginated by John. Everything pales by the side of that marvellousfirst century. By a peculiarity rare in history, we see much betterwhat passed in the Christian world from the year 50 to the year 75, than from the year 100 to the year 150. 

The plan followed in this history has prevented the introduction intothe text of long critical dissertations upon controverted points. Acontinuous system of notes enables the reader to verify from theauthorities all the statements of the text. These notes are strictlylimited to quotations from the primary sources; that is to say, theoriginal passages upon which each assertion or conjecture rests. Iknow that for persons little accustomed to studies of this kind manyother explanations would have been necessary. But it is not mypractice to do over again what has been already done well. To citeonly books written in French, those who will consult the followingexcellent writings[1] will there find explained a number of pointsupon which I have been obliged to be very brief:

 _Études Critiques sur l'Évangile de saint Matthieu_, par M. Albert Réville, pasteur de l'église Wallonne de Rotterdam. [2]

 _Histoire de la Théologie Chrétienne au Siècle Apostolique_, par M. Reuss, professeur à la Faculté de Théologie et au Séminaire Protestant de Strasbourg. [3]

 _Des Doctrines Religieuses des Juifs pendant les Deux Siècles Antérieurs à l'Ère Chrétienne_, par M. Michel Nicolas, professeur à la Faculté de Théologie Protestante de Montauban. [4]

 _Vie de Jésus_, par le Dr. Strauss; traduite par M. Littré, Membre de l'Institut. [5]

 _Revue de Théologie et de Philosophie Chrétienne_, publiée sous la direction de M. Colani, de 1850 à 1857. --_Nouvelle Revue de Théologie_, faisant suite à la précédente depuis 1858. [6]

[Footnote 1: While this work was in the press, a book has appearedwhich I do not hesitate to add to this list, although I have not readit with the attention it deserves--_Les Évangiles_, par M. Gustaved'Eichthal. Première Partie: _Examen Critique et Comparatif des TroisPremiers Évangiles_. Paris, Hachette, 1863. ]

[Footnote 2: Leyde, Noothoven van Goor, 1862. Paris, Cherbuliez. Awork crowned by the Society of The Hague for the defence of theChristian religion. ]

[Footnote 3: Strasbourg, Treuttel and Wurtz. 2nd edition. 1860. Paris, Cherbuliez. ]

[Footnote 4: Paris, Michel Lévy frères, 1860. ]

[Footnote 5: Paris, Ladrange. 2nd edition, 1856. ]

[Footnote 6: Strasbourg, Treuttel and Wurtz. Paris, Cherbuliez. ]

The criticism of the details of the Gospel texts especially, has beendone by Strauss in a manner which leaves little to be desired. Although Strauss may be mistaken in his theory of the compilation ofthe Gospels;[1] and although his book has, in my opinion, the fault oftaking up the theological ground too much, and the historical groundtoo little, [2] it will be necessary, in order to understand themotives which have guided me amidst a crowd of minutiæ, to study thealways judicious, though sometimes rather subtle argument, of thebook, so well translated by my learned friend, M. Littré. 

[Footnote 1: The great results obtained on this point have only beenacquired since the first edition of Strauss's work. The learned critichas, besides, done justice to them with much candor in his aftereditions. ]

[Footnote 2: It is scarcely necessary to repeat that not a word inStrauss's work justifies the strange and absurd calumny by which ithas been attempted to bring into disrepute with superficial persons, awork so agreeable, accurate, thoughtful, and conscientious, thoughspoiled in its general parts by an exclusive system. Not only hasStrauss never denied the existence of Jesus, but each page of his bookimplies this existence. The truth is, Strauss supposes the individualcharacter of Jesus less distinct for us than it perhaps is inreality. ]

I do not believe I have neglected any source of information as toancient evidences. Without speaking of a crowd of other scattereddata, there remain, respecting Jesus, and the time in which he lived, five great collections of writings--1st, The Gospels, and thewritings of the New Testament in general; 2d, The compositions calledthe "Apocrypha of the Old Testament;" 3d, The works of Philo; 4th, Those of Josephus; 5th, The Talmud. The writings of Philo have thepriceless advantage of showing us the thoughts which, in the time ofJesus, fermented in minds occupied with great religious questions. Philo lived, it is true, in quite a different province of Judaism toJesus, but, like him, he was very free from the littlenesses whichreigned at Jerusalem; Philo is truly the elder brother of Jesus. Hewas sixty-two years old when the Prophet of Nazareth was at the heightof his activity, and he survived him at least ten years. What a pitythat the chances of life did not conduct him into Galilee! What wouldhe not have taught us!

Josephus, writing specially for pagans, is not so candid. His shortnotices of Jesus, of John the Baptist, of Judas the Gaulonite, are dryand colorless. We feel that he seeks to present these movements, soprofoundly Jewish in character and spirit, under a form which would beintelligible to Greeks and Romans. I believe the passage respectingJesus[1] to be authentic. It is perfectly in the style of Josephus, and if this historian has made mention of Jesus, it is thus that hemust have spoken of him. We feel only that a Christian hand hasretouched the passage, has added a few words--without which it wouldalmost have been blasphemous[2]--has perhaps retrenched or modifiedsome expressions. [3] It must be recollected that the literary fortuneof Josephus was made by the Christians, who adopted his writings asessential documents of their sacred history. They made, probably inthe second century, an edition corrected according to Christianideas. [4] At all events, that which constitutes the immense interestof Josephus on the subject which occupies us, is the clear light whichhe throws upon the period. Thanks to him, Herod, Herodias, Antipas, Philip, Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate are personages whom we can touchwith the finger, and whom we see living before us with a strikingreality. 

[Footnote 1: _Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 3. ]

[Footnote 2: "If it be lawful to call him a man. "]

[Footnote 3: In place of [Greek: christos outos ên], he certainly hadthese [Greek: christos outos elegeto]. --Cf. _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1. ]

[Footnote 4: Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl. _, i. 11, and _Demonstr. Evang. _, iii. 5) cites the passage respecting Jesus as we now read it inJosephus. Origen (_Contra Celsus_, i. 47; ii. 13) and Eusebius (_Hist. Eccl. _, ii. 23) cite another Christian interpolation, which is notfound in any of the manuscripts of Josephus which have come down tous. ]

The Apocryphal books of the Old Testament, especially the Jewish partof the Sibylline verses, and the Book of Enoch, together with the Bookof Daniel, which is also really an Apocrypha, have a primaryimportance in the history of the development of the Messianictheories, and for the understanding of the conceptions of Jesusrespecting the kingdom of God. The Book of Enoch especially, which wasmuch read at the time of Jesus, [1] gives us the key to the expression"Son of Man, " and to the ideas attached to it. The ages of thesedifferent books, thanks to the labors of Alexander, Ewald, Dillmann, and Reuss, is now beyond doubt. Every one is agreed in placing thecompilation of the most important of them in the second and firstcenturies before Jesus Christ. The date of the Book of Daniel is stillmore certain. The character of the two languages in which it iswritten, the use of Greek words, the clear, precise, datedannouncement of events, which reach even to the time of AntiochusEpiphanes, the incorrect descriptions of Ancient Babylonia, theregiven, the general tone of the book, which in no respect recalls thewritings of the captivity, but, on the contrary, responds, by a crowdof analogies, to the beliefs, the manners, the turn of imagination ofthe time of the Seleucidæ; the Apocalyptic form of the visions, theplace of the book in the Hebrew canon, out of the series of theprophets, the omission of Daniel in the panegyrics of Chapter xlix. OfEcclesiasticus, in which his position is all but indicated, and manyother proofs which have been deduced a hundred times, do not permit ofa doubt that the Book of Daniel was but the fruit of the greatexcitement produced among the Jews by the persecution of Antiochus. Itis not in the old prophetical literature that we must class this book, but rather at the head of Apocalyptic literature, as the first modelof a kind of composition, after which come the various Sibyllinepoems, the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of John, the Ascension ofIsaiah, and the Fourth Book of Esdras. 

[Footnote 1: Jude Epist. 14. ]

In the history of the origin of Christianity, the Talmud has hithertobeen too much neglected. I think with M. Geiger, that the true notionof the circumstances which surrounded the development of Jesus must besought in this strange compilation, in which so much preciousinformation is mixed with the most insignificant scholasticism. TheChristian and the Jewish theology having in the main followed twoparallel ways, the history of the one cannot well be understoodwithout the history of the other. Innumerable important details in theGospels find, moreover, their commentary in the Talmud. The vast Latincollections of Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Buxtorf, and Otho containedalready a mass of information on this point. I have imposed on myselfthe task of verifying in the original all the citations which I haveadmitted, without a single exception. The assistance which has beengiven me for this part of my task by a learned Israelite, M. Neubauer, well versed in Talmudic literature, has enabled me to go further, andto clear up the most intricate parts of my subject by new researches. The distinction of epochs is here most important, the compilation ofthe Talmud extending from the year 200 to about the year 500. We havebrought to it as much discernment as is possible in the actual stateof these studies. Dates so recent will excite some fears among personshabituated to accord value to a document only for the period in whichit was written. But such scruples would here be out of place. Theteaching of the Jews from the Asmonean epoch down to the secondcentury was principally oral. We must not judge of this state ofintelligence by the habits of an age of much writing. The Vedas, andthe ancient Arabian poems, have been preserved for ages from memory, and yet these compositions present a very distinct and delicate form. In the Talmud, on the contrary, the form has no value. Let us add thatbefore the _Mishnah_ of Judas the Saint, which has caused all othersto be forgotten, there were attempts at compilation, the commencementof which is probably much earlier than is commonly supposed. The styleof the Talmud is that of loose notes; the collectors did no moreprobably than classify under certain titles the enormous mass ofwritings which had been accumulating in the different schools forgenerations. 

It remains for us to speak of the documents which, presentingthemselves as biographies of the Founder of Christianity, mustnaturally hold the first place in a _Life of Jesus_. A completetreatise upon the compilation of the Gospels would be a work ofitself. Thanks to the excellent researches of which this question hasbeen the object during thirty years, a problem which was formerlyjudged insurmountable has obtained a solution which, though it leavesroom for many uncertainties, fully suffices for the necessities ofhistory. We shall have occasion to return to this in our Second Book, the composition of the Gospels having been one of the most importantfacts for the future of Christianity in the second half of the firstcentury. We will touch here only a single aspect of the subject, thatwhich is indispensable to the completeness of our narrative. Leavingaside all which belongs to the portraiture of the apostolic times, wewill inquire only in what degree the data furnished by the Gospels maybe employed in a history formed according to rational principles. [1]

[Footnote 1: Persons who wish to read more ample explanations, mayconsult, in addition to the work of M. Réville, previously cited, thewritings of Reuss and Scherer in the _Revue de Théologie_, vol. X. , xi. , xv. ; new series, ii. , iii. , iv. ; and that of Nicolas in the_Revue Germanique_, Sept. And Dec. , 1862; April and June, 1863. ]

That the Gospels are in part legendary, is evident, since they arefull of miracles and of the supernatural; but legends have not all thesame value. No one doubts the principal features of the life ofFrancis d'Assisi, although we meet the supernatural at every step. Noone, on the other hand, accords credit to the _Life of Apollonius ofTyana_, because it was written long after the time of the hero, andpurely as a romance. At what time, by what hands, under whatcircumstances, have the Gospels been compiled? This is the primaryquestion upon which depends the opinion to be formed of theircredibility. 

Each of the four Gospels bears at its head the name of a personage, known either in the apostolic history, or in the Gospel historyitself. These four personages are not strictly given us as theauthors. The formulæ "according to Matthew, " "according to Mark, ""according to Luke, " "according to John, " do not imply that, in themost ancient opinion, these recitals were written from beginning toend by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, [1] they merely signify thatthese were the traditions proceeding from each of these apostles, andclaiming their authority. It is clear that, if these titles are exact, the Gospels, without ceasing to be in part legendary, are of greatvalue, since they enable us to go back to the half century whichfollowed the death of Jesus, and in two instances, even to theeye-witnesses of his actions. 

[Footnote 1: In the same manner we say, "The Gospel according to theHebrews, " "The Gospel according to the Egyptians. "]

Firstly, as to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of Luke isa regular composition, founded on anterior documents. [1] It is thework of a man who selects, prunes, and combines. The author of thisGospel is certainly the same as that of the Acts of the Apostles. [2]Now, the author of the Acts is a companion of St. Paul, [3] a titlewhich applies to Luke exactly. [4] I know that more than one objectionmay be raised against this reasoning; but one thing, at least, isbeyond doubt, namely, that the author of the third Gospel and of theActs was a man of the second apostolic generation, and that issufficient for our object. The date of this Gospel can moreover bedetermined with much precision by considerations drawn from the bookitself. The twenty-first chapter of Luke, inseparable from the rest ofthe work, was certainly written after the siege of Jerusalem, and buta short time after. [5] We are here, then, upon solid ground; for weare concerned with a work written entirely by the same hand, and ofthe most perfect unity. 

[Footnote 1: Luke i. 1-4. ]

[Footnote 2: _Acts_ i. 1. Compare Luke i. 1-4. ]

[Footnote 3: From xvi. 10, the author represents himself aseye-witness. ]

[Footnote 4: 2 Tim. Iv. 11; Philemon 24; Col. Iv. 14. The name of_Lucas_ (contraction of _Lucanus_) being very rare, we need not fearone of those homonyms which cause so many perplexities in questions ofcriticism relative to the New Testament. ]

[Footnote 5: Verses 9, 20, 24, 28, 32. Comp. Xxii. 36. ]

The Gospels of Matthew and Mark have not nearly the same stamp ofindividuality. They are impersonal compositions, in which the authortotally disappears. A proper name written at the head of works of thiskind does not amount to much. But if the Gospel of Luke is dated, those of Matthew and Mark are dated also; for it is certain that thethird Gospel is posterior to the first two and exhibits the characterof a much more advanced compilation. We have, besides, on this point, an excellent testimony from a writer of the first half of the secondcentury--namely, Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, a grave man, a man oftraditions, who was all his life seeking to collect whatever could beknown of the person of Jesus. [1] After having declared that on suchmatters he preferred oral tradition to books, Papias mentions twowritings on the acts and words of Christ: First, a writing of Mark, the interpreter of the apostle Peter, written briefly, incomplete, andnot arranged in chronological order, including narratives anddiscourses, ([Greek: lechthenta ê prachthenta], ) composed from theinformation and recollections of the apostle Peter; second, acollection of sentences ([Greek: logia]) written in Hebrew[2] byMatthew, "and which each one has translated as he could. " It iscertain that these two descriptions answer pretty well to the generalphysiognomy of the two books now called "Gospel according to Matthew, ""Gospel according to Mark"--the first characterized by its longdiscourses; the second, above all, by anecdote--much more exact thanthe first upon small facts, brief even to dryness, containing fewdiscourses, and indifferently composed. That these two works, such aswe now read them, are absolutely similar to those read by Papias, cannot be sustained: Firstly, because the writings of Matthew were toPapias solely discourses in Hebrew, of which there were in circulationvery varying translations; and, secondly, because the writings of Markand Matthew were to him profoundly distinct, written without anyknowledge of each other, and, as it seems, in different languages. Now, in the present state of the texts, the "Gospel according toMatthew" and the "Gospel according to Mark" present parallel parts solong and so perfectly identical, that it must be supposed, either thatthe final compiler of the first had the second under his eyes, or_vice versa_, or that both copied from the same prototype. That whichappears the most likely, is, that we have not the entirely originalcompilations of either Matthew or Mark; but that our first two Gospelsare versions in which the attempt is made to fill up the gaps of theone text by the other. Every one wished, in fact, to possess acomplete copy. He who had in his copy only discourses, wished to havenarratives, and _vice versa_. It is thus that "the Gospel according toMatthew" is found to have included almost all the anecdotes of Mark, and that "the Gospel according to Mark" now contains numerousfeatures which come from the _Logia_ of Matthew. Every one, besides, drew largely on the Gospel tradition then current. This tradition wasso far from having been exhausted by the Gospels, that the Acts of theApostles and the most ancient Fathers quote many words of Jesus whichappear authentic, and are not found in the Gospels we possess. 

[Footnote 1: In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 39. No doubt whatevercan be raised as to the authenticity of this passage. Eusebius, infact, far from exaggerating the authority of Papias, is embarrassed athis simple ingenuousness, at his gross millenarianism, and solves thedifficulty by treating him as a man of little mind. Comp. Irenæus, _Adv. Hær. _, iii. 1. ]

[Footnote 2: That is to say, in the Semitic dialect. ]

It matters little for our present object to push this delicateanalysis further, and to endeavor to reconstruct in some manner, onthe one hand, the original _Logia_ of Matthew, and, on the other, theprimitive narrative such as it left the pen of Mark. The _Logia_ aredoubtless represented by the great discourses of Jesus which fill aconsiderable part of the first Gospel. These discourses form, in fact, when detached from the rest, a sufficiently complete whole. As to thenarratives of the first and second Gospels, they seem to have forbasis a common document, of which the text reappears sometimes in theone and sometimes in the other, and of which the second Gospel, suchas we read it to-day, is but a slightly modified reproduction. Inother words, the scheme of the _Life of Jesus_, in the synoptics, rests upon two original documents--first, the discourses of Jesuscollected by Matthew; second, the collection of anecdotes and personalreminiscences which Mark wrote from the recollections of Peter. We maysay that we have these two documents still, mixed with accounts fromanother source, in the two first Gospels, which bear, not withoutreason, the name of the "Gospel _according_ to Matthew" and of the"Gospel _according_ to Mark. "

What is indubitable, in any case, is, that very early the discoursesof Jesus were written in the Aramean language, and very early also hisremarkable actions were recorded. These were not texts defined andfixed dogmatically. Besides the Gospels which have come to us, therewere a number of others professing to represent the tradition ofeye-witnesses. [1] Little importance was attached to these writings, and the preservers, such as Papias, greatly preferred oraltradition. [2] As men still believed that the world was nearly at anend, they cared little to compose books for the future; it wassufficient merely to preserve in their hearts a lively image of himwhom they hoped soon to see again in the clouds. Hence the littleauthority which the Gospel texts enjoyed during one hundred and fiftyyears. There was no scruple in inserting additions, in variouslycombining them, and in completing some by others. The poor man who hasbut one book wishes that it may contain all that is clear to hisheart. These little books were lent, each one transcribed in themargin of his copy the words, and the parables he found elsewhere, which touched him. [3] The most beautiful thing in the world has thusproceeded from an obscure and purely popular elaboration. Nocompilation was of absolute value. Justin, who often appeals to thatwhich he calls "The Memoirs of the Apostles, "[4] had under his noticeGospel documents in a state very different from that in which wepossess them. At all events, he never cares to quote them textually. The Gospel quotations in the pseudo-Clementinian writings, ofEbionite origin, present the same character. The spirit waseverything; the letter was nothing. It was when tradition becameweakened, in the second half of the second century, that the textsbearing the names of the apostles took a decisive authority andobtained the force of law. 

[Footnote 1: Luke i. 1, 2; Origen, _Hom. In Luc. _ 1 init. ; St. Jerome, _Comment. In Matt. _, prol. ]

[Footnote 2: Papias, in Eusebius, _H. E. _, iii. 39. Comp. Irenæus, _Adv. Hær. _, III. Ii. And iii. ]

[Footnote 3: It is thus that the beautiful narrative in John viii. 1-11 has always floated, without finding a fixed place in theframework of the received Gospels. ]

[Footnote 4: [Greek: Ta apomnêmoneumata tôn apostolôn, a kaleitaieuangelia]. Justin, _Apol. _ i. 33, 66, 67; _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 10, 100-107. ]

Who does not see the value of documents thus composed of the tenderremembrances, and simple narratives, of the first two Christiangenerations, still full of the strong impression which the illustriousFounder had produced, and which seemed long to survive him? Let usadd, that the Gospels in question seem to proceed from that branch ofthe Christian family which stood nearest to Jesus. The last work ofcompilation, at least of the text which bears the name of Matthew, appears to have been done in one of the countries situated at thenortheast of Palestine, such as Gaulonitis, Auranitis, Batanea, wheremany Christians took refuge at the time of the Roman war, where werefound relatives of Jesus[1] even in the second century, and where thefirst Galilean tendency was longer preserved than in other parts. 

[Footnote 1: Julius Africanus, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, i. 7. ]

So far we have only spoken of the three Gospels named the synoptics. There remains a fourth, that which bears the name of John. Concerningthis one, doubts have a much better foundation, and the question isfurther from solution. Papias--who was connected with the school ofJohn, and who, if not one of his auditors, as Irenæus thinks, associated with his immediate disciples, among others, Aristion, andthe one called _Presbyteros Joannes_--says not a word of a _Life ofJesus_, written by John, although he had zealously collected the oralnarratives of both Aristion and _Presbyteros Joannes_. If any suchmention had been found in his work, Eusebius, who points outeverything therein that can contribute to the literary history of theapostolic age, would doubtless have mentioned it. 

The intrinsic difficulties drawn from the perusal of the fourth Gospelitself are not less strong. How is it that, side by side withnarration so precise, and so evidently that of an eye-witness, we finddiscourses so totally different from those of Matthew? How is it that, connected with a general plan of the life of Jesus, which appears muchmore satisfactory and exact than that of the synoptics, these singularpassages occur in which we are sensible of a dogmatic interestpeculiar to the compiler, of ideas foreign to Jesus, and sometimes ofindications which place us on our guard against the good faith of thenarrator? Lastly, how is it that, united with views the most pure, themost just, the most truly evangelical, we find these blemishes whichwe would fain regard as the interpolations of an ardent sectarian? Isit indeed John, son of Zebedee, brother of James (of whom there is nota single mention made in the fourth Gospel), who is able to write inGreek these lessons of abstract metaphysics to which neither thesynoptics nor the Talmud offer any analogy? All this is of greatimportance; and for myself, I dare not be sure that the fourth Gospelhas been entirely written by the pen of a Galilean fisherman. Butthat, as a whole, this Gospel may have originated toward the end ofthe first century, from the great school of Asia Minor, which wasconnected with John, that it represents to us a version of the life ofthe Master, worthy of high esteem, and often to be preferred, isdemonstrated, in a manner which leaves us nothing to be desired, bothby exterior evidences and by examination of the document itself. 

And, firstly, no one doubts that, toward the year 150, the fourthGospel did exist, and was attributed to John. Explicit texts from St. Justin, [1] from Athenagorus, [2] from Tatian, [3] from Theophilus ofAntioch, [4] from Irenæus, [5] show that thenceforth this Gospel mixedin every controversy, and served as corner-stone for the developmentof the faith. Irenæus is explicit; now, Irenæus came from the schoolof John, and between him and the apostle there was only Polycarp. Thepart played by this Gospel in Gnosticism, and especially in the systemof Valentinus, [6] in Montanism, [7] and in the quarrel of theQuartodecimans, [8] is not less decisive. The school of John was themost influential one during the second century; and it is only byregarding the origin of the Gospel as coincident with the rise of theschool, that the existence of the latter can be understood at all. Letus add that the first epistle attributed to St. John is certainly bythe same author as the fourth Gospel, [9] now, this epistle isrecognized as from John by Polycarp, [10] Papias, [11] and Irenæus. [12]

[Footnote 1: _Apol. _, 32, 61; _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 88. ]

[Footnote 2: _Legatio pro Christ_, 10. ]

[Footnote 3: _Adv. Græc. _, 5, 7; Cf. Eusebius, _H. E. _, iv. 29;Theodoret, _Hæretic. Fabul. _, i. 20. ]

[Footnote 4: _Ad Autolycum_, ii. 22. ]

[Footnote 5: _Adv. Hær. _, II. Xxii. 5, III. 1. Cf. Eus. , _H. E. _, v. 8. ]

[Footnote 6: Irenæus, _Adv. Hær. _, I. Iii. 6; III. Xi. 7; St. Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_ VI. Ii. 29, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: Irenæus, _Adv. Hær. _, III. Xi. 9. ]

[Footnote 8: Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, v. 24. ]

[Footnote 9: John, i. 3, 5. The two writings present the most completeidentity of style, the same peculiarities, the same favoriteexpressions. ]

[Footnote 10: _Epist. Ad Philipp. _, 7. ]

[Footnote 11: In Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, III. 39. ]

[Footnote 12: _Adv. Hær. _, III. Xvi. 5, 8; Cf. Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, v. 8. ]

But it is, above all, the perusal of the work itself which iscalculated to give this impression. The author always speaks as aneye-witness; he wishes to pass for the apostle John. If, then, thiswork is not really by the apostle, we must admit a fraud of which theauthor convicts himself. Now, although the ideas of the timerespecting literary honesty differed essentially from ours, there isno example in the apostolic world of a falsehood of this kind. Besides, not only does the author wish to pass for the apostle John, but we see clearly that he writes in the interest of this apostle. Oneach page he betrays the desire to fortify his authority, to show thathe has been the favorite of Jesus;[1] that in all the solemncircumstances (at the Lord's supper, at Calvary, at the tomb) he heldthe first place. His relations on the whole fraternal, although notexcluding a certain rivalry with Peter;[2] his hatred, on thecontrary, of Judas, [3] a hatred probably anterior to the betrayal, seems to pierce through here and there. We are tempted to believe thatJohn, in his old age, having read the Gospel narratives, on the onehand, remarked their various inaccuracies, [4] on the other, was hurtat seeing that there was not accorded to him a sufficiently high placein the history of Christ; that then he commenced to dictate a numberof things which he knew better than the rest, with the intention ofshowing that in many instances, in which only Peter was spoken of, hehad figured with him and even before him. [5] Already during the lifeof Jesus, these trifling sentiments of jealousy had been manifestedbetween the sons of Zebedee and the other disciples. After the deathof James, his brother, John remained sole inheritor of the intimateremembrances of which these two apostles, by the common consent, werethe depositaries. Hence his perpetual desire to recall that he is thelast surviving eye-witness, [6] and the pleasure which he takes inrelating circumstances which he alone could know. Hence, too, so manyminute details which seem like the commentaries of an annotator--"itwas the sixth hour;" "it was night;" "the servant's name was Malchus;""they had made a fire of coals, for it was cold;" "the coat waswithout seam. " Hence, lastly, the disorder of the compilation, theirregularity of the narration, the disjointedness of the firstchapters, all so many inexplicable features on the supposition thatthis Gospel was but a theological thesis, without historic value, andwhich, on the contrary, are perfectly intelligible, if, in conformitywith tradition, we see in them the remembrances of an old man, sometimes of remarkable freshness, sometimes having undergone strangemodifications. 

[Footnote 1: John xiii. 23, xix. 26, xx. 2, xxi. 7, 20. ]

[Footnote 2: John xviii. 15-16, xx. 2-6, xxi. 15-16. Comp. I. 35, 40, 41. ]

[Footnote 3: John vi. 65, xii. 6, xiii. 21, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: The manner in which Aristion and _Presbyteros Joannes_expressed themselves on the Gospel of Mark before Papias (Eusebius, _H. E. _, III. 39) implies, in effect, a friendly criticism, or, moreproperly, a sort of excuse, indicating that John's disciples hadbetter information on the same subject. ]

[Footnote 5: Compare John xviii. 15, and following, with Matthew xxvi. 58; John xx. 2 to 6, with Mark xvi. 7. See also John xiii. 24, 25. ]

[Footnote 6: Chap. I. 14, xix. 35, xxi. 24, and following. Compare theFirst Epistle of St. John, chap. I. 3, 5. ]

A primary distinction, indeed, ought to be made in the Gospel of John. On the one side, this Gospel presents us with a rough draft of thelife of Jesus, which differs considerably from that of the synoptics. On the other, it puts into the mouth of Jesus discourses of which thetone, the style, the treatment, and the doctrines have nothing incommon with the _Logia_ given us by the synoptics. In this secondrespect, the difference is such that we must make choice in a decisivemanner. If Jesus spoke as Matthew represents, he could not havespoken as John relates. Between these two authorities no critic hasever hesitated, or can ever hesitate. Far removed from the simple, disinterested, impersonal tone of the synoptics, the Gospel of Johnshows incessantly the preoccupation of the apologist--the mentalreservation of the sectarian, the desire to prove a thesis, and toconvince adversaries. [1] It was not by pretentious tirades, heavy, badly written, and appealing little to the moral sense, that Jesusfounded his divine work. If even Papias had not taught us that Matthewwrote the sayings of Jesus in their original tongue, the natural, ineffable truth, the charm beyond comparison of the discourses in thesynoptics, their profoundly Hebraistic idiom, the analogies which theypresent with the sayings of the Jewish doctors of the period, theirperfect harmony with the natural phenomena of Galilee--all thesecharacteristics, compared with the obscure Gnosticism, with thedistorted metaphysics, which fill the discourses of John, would speakloudly enough. This by no means implies that there are not in thediscourses of John some admirable gleams, some traits which truly comefrom Jesus. [2] But the mystic tone of these discourses does notcorrespond at all to the character of the eloquence of Jesus, such aswe picture it according to the synoptics. A new spirit has breathed;Gnosticism has already commenced; the Galilean era of the kingdom ofGod is finished; the hope of the near advent of Christ is moredistant; we enter on the barrenness of metaphysics, into the darknessof abstract dogma. The spirit of Jesus is not there, and, if the sonof Zebedee has truly traced these pages, he had certainly, in writingthem, quite forgotten the Lake of Gennesareth, and the charmingdiscourses which he had heard upon its shores. 

[Footnote 1: See, for example, chaps. Ix. And xi. Notice especially, the effect which such passages as John xix. 35, xx. 31, xxi. 20-23, 24, 25, produce, when we recall the absence of all comments whichdistinguishes the synoptics. ]

[Footnote 2: For example, chap. Iv. 1, and following, xv. 12, andfollowing. Many words remembered by John are found in the synoptics(chap. Xii. 16, xv. 20). ]

One circumstance, moreover, which strongly proves that the discoursesgiven us by the fourth Gospel are not historical, but compositionsintended to cover with the authority of Jesus certain doctrines dearto the compiler, is their perfect harmony with the intellectual stateof Asia Minor at the time when they were written. Asia Minor was thenthe theatre of a strange movement of syncretical philosophy; all thegerms of Gnosticism existed there already. John appears to have drunkdeeply from these strange springs. It may be that, after the crisis ofthe year 68 (the date of the Apocalypse) and of the year 70 (thedestruction of Jerusalem), the old apostle, with an ardent and plasticspirit, disabused of the belief in a near appearance of the Son of Manin the clouds, may have inclined toward the ideas that he found aroundhim, of which several agreed sufficiently well with certain Christiandoctrines. In attributing these new ideas to Jesus, he only followed avery natural tendency. Our remembrances are transformed with ourcircumstances; the ideal of a person that we have known changes as wechange. [1] Considering Jesus as the incarnation of truth, John couldnot fail to attribute to him that which he had come to consider as thetruth. 

[Footnote 1: It was thus that Napoleon became a liberal in theremembrances of his companions in exile, when these, after theirreturn, found themselves thrown in the midst of the political societyof the time. ]

If we must speak candidly, we will add that probably John himself hadlittle share in this; that the change was made around him rather thanby him. One is sometimes tempted to believe that precious notes, coming from the apostle, have been employed by his disciples in a verydifferent sense from the primitive Gospel spirit. In fact, certainportions of the fourth Gospel have been added later; such is theentire twenty-first chapter, [1] in which the author seems to wish torender homage to the apostle Peter after his death, and to reply tothe objections which would be drawn, or already had been drawn, fromthe death of John himself, (ver. 21-23. ) Many other places bear thetrace of erasures and corrections. [2] It is impossible at thisdistance to understand these singular problems, and without doubt manysurprises would be in store for us, if we were permitted to penetratethe secrets of that mysterious school of Ephesus, which, more thanonce, appears to have delighted in obscure paths. But there is adecisive test. Every one who sets himself to write the Life of Jesuswithout any predetermined theory as to the relative value of theGospels, letting himself be guided solely by the sentiment of thesubject, will be led in numerous instances to prefer the narration ofJohn to that of the synoptics. The last months of the life of Jesusespecially are explained by John alone; a number of the features ofthe passion, unintelligible in the synoptics, [3] resume bothprobability and possibility in the narrative of the fourth Gospel. Onthe contrary, I dare defy any one to compose a Life of Jesus with anymeaning, from the discourses which John attributes to him. This mannerof incessantly preaching and demonstrating himself, this perpetualargumentation, this stage-effect devoid of simplicity, these longarguments after each miracle, these stiff and awkward discourses, thetone of which is so often false and unequal, [4] would not be toleratedby a man of taste compared with the delightful sentences of thesynoptics. There are here evidently artificial portions, [5] whichrepresent to us the sermons of Jesus, as the dialogues of Plato renderus the conversations of Socrates. They are, so to speak, thevariations of a musician improvising on a given theme. The theme isnot without some authenticity; but in the execution, the imaginationof the artist has given itself full scope. We are sensible of thefactitious mode of procedure, of rhetoric, of gloss. [6] Let us addthat the vocabulary of Jesus cannot be recognized in the portions ofwhich we speak. The expression, "kingdom of God, " which was sofamiliar to the Master, [7] occurs there but once. [8] On the otherhand, the style of the discourses attributed to Jesus by the fourthGospel, presents the most complete analogy with that of the Epistlesof St. John; we see that in writing the discourses, the authorfollowed not his recollections, but rather the somewhat monotonousmovement of his own thought. Quite a new mystical language isintroduced, a language of which the synoptics had not the least idea("world, " "truth, " "life, " "light, " "darkness, " etc. ). If Jesus hadever spoken in this style, which has nothing of Hebrew, nothingJewish, nothing Talmudic in it, how, if I may thus express myself, isit that but a single one of his hearers should have so well kept thesecret?

[Footnote 1: The verses, chap. Xx. 30, 31, evidently form the originalconclusion. ]

[Footnote 2: Chap. Vi. 2, 22, vii. 22. ]

[Footnote 3: For example, that which concerns the announcement of thebetrayal by Judas. ]

[Footnote 4: See, for example, chaps. Ii. 25, iii. 32, 33, and thelong disputes of chapters vii. , viii. , and ix. ]

[Footnote 5: We feel often that the author seeks pretexts forintroducing certain discourses (chaps. Iii. , v. , viii. , xiii. , andfollowing). ]

[Footnote 6: For example, chap. Xvii. ]

[Footnote 7: Besides the synoptics, the Acts, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Apocalypse, confirm it. ]

[Footnote 8: John iii. 3, 5. ]

Literary history offers, besides, another example, which presents thegreatest analogy with the historic phenomenon we have just described, and serves to explain it. Socrates, who, like Jesus, never wrote, isknown to us by two of his disciples, Xenophon and Plato, the firstcorresponding to the synoptics in his clear, transparent, impersonalcompilation; the second recalling the author of the fourth Gospel, byhis vigorous individuality. In order to describe the Socraticteaching, should we follow the "dialogues" of Plato, or the"discourses" of Xenophon? Doubt, in this respect, is not possible;every one chooses the "discourses, " and not the "dialogues. " DoesPlato, however, teach us nothing about Socrates? Would it be goodcriticism, in writing the biography of the latter, to neglect the"dialogues"? Who would venture to maintain this? The analogy, moreover, is not complete, and the difference is in favor of thefourth Gospel. The author of this Gospel is, in fact, the betterbiographer; as if Plato, who, whilst attributing to his masterfictitious discourses, had known important matters about his life, which Xenophon ignored entirely. 

Without pronouncing upon the material question as to what hand haswritten the fourth Gospel, and whilst inclined to believe that thediscourses, at least, are not from the son of Zebedee, we admit still, that it is indeed "the Gospel according to John, " in the same sensethat the first and second Gospels are the Gospels "according toMatthew, " and "according to Mark. " The historical sketch of the fourthGospel is the Life of Jesus, such as it was known in the school ofJohn; it is the recital which Aristion and _Presbyteros Joannes_ madeto Papias, without telling him that it was written, or ratherattaching no importance to this point. I must add, that, in myopinion, this school was better acquainted with the exteriorcircumstances of the life of the Founder than the group whoseremembrances constituted the synoptics. It had, especially upon thesojourns of Jesus at Jerusalem, data which the others did not possess. The disciples of this school treated Mark as an indifferentbiographer, and devised a system to explain his omissions. [1] Certainpassages of Luke, where there is, as it were, an echo of thetraditions of John, [2] prove also that these traditions were notentirely unknown to the rest of the Christian family. 

[Footnote 1: Papias, _loc. Cit. _]

[Footnote 2: For example, the pardon of the adulteress; the knowledgewhich Luke has of the family of Bethany; his type of the character ofMartha responding to the [Greek: diêchouei] of John (chap. Xii. 2);the incident of the woman who wiped the feet of Jesus with her hair;an obscure notion of the travels of Jesus to Jerusalem; the idea thatin his passion he was seen by three witnesses; the opinion of theauthor that some disciples were present at the crucifixion; theknowledge which he has of the part played by Annas in aiding Caiaphas;the appearance of the angel in the agony (comp. John xii. 28, 29). ]

These explanations will suffice, I think, to show, in the course of mynarrative, the motives which have determined me to give the preferenceto this or that of the four guides whom we have for the _Life ofJesus_. On the whole, I admit as authentic the four canonical Gospels. All, in my opinion, date from the first century, and the authors are, generally speaking, those to whom they are attributed; but theirhistoric value is very diverse. Matthew evidently merits an unlimitedconfidence as to the discourses; they are the _Logia_, the identicalnotes taken from a clear and lively remembrance of the teachings ofJesus. A kind of splendor at once mild and terrible--a divinestrength, if we may so speak, emphasizes these words, detaches themfrom the context, and renders them easily distinguishable. The personwho imposes upon himself the task of making a continuous narrativefrom the gospel history, possesses, in this respect, an excellenttouchstone. The real words of Jesus disclose themselves; as soon as wetouch them in this chaos of traditions of varied authenticity, we feelthem vibrate; they betray themselves spontaneously, and shine out ofthe narrative with unequaled brilliancy. 

The narrative portions grouped in the first Gospel around thisprimitive nucleus have not the same authority. There are many not welldefined legends which have proceeded from the zeal of the secondChristian generation. [1] The Gospel of Mark is much firmer, moreprecise, containing fewer subsequent additions. He is the one of thethree synoptics who has remained the most primitive, the mostoriginal, the one to whom the fewest after-elements have been added. In Mark, the facts are related with a clearness for which we seek invain amongst the other evangelists. He likes to report certain wordsof Jesus in Syro-Chaldean. [2] He is full of minute observations, coming doubtless from an eye-witness. There is nothing to prevent ouragreeing with Papias in regarding this eye-witness, who evidently hadfollowed Jesus, who had loved him and observed him very closely, andwho had preserved a lively image of him, as the apostle Peter himself. 

[Footnote 1: Chaps. I. , ii. , especially. See also chap. Xxvii. 3, 19, 51, 53, 60, xxviii. 2, and following, in comparing Mark. ]

[Footnote 2: Chap. V. 41, vii. 34, xv. 24. Matthew only presents thispeculiarity once (chap. Xxvii. 46). ]

As to the work of Luke, its historical value is sensibly weaker. It isa document which comes to us second-hand. The narrative is moremature. The words of Jesus are there, more deliberate, moresententious. Some sentences are distorted and exaggerated. [1] Writingoutside of Palestine, and certainly after the siege of Jerusalem, [2]the author indicates the places with less exactitude than the othertwo synoptics; he has an erroneous idea of the temple, which herepresents as an oratory where people went to pay their devotions. [3]He subdues some details in order to make the different narrativesagree;[4] he softens the passages which had become embarrassing onaccount of a more exalted idea of the divinity of Christ;[5] heexaggerates the marvellous;[6] commits errors in chronology;[7] omitsHebraistic comments;[8] quotes no word of Jesus in this language, andgives to all the localities their Greek names. We feel we have to dowith a compiler--with a man who has not himself seen the witnesses, but who labors at the texts and wrests their sense to make them agree. Luke had probably under his eyes the biographical collection of Mark, and the _Logia_ of Matthew. But he treats them with much freedom;sometimes he fuses two anecdotes or two parables in one;[9] sometimeshe divides one in order to make two. [10] He interprets the documentsaccording to his own idea; he has not the absolute impassibility ofMatthew and Mark. We might affirm certain things of his individualtastes and tendencies; he is a very exact devotee;[11] he insists thatJesus had performed all the Jewish rites, [12] he is a warm Ebioniteand democrat, that is to say, much opposed to property, and persuadedthat the triumph of the poor is approaching;[13] he likes especiallyall the anecdotes showing prominently the conversion of sinners--theexaltation of the humble;[14] he often modifies the ancient traditionsin order to give them this meaning;[15] he admits into his first pagesthe legends about the infancy of Jesus, related with the longamplifications, the spiritual songs, and the conventional proceedingswhich form the essential features of the Apocryphal Gospels. Finally, he has in the narrative of the last hours of Jesus some circumstancesfull of tender feeling, and certain words of Jesus of delightfulbeauty, [16] which are not found in more authentic accounts, and inwhich we detect the presence of legend. Luke probably borrowed themfrom a more recent collection, in which the principal aim was toexcite sentiments of piety. 

[Footnote 1: Chap. Xiv. 26. The rules of the apostolate (chap. X. )have there a peculiar character of exaltation. ]

[Footnote 2: Chap. Xix. 41, 43, 44, xxi. 9, 20, xxiii. 29. ]

[Footnote 3: Chap. Ii. 37, xviii. 10, and following, xxiv. 53. ]

[Footnote 4: For example, chap. Iv. 16. ]

[Footnote 5: Chap. Iii. 23. He omits Matt. Xxiv. 36. ]

[Footnote 6: Chap. Iv. 14, xxii. 43, 44. ]

[Footnote 7: For example, in that which concerns Quirinius, Lysanias, Theudas. ]

[Footnote 8: Compare Luke i. 31 with Matt. I. 21. ]

[Footnote 9: For example, chap. Xix. 12-27. ]

[Footnote 10: Thus, of the repast at Bethany he gives two narratives, chap. Vii. 36-48, and x. 38-42. ]

[Footnote 11: Chap. Xxiii. 56. ]

[Footnote 12: Chap. Ii. 21, 22, 39, 41, 42. This is an Ebionitishfeature. Cf. _Philosophumena_ VII. Vi. 34. ]

[Footnote 13: The parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Compare chap. Vi. 20, and following, 24, and following, xii. 13, and following, xvi. Entirely, xxii. 35. _Acts_ ii. 44, 45, v. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 14: The woman who anoints his feet, Zaccheus, the penitentthief, the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, and the prodigalson. ]

[Footnote 15: For example, Mary of Bethany is represented by him as asinner who becomes converted. ]

[Footnote 16: Jesus weeping over Jerusalem, the bloody sweat, themeeting of the holy women, the penitent thief, &c. The speech to thewomen of Jerusalem (xxiii. 28, 29) could scarcely have been conceivedexcept after the siege of the year 70. ]

A great reserve was naturally enforced in presence of a document ofthis nature. It would have been as uncritical to neglect it as toemploy it without discernment. Luke has had under his eyes originalswhich we no longer possess. He is less an evangelist than a biographerof Jesus, a "harmonizer, " a corrector after the manner of Marcion andTatian. But he is a biographer of the first century, a divine artist, who, independently of the information which he has drawn from moreancient sources, shows us the character of the Founder with ahappiness of treatment, with a uniform inspiration, and a distinctnesswhich the other two synoptics do not possess. In the perusal of hisGospel there is the greatest charm; for to the incomparable beauty ofthe foundation, common to them all, he adds a degree of skill incomposition which singularly augments the effect of the portrait, without seriously injuring its truthfulness. 

On the whole, we may say that the synoptical compilation has passedthrough three stages: First, the original documentary state ([Greek:logia] of Matthew, [Greek: lechthenta ê prachthenta] of Mark), primarycompilations which no longer exist; second, the state of simplemixture, in which the original documents are amalgamated without anyeffort at composition, without there appearing any personal bias ofthe authors (the existing Gospels of Matthew and Mark); third, thestate of combination or of intentional and deliberate compiling, inwhich we are sensible of an attempt to reconcile the differentversions (Gospel of Luke). The Gospel of John, as we have said, formsa composition of another orders and is entirely distinct. 

It will be remarked that I have made no use of the Apocryphal Gospels. These compositions ought not in any manner to be put upon the samefooting as the canonical Gospels. They are insipid and puerileamplifications, having the canonical Gospels for their basis, andadding nothing thereto of any value. On the other hand, I have beenvery attentive to collect the shreds preserved by the Fathers of theChurch, of the ancient Gospels which formerly existed parallel withthe canonical Gospels, and which are now lost--such as the Gospelaccording to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, theGospels styled those of Justin, Marcion, and Tatian. The first two areprincipally important because they were written in Aramean, like the_Logia_ of Matthew, and appear to constitute one version of the Gospelof this apostle, and because they were the Gospel of the_Ebionim_--that is, of those small Christian sects of Batanea whopreserved the use of Syro-Chaldean, and who appear in some respects tohave followed the course marked out by Jesus. But it must be confessedthat in the state in which they have come to us, these Gospels areinferior, as critical authorities, to the compilation of Matthew'sGospel which we now possess. 

It will now be seen, I think, what kind of historical value Iattribute to the Gospels. They are neither biographies after themanner of Suetonius, nor fictitious legends in the style ofPhilostratus; they are legendary biographies. I should willinglycompare them with the Legends of the Saints, the Lives of Plotinus, Proclus, Isidore, and other writings of the same kind, in whichhistorical truth and the desire to present models of virtue arecombined in various degrees. Inexactitude, which is one of thefeatures of all popular compositions, is there particularly felt. Letus suppose that ten or twelve years ago three or four old soldiers ofthe Empire had each undertaken to write the life of Napoleon frommemory. It is clear that their narratives would contain numerouserrors, and great discordances. One of them would place Wagram beforeMarengo: another would write without hesitation that Napoleon drovethe government of Robespierre from the Tuileries; a third would omitexpeditions of the highest importance. But one thing would certainlyresult with a great degree of truthfulness from these simple recitals, and that is the character of the hero, the impression which he madearound him. In this sense such popular narratives would be worth morethan a formal and official history. We may say as much of the Gospels. Solely attentive to bring out strongly the excellency of the Master, his miracles, his teaching, the evangelists display entireindifference to everything that is not of the very spirit of Jesus. The contradictions respecting time, place, and persons were regardedas insignificant; for the higher the degree of inspiration attributedto the words of Jesus, the less was granted to the compilersthemselves. The latter regarded themselves as simple scribes, andcared but for one thing--to omit nothing they knew. [1]

[Footnote 1: See the passage from Papias, before cited. ]

Unquestionably certain preconceived ideas associated themselves withsuch recollections. Several narratives, especially in Luke, areinvented in order to bring out more vividly certain traits of thecharacter of Jesus. This character itself constantly underwentalteration. Jesus would be a phenomenon unparalleled in history if, with the part which he played, he had not early become idealized. Thelegends respecting Alexander were invented before the generation ofhis companions in arms became extinct; those respecting St. Francisd'Assisi began in his lifetime. A rapid metamorphosis operated in thesame manner in the twenty or thirty years which followed the death ofJesus, and imposed upon his biography the peculiarities of an ideallegend. Death adds perfection to the most perfect man; it frees himfrom all defect in the eyes of those who have loved him. With the wishto paint the Master, there was also the desire to explain him. Manyanecdotes were conceived to prove that in him the prophecies regardedas Messianic had had their accomplishment. But this procedure, ofwhich we must not deny the importance, would not suffice to explaineverything. No Jewish work of the time gives a series of propheciesexactly declaring what the Messiah should accomplish. Many Messianicallusions quoted by the evangelists are so subtle, so indirect, thatone cannot believe they all responded to a generally admitteddoctrine. Sometimes they reasoned thus: "The Messiah ought to do sucha thing; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore Jesus has done such athing. " At other times, by an inverse process, it was said: "Such athing has happened to Jesus; now Jesus is the Messiah; therefore sucha thing was to happen to the Messiah. "[1] Too simple explanations arealways false when analyzing those profound creations of popularsentiment which baffle all systems by their fullness and infinitevariety. It is scarcely necessary to say that, with such documents, inorder to present only what is indisputable, we must limit ourselves togeneral features. In almost all ancient histories, even in those whichare much less legendary than these, details open up innumerabledoubts. When we have two accounts of the same fact, it is extremelyrare that the two accounts agree. Is not this a reason foranticipating many difficulties when we have but one? We may say thatamongst the anecdotes, the discourses, the celebrated sayings whichhave been given us by the historians, there is not one strictlyauthentic. Were there stenographers to fix these fleeting words? Wasthere an analyst always present to note the gestures, the manners, thesentiments of the actors? Let any one endeavor to get at the truth asto the way in which such or such contemporary fact has happened; hewill not succeed. Two accounts of the same event given by differenteye-witnesses differ essentially. Must we, therefore, reject all thecoloring of the narratives, and limit ourselves to the bare factsonly? That would be to suppress history. Certainly, I think that if weexcept certain short and almost mnemonic axioms, none of thediscourses reported by Matthew are textual; even our stenographicreports are scarcely so. I freely admit that the admirable account ofthe Passion contains many trifling inaccuracies. Would it, however, bewriting the history of Jesus to omit those sermons which give to us insuch a vivid manner the character of his discourses, and to limitourselves to saying, with Josephus and Tacitus, "that he was put todeath by the order of Pilate at the instigation of the priests"? Thatwould be, in my opinion, a kind of inexactitude worse than that towhich we are exposed in admitting the details supplied by the texts. These details are not true to the letter, but they are true with asuperior truth, they are more true than the naked truth, in the sensethat they are truth rendered expressive and articulate--truthidealized. 

[Footnote 1: See, for example, John xix. 23-24. ]

I beg those who think that I have placed an exaggerated confidence innarratives in great part legendary, to take note of the observation Ihave just made. To what would the life of Alexander be reduced if itwere confined to that which is materially certain? Even partlyerroneous traditions contain a portion of truth which history cannotneglect. No one has blamed M. Sprenger for having, in writing the lifeof Mahomet, made much of the _hadith_ or oral traditions concerningthe prophet, and for often having attributed to his hero words whichare only known through this source. Yet the traditions respectingMahomet are not superior in historical value to the discourses andnarratives which compose the Gospels. They were written between theyear 50 and the year 140 of the Hegira. When the history of the Jewishschools in the ages which immediately preceded and followed the birthof Christianity shall be written, no one will make any scruple ofattributing to Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel the maxims ascribed to themby the _Mishnah_ and the _Gemara_, although these great compilationswere written many hundreds of years after the time of the doctors inquestion. 

As to those who believe, on the contrary, that history should consistof a simple reproduction of the documents which have come down to us, I beg to observe that such a course is not allowable. The fourprincipal documents are in flagrant contradiction one with another. Josephus rectifies them sometimes. It is necessary to make aselection. To assert that an event cannot take place in two ways atonce, or in an impossible manner, is not to impose an _à priori_philosophy upon history. The historian ought not to conclude that afact is false because he possesses several versions of it, or becausecredulity has mixed with them much that is fabulous. He ought in sucha case to be very cautious--to examine the texts, and to proceedcarefully by induction. There is one class of narratives especially, to which this principle must necessarily be applied. Such arenarratives of supernatural events. To seek to explain these, or toreduce them to legends, is not to mutilate facts in the name oftheory; it is to make the observation of facts our groundwork. None ofthe miracles with which the old histories are filled took place underscientific conditions. Observation, which has never once beenfalsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but in times andcountries in which they are believed, and before persons disposed tobelieve them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capableof testing its miraculous character. Neither common people nor men ofthe world are able to do this. It requires great precautions and longhabits of scientific research. In our days have we not seen almost allrespectable people dupes of the grossest frauds or of puerileillusions? Marvellous facts, attested by the whole population of smalltowns, have, thanks to a severer scrutiny, been exploded. [1] If it isproved that no contemporary miracle will bear inquiry, is it notprobable that the miracles of the past, which have all been performedin popular gatherings, would equally present their share of illusion, if it were possible to criticise them in detail?

[Footnote 1: See the _Gazette des Tribunaux_, 10th Sept. And 11thNov. , 1851, 28th May, 1857. ]

It is not, then, in the name of this or that philosophy, but in thename of universal experience, that we banish miracle from history. Wedo not say, "Miracles are impossible. " We say, "Up to this time amiracle has never been proved. " If to-morrow a thaumaturgus presenthimself with credentials sufficiently important to be discussed, andannounce himself as able, say, to raise the dead, what would be done?A commission, composed of physiologists, physicists, chemists, personsaccustomed to historical criticism, would be named. This commissionwould choose a corpse, would assure itself that the death was real, would select the room in which the experiment should be made, wouldarrange the whole system of precautions, so as to leave no chance ofdoubt. If, under such conditions, the resurrection were effected, aprobability almost equal to certainty would be established. As, however, it ought to be possible always to repeat an experiment--to doover again what has been done once; and as, in the order of miracle, there can be no question of ease or difficulty, the thaumaturgus wouldbe invited to reproduce his marvellous act under other circumstances, upon other corpses, in another place. If the miracle succeeded eachtime, two things would be proved: First, that supernatural eventshappen in the world; second, that the power of producing them belongs, or is delegated to, certain persons. But who does not see that nomiracle ever took place under these conditions? but that alwayshitherto the thaumaturgus has chosen the subject of the experiment, chosen the spot, chosen the public; that, besides, the peoplethemselves--most commonly in consequence of the invincible want to seesomething divine in great events and great men--create the marvellouslegends afterward? Until a new order of things prevails, we shallmaintain then this principle of historical criticism--that asupernatural account cannot be admitted as such, that it alwaysimplies credulity or imposture, that the duty of the historian is toexplain it, and seek to ascertain what share of truth or of error itmay conceal. 

Such are the rules which have been followed in the composition ofthis work. To the perusal of documentary evidences I have been able toadd an important source of information--the sight of the places wherethe events occurred. The scientific mission, having for its object theexploration of ancient Phoenicia, which I directed in 1860 and1861, [1] led me to reside on the frontiers of Galilee and to travelthere frequently. I have traversed, in all directions, the country ofthe Gospels; I have visited Jerusalem, Hebron, and Samaria; scarcelyany important locality of the history of Jesus has escaped me. Allthis history, which at a distance seems to float in the clouds of anunreal world, thus took a form, a solidity, which astonished me. Thestriking agreement of the texts with the places, the marvellousharmony of the Gospel ideal with the country which served it as aframework, were like a revelation to me. I had before my eyes a fifthGospel, torn, but still legible, and henceforward, through therecitals of Matthew and Mark, in place of an abstract being, whoseexistence might have been doubted, I saw living and moving anadmirable human figure. During the summer, having to go up to Ghazir, in Lebanon, to take a little repose, I fixed, in rapid sketches, theimage which had appeared to me, and from them resulted this history. When a cruel bereavement hastened my departure, I had but a few pagesto write. In this manner the book has been composed almost entirelynear the very places where Jesus was born, and where his character wasdeveloped. Since my return, I have labored unceasingly to verify andcheck in detail the rough sketch which I had written in haste in aMaronite cabin, with five or six volumes around me. 

[Footnote 1: The work which will contain the results of this missionis in the press. ]

Many will regret, perhaps, the biographical form which my work hasthus taken. When I first conceived the idea of a history of the originof Christianity, what I wished to write was, in fact, a history ofdoctrines, in which men and their actions would have hardly had aplace. Jesus would scarcely have been named; I should have endeavoredto show how the ideas which have grown under his name took root andcovered the world. But I have learned since that history is not asimple game of abstractions; that men are more than doctrines. It wasnot a certain theory on justification and redemption which broughtabout the Reformation; it was Luther and Calvin. Parseeism, Hellenism, Judaism might have been able to have combined under every form; thedoctrines of the Resurrection and of the Word might have developedthemselves during ages without producing this grand, unique, andfruitful fact, called Christianity. This fact is the work of Jesus, ofSt. Paul, of St. John. To write the history of Jesus, of St. Paul, ofSt. John is to write the history of the origin of Christianity. Theanterior movements belong to our subject only in so far as they serveto throw light upon these extraordinary men, who naturally could nothave existed without connection with that which preceded them. 

In such an effort to make the great souls of the past live again, someshare of divination and conjecture must be permitted. A great life isan organic whole which cannot be rendered by the simple agglomerationof small facts. It requires a profound sentiment to embrace them all, moulding them into perfect unity. The method of art in a similarsubject is a good guide; the exquisite tact of a Goethe would know howto apply it. The essential condition of the creations of art is, thatthey shall form a living system of which all the parts are mutuallydependent and related. 

In histories such as this, the great test that we have got the truthis, to have succeeded in combining the texts in such a manner thatthey shall constitute a logical, probable narrative, harmoniousthroughout. The secret laws of life, of the progression of organicproducts, of the melting of minute distinctions, ought to be consultedat each moment; for what is required to be reproduced is not thematerial circumstance, which it is impossible to verify, but the verysoul of history; what must be sought is not the petty certainty abouttrifles, it is the correctness of the general sentiment, thetruthfulness of the coloring. Each trait which departs from the rulesof classic narration ought to warn us to be careful; for the factwhich has to be related has been living, natural, and harmonious. Ifwe do not succeed in rendering it such by the recital, it is surelybecause we have not succeeded in seeing it aright. Suppose that, inrestoring the Minerva of Phidias according to the texts, we produced adry, jarring, artificial whole; what must we conclude? Simply that thetexts want an appreciative interpretation; that we must study themquietly until they dovetail and furnish a whole in which all the partsare happily blended. Should we then be sure of having a perfectreproduction of the Greek statue? No; but at least we should not havethe caricature of it; we should have the general spirit of thework--one of the forms in which it could have existed. 

This idea of a living organism we have not hesitated to take as ourguide in the general arrangement of the narrative. The perusal of theGospels would suffice to prove that the compilers, although having avery true plan of the _Life of Jesus_ in their minds, have not beenguided by very exact chronological data; Papias, besides, expresslyteaches this. [1] The expressions: "At this time . .. After that . .. Then . .. And it came to pass . .. , " etc. , are the simple transitionsintended to connect different narratives with each other. To leave allthe information furnished by the Gospels in the disorder in whichtradition supplies it, would only be to write the history of Jesus asthe history of a celebrated man would be written, by giving pell-mellthe letters and anecdotes of his youth, his old age, and of hismaturity. The Koran, which presents to us, in the loosest manner, fragments of the different epochs in the life of Mahomet, has yieldedits secret to an ingenious criticism; the chronological order in whichthe fragments were composed has been discovered so as to leave littleroom for doubt. Such a rearrangement is much more difficult in thecase of the Gospels, the public life of Jesus having been shorter andless eventful than the life of the founder of Islamism. Meanwhile, theattempt to find a guiding thread through this labyrinth ought not tobe taxed with gratuitous subtlety. There is no great abuse ofhypothesis in supposing that a founder of a new religion commences byattaching himself to the moral aphorisms already in circulation in histime, and to the practices which are in vogue; that, when riper, andin full possession of his idea, he delights in a kind of calm andpoetical eloquence, remote from all controversy, sweet and free aspure feeling; that he warms by degrees, becomes animated byopposition, and finishes by polemics and strong invectives. Such arethe periods which may plainly be distinguished in the Koran. The orderadopted with an extremely fine tact by the synoptics, supposes ananalogous progress. If Matthew be attentively read, we shall find inthe distribution of the discourses, a gradation perfectly analogous tothat which we have just indicated. The reserved turns of expression ofwhich we make use in unfolding the progress of the ideas of Jesus willalso be observed. The reader may, if he likes, see in the divisionsadopted in doing this, only the indispensable breaks for themethodical exposition of a profound, complicated thought. 

[Footnote 1: _Loc. Cit. _]

If the love of a subject can help one to understand it, it will also, I hope, be recognized that I have not been wanting in this condition. To write the history of a religion, it is necessary, firstly, to havebelieved it (otherwise we should not be able to understand how it hascharmed and satisfied the human conscience); in the second place, tobelieve it no longer in an absolute manner, for absolute faith isincompatible with sincere history. But love is possible without faith. To abstain from attaching one's self to any of the forms whichcaptivate the adoration of men, is not to deprive ourselves of theenjoyment of that which is good and beautiful in them. No transitoryappearance exhausts the Divinity; God was revealed before Jesus--Godwill reveal Himself after him. Profoundly unequal, and so much themore Divine, as they are grander and more spontaneous, themanifestations of God hidden in the depths of the human conscience areall of the same order. Jesus cannot belong solely to those who callthemselves his disciples. He is the common honor of all who share acommon humanity. His glory does not consist in being relegated out ofhistory; we render him a truer worship in showing that all history isincomprehensible without him. 

LIFE OF JESUS

CHAPTER I. 

PLACE OF JESUS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. 

The great event of the History of the world is the revolution by whichthe noblest portions of humanity have passed from the ancientreligions, comprised under the vague name of Paganism, to a religionfounded on the Divine Unity, the Trinity, and the Incarnation of theSon of God. It has taken nearly a thousand years to accomplish thisconversion. The new religion had itself taken at least three hundredyears in its formation. But the origin of the revolution in questionwith which we have to do is a fact which took place under the reignsof Augustus and Tiberius. At that time there lived a superiorpersonage, who, by his bold originality, and by the love which he wasable to inspire, became the object and fixed the starting-point of thefuture faith of humanity. 

As soon as man became distinguished from the animal, he becamereligious; that is to say, he saw in Nature something beyond thephenomena, and for himself something beyond death. This sentiment, during some thousands of years, became corrupted in the strangestmanner. In many races it did not pass beyond the belief in sorcerers, under the gross form in which we still find it in certain parts ofOceania. Among some, the religious sentiment degenerated into theshameful scenes of butchery which form the character of the ancientreligion of Mexico. Amongst others, especially in Africa, it becamepure Fetichism, that is, the adoration of a material object, to whichwere attributed supernatural powers. Like the instinct of love, whichat times elevates the most vulgar man above himself, yet sometimesbecomes perverted and ferocious, so this divine faculty of religionduring a long period seems only to be a cancer which must beextirpated from the human race, a cause of errors and crimes which thewise ought to endeavor to suppress. 

The brilliant civilizations which were developed from a very remoteantiquity in China, in Babylonia, and in Egypt, caused a certainprogress to be made in religion. China arrived very early at a sort ofmediocre good sense, which prevented great extravagances. She neitherknew the advantages nor the abuses of the religious spirit. At allevents, she had not in this way any influence in directing the greatcurrent of humanity. The religions of Babylonia and Syria were neverfreed from a substratum of strange sensuality; these religionsremained, until their extinction in the fourth and fifth centuries ofour era, schools of immorality, in which at intervals glimpses of thedivine world were obtained by a sort of poetic intuition. Egypt, notwithstanding an apparent kind of Fetichism, had very earlymetaphysical dogmas and a lofty symbolism. But doubtless theseinterpretations of a refined theology were not primitive. Man hasnever, in the possession of a clear idea, amused himself by clothingit in symbols: it is oftener after long reflections, and from theimpossibility felt by the human mind of resigning itself to theabsurd, that we seek ideas under the ancient mystic images whosemeaning is lost. Moreover, it is not from Egypt that the faith ofhumanity has come. The elements which, in the religion of a Christian, passing through a thousand transformations, came from Egypt and Syria, are exterior forms of little consequence, or dross of which the mostpurified worships always retain some portion. The grand defect of thereligions of which we speak was their essentially superstitiouscharacter. They only threw into the world millions of amulets andcharms. No great moral thought could proceed from races oppressed by asecular despotism, and accustomed to institutions which precluded theexercise of individual liberty. 

The poetry of the soul--faith, liberty, virtue, devotion--made theirappearance in the world with the two great races which, in one sense, have made humanity, viz. , the Indo-European and the Semitic races. Thefirst religious intuitions of the Indo-European race were essentiallynaturalistic. But it was a profound and moral naturalism, a lovingembrace of Nature by man, a delicious poetry, full of the sentiment ofthe Infinite--the principle, in fine, of all that which the Germanicand Celtic genius, of that which a Shakespeare and a Goethe shouldexpress in later times. It was neither theology nor moralphilosophy--it was a state of melancholy, it was tenderness, it wasimagination; it was, more than all, earnestness, the essentialcondition of morals and religion. The faith of humanity, however, could not come from thence, because these ancient forms of worshipshad great difficulty in detaching themselves from Polytheism, andcould not attain to a very clear symbol. Brahminism has only survivedto the present day by virtue of the astonishing faculty ofconservation which India seems to possess. Buddhism failed in all itsapproaches toward the West. Druidism remained a form exclusivelynational, and without universal capacity. The Greek attempts atreform, Orpheism, the Mysteries, did not suffice to give a solidaliment to the soul. Persia alone succeeded in making a dogmaticreligion, almost Monotheistic, and skilfully organized; but it is verypossible that this organization itself was but an imitation, orborrowed. At all events, Persia has not converted the world; sheherself, on the contrary, was converted when she saw the flag of theDivine unity as proclaimed by Mohammedanism appear on her frontiers. 

It is the Semitic race[1] which has the glory of having made thereligion of humanity. Far beyond the confines of history, restingunder his tent, free from the taint of a corrupted world, the Bedouinpatriarch prepared the faith of mankind. A strong antipathy againstthe voluptuous worships of Syria, a grand simplicity of ritual, thecomplete absence of temples, and the idol reduced to insignificant_theraphim_, constituted his superiority. Among all the tribes of thenomadic Semites, that of the Beni-Israel was already chosen forimmense destinies. Ancient relations with Egypt, whence perhapsresulted some purely material ingredients, did but augment theirrepulsion to idolatry. A "Law" or _Thora_, very anciently written ontables of stone, and which they attributed to their great liberatorMoses, had become the code of Monotheism, and contained, as comparedwith the institutions of Egypt and Chaldea, powerful germs of socialequality and morality. A chest or portable ark, having staples on eachside to admit of bearing poles, constituted all their religious_matériel_; there were collected the sacred objects of the nation, itsrelics, its souvenirs, and, lastly, the "book, "[2] the journal of thetribe, always open, but which was written in with great discretion. The family charged with bearing the ark and watching over the portablearchives, being near the book and having the control of it, very soonbecame important. From hence, however, the institution which was tocontrol the future did not come. The Hebrew priest did not differ muchfrom the other priests of antiquity. The character which essentiallydistinguishes Israel among theocratic peoples is, that its priesthoodhas always been subordinated to individual inspiration. Besides itspriests, each wandering tribe had its _nabi_ or prophet, a sort ofliving oracle who was consulted for the solution of obscure questionssupposed to require a high degree of clairvoyance. The _nabis_ ofIsrael, organized in groups or schools, had great influence. Defendersof the ancient democratic spirit, enemies of the rich, opposed to allpolitical organization, and to whatsoever might draw Israel into thepaths of other nations, they were the true authors of the religiouspreeminence of the Jewish people. Very early they announced unlimitedhopes, and when the people, in part the victims of their impoliticcounsels, had been crushed by the Assyrian power, they proclaimed thata kingdom without bounds was reserved for them, that one day Jerusalemwould be the capital of the whole world, and the human race becomeJews. Jerusalem and its temples appeared to them as a city placed onthe summit of a mountain, toward which all people should turn, as anoracle whence the universal law should proceed, as the centre of anideal kingdom, in which the human race, set at rest by Israel, shouldfind again the joys of Eden. [3]

[Footnote 1: I remind the reader that this word means here simply thepeople who speak or have spoken one of the languages called Semitic. Such a designation is entirely defective; but it is one of thosewords, like "Gothic architecture, " "Arabian numerals, " which we mustpreserve to be understood, even after we have demonstrated the errorthat they imply. ]

[Footnote 2: I Sam. X. 25. ]

[Footnote 3: Isa. Ii. 1-4, and especially chaps. Xl. , and following, lx. , and following; Micah iv. 1, and following. It must be recollectedthat the second part of the book of Isaiah, beginning at chap. Xl. , isnot by Isaiah. ]

Mystical utterances already made themselves heard, tending to exaltthe martyrdom and celebrate the power of the "Man of Sorrows. "Respecting one of those sublime sufferers, who, like Jeremiah, stainedthe streets of Jerusalem with their blood, one of the inspired wrote asong upon the sufferings and triumph of the "servant of God, " in whichall the prophetic force of the genius of Israel seemedconcentrated. [1] "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness. Heis despised and rejected of men; and we hid, as it were, our facesfrom him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hathborne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem himstricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for ourtransgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement ofour peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All welike sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way;and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He wasoppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he isbrought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearersis dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. And he made his grave with thewicked. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shallsee his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lordshall prosper in his hand. "

[Footnote 1: Isa. Lii. 13, and following, and liii. Entirely. ]

Important modifications were made at the same time in the _Thora_. Newtexts, pretending to represent the true law of Moses, such asDeuteronomy, were produced, and inaugurated in reality a verydifferent spirit from that of the old nomads. A marked fanaticism wasthe dominant feature of this spirit. Furious believers unceasinglyinstigated violence against all who wandered from the worship ofJehovah--they succeeded in establishing a code of blood, making deaththe penalty for religious faults. Piety brings, almost always, singular contradictions of vehemence and mildness. This zeal, unknownto the coarser simplicity of the time of the Judges, inspired tones ofmoving prophecy and tender unction, which the world had never heardtill then. A strong tendency toward social questions already madeitself felt; Utopias, dreams of a perfect society, took a place in thecode. The Pentateuch, a mixture of patriarchal morality and ardentdevotion, primitive intuitions and pious subtleties, like those whichfilled the souls of Hezekiah, of Josiah, and of Jeremiah, was thusfixed in the form in which we now see it, and became for ages theabsolute rule of the national mind. 

This great book once created, the history of the Jewish peopleunfolded itself with an irresistible force. The great empires whichfollowed each other in Western Asia, in destroying its hope of aterrestrial kingdom, threw it into religious dreams, which itcherished with a kind of sombre passion. Caring little for thenational dynasty or political independence, it accepted allgovernments which permitted it to practise freely its worship andfollow its usages. Israel will henceforward have no other guidancethan that of its religious enthusiasts, no other enemies than those ofthe Divine unity, no other country than its Law. 

And this Law, it must be remarked, was entirely social and moral. Itwas the work of men penetrated with a high ideal of the present life, and believing that they had found the best means of realizing it. Theconviction of all was, that the _Thora_, well observed, could not failto give perfect felicity. This _Thora_ has nothing in common with theGreek or Roman "Laws, " which, occupying themselves with scarcelyanything but abstract right, entered little into questions of privatehappiness and morality. We feel beforehand that the results which willproceed from it will be of a social, and not a political order, thatthe work at which this people labors is a kingdom of God, not a civilrepublic; a universal institution, not a nationality or a country. 

Notwithstanding numerous failures, Israel admirably sustained thisvocation. A series of pious men, Ezra, Nehemiah, Onias, the Maccabees, consumed with zeal for the Law, succeeded each other in the defense ofthe ancient institutions. The idea that Israel was a holy people, atribe chosen by God and bound to Him by covenant, took deeper andfirmer root. An immense expectation filled their souls. AllIndo-European antiquity had placed paradise in the beginning; all itspoets had wept a vanished golden age. Israel placed the age of gold inthe future. The perennial poesy of religious souls, the Psalms, blossomed from this exalted piety, with their divine and melancholyharmony. Israel became truly and specially the people of God, whilearound it the pagan religions were more and more reduced, in Persiaand Babylonia, to an official charlatanism, in Egypt and Syria to agross idolatry, and in the Greek and Roman world to mere parade. Thatwhich the Christian martyrs did in the first centuries of our era, that which the victims of persecuting orthodoxy have done, even in thebosom of Christianity, up to our time, the Jews did during the twocenturies which preceded the Christian era. They were a living protestagainst superstition and religious materialism. An extraordinarymovement of ideas, ending in the most opposite results, made of them, at this epoch, the most striking and original people in the world. Their dispersion along all the coast of the Mediterranean, and the useof the Greek language, which they adopted when out of Palestine, prepared the way for a propagandism, of which ancient societies, divided into small nationalities, had never offered a single example. 

Up to the time of the Maccabees, Judaism, in spite of its persistencein announcing that it would one day be the religion of the human race, had had the characteristic of all the other worships of antiquity, itwas a worship of the family and the tribe. The Israelite thought, indeed, that his worship was the best, and spoke with contempt ofstrange gods; but he believed also that the religion of the true Godwas made for himself alone. Only when a man entered into the Jewishfamily did he embrace the worship of Jehovah. [1] No Israelite cared toconvert the stranger to a worship which was the patrimony of the sonsof Abraham. The development of the pietistic spirit, after Ezra andNehemiah, led to a much firmer and more logical conception. Judaismbecame the true religion in a more absolute manner; to all who wished, the right of entering it was given;[2] soon it became a work of pietyto bring into it the greatest number possible. [3] Doubtless therefined sentiment which elevated John the Baptist, Jesus, and St. Paulabove the petty ideas of race, did not yet exist; for, by a strangecontradiction, these converts were little respected and were treatedwith disdain. [4] But the idea of a sovereign religion, the idea thatthere was something in the world superior to country, to blood, tolaws--the idea which makes apostles and martyrs--was founded. Profoundpity for the pagans, however brilliant might be their worldly fortune, was henceforth the feeling of every Jew. [5] By a cycle of legendsdestined to furnish models of immovable firmness, such as thehistories of Daniel and his companions, the mother of the Maccabeesand her seven sons, [6] the romance of the race-course ofAlexandria[7]--the guides of the people sought above all to inculcatethe idea, that virtue consists in a fanatical attachment to fixedreligious institutions. 

[Footnote 1: Ruth i. 16. ]

[Footnote 2: Esther ix. 27. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxiii. 15; Josephus, _Vita_, 23; _B. J. _, II. Xvii. 10, VII. Iii. 3; _Ant. _, XX. Ii. 4; Horat. , Sat. I. , iv. , 143; Juv. , xiv. 96, and following; Tacitus, _Ann. _, II. 85; _Hist. _, V. 5; DionCassius, xxxvii. 17. ]

[Footnote 4: Mishnah, _Shebiit_, X. 9; Talmud of Babylon, _Niddah_, fol. 13 _b_; _Jebamoth_, 47 _b_, _Kiddushim_, 70 _b_; Midrash, _JalkutRuth_, fol. 163 _d_. ]

[Footnote 5: Apocryphal letter of Baruch, in Fabricius, _Cod. Pseud. , V. T. _, ii. , 147, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: II. Book of Maccabees, ch. Vii. And the _De Maccabæis_, attributed to Josephus. Cf. Epistle to the Hebrews xi. 33, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 7: III. Book (Apocr. ) of Maccabees; Rufin, Suppl. Ad Jos. , _Contra Apionem_, ii. 5. ]

The persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes made this idea a passion, almost a frenzy. It was something very analogous to that whichhappened under Nero, two hundred and thirty years later. Rage anddespair threw the believers into the world of visions and dreams. Thefirst apocalypse, "The Book of Daniel, " appeared. It was like arevival of prophecy, but under a very different form from the ancientone, and with a much larger idea of the destinies of the world. TheBook of Daniel gave, in a manner, the last expression to the Messianichopes. The Messiah was no longer a king, after the manner of David andSolomon, a theocratic and Mosaic Cyrus; he was a "Son of man"appearing in the clouds[1]--a supernatural being, invested with humanform, charged to rule the world, and to preside over the golden age. Perhaps the _Sosiosh_ of Persia, the great prophet who was to come, charged with preparing the reign of Ormuzd, gave some features to thisnew ideal. [2] The unknown author of the Book of Daniel had, in anycase, a decisive influence on the religious event which was about totransform the world. He supplied the _mise-en-scène_, and thetechnical terms of the new belief in the Messiah; and we might applyto him what Jesus said of John the Baptist: Before him, the prophets;after him, the kingdom of God. 

[Footnote 1: Chap. Vii. 13, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: _Vendidad_, chap. Xix. 18, 19; _Minokhired_, a passagepublished in the "_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischenGesellschaft_, " chap. I. 263; _Boundehesch_, chap. Xxxi. The want ofcertain chronology for the Zend and Pehlvis texts leaves much doubthovering over the relations between the Jewish and Persian beliefs. ]

It must not, however, be supposed that this profoundly religious andsoul-stirring movement had particular dogmas for its primary impulse, as was the case in all the conflicts which have disturbed the bosom ofChristianity. The Jew of this epoch was as little theological aspossible. He did not speculate upon the essence of the Divinity; thebeliefs about angels, about the destinies of man, about the Divinepersonality, of which the first germs might already be perceived, werequite optional--they were meditations, to which each one surrenderedhimself according to the turn of his mind, but of which a great numberof men had never heard. They were the most orthodox even, who did notshare in these particular imaginations, and who adhered to thesimplicity of the Mosaic law. No dogmatic power analogous to thatwhich orthodox Christianity has given to the Church then existed. Itwas only at the beginning of the third century, when Christianity hadfallen into the hands of reasoning races, mad with dialectics andmetaphysics, that that fever for definitions commenced which made thehistory of the Church but the history of one immense controversy. There were disputes also among the Jews--excited schools broughtopposite solutions to almost all the questions which were agitated;but in these contests, of which the Talmud has preserved the principaldetails, there is not a single word of speculative theology. Toobserve and maintain the law, because the law was just, and because, when well observed, it gave happiness--such was Judaism. No _credo_, no theoretical symbol. One of the disciples of the boldest Arabianphilosophy, Moses Maimonides, was able to become the oracle of thesynagogue, because he was well versed in the canonical law. 

The reigns of the last Asmoneans, and that of Herod, saw theexcitement grow still stronger. They were filled by an uninterruptedseries of religious movements. In the degree that power becamesecularized, and passed into the hands of unbelievers, the Jewishpeople lived less and less for the earth, and became more and moreabsorbed by the strange fermentation which was operating in theirmidst. The world, distracted by other spectacles, had little knowledgeof that which passed in this forgotten corner of the East. The mindsabreast of their age were, however, better informed. The tender andclear-sighted Virgil seems to answer, as by a secret echo, to thesecond Isaiah. The birth of a child throws him into dreams of auniversal palingenesis. [1] These dreams were of every-day occurrence, and shaped into a kind of literature which was designated Sibylline. The quite recent formation of the empire exalted the imagination; thegreat era of peace on which it entered, and that impression ofmelancholy sensibility which the mind experiences after long periodsof revolution, gave birth on all sides to unlimited hopes. 

[Footnote 1: Egl. Iv. The _Cumæum carmen_ (v. 4) was a sort ofSibylline apocalypse, borrowed from the philosophy of history familiarto the East. See Servius on this verse, and _Carmina Sibyllina_, iii. 97-817; cf. Tac. , _Hist. _, v. 13. ]

In Judea expectation was at its height. Holy persons--among whom maybe named the aged Simeon, who, legend tells us, held Jesus in hisarms; Anna, daughter of Phanuel, regarded as a prophetess[1]--passedtheir life about the temple, fasting, and praying, that it mightplease God not to take them from the world without having seen thefulfillment of the hopes of Israel. They felt a powerful presentiment;they were sensible of the approach of something unknown. 

[Footnote 1: Luke ii. 25, and following. ]

This confused mixture of clear views and dreams, this alternation ofdeceptions and hopes, these ceaseless aspirations, driven back by anodious reality, found at last their interpretation in the incomparableman, to whom the universal conscience has decreed the title of Son ofGod, and that with justice, since he has advanced religion as no otherhas done, or probably ever will be able to do. 

CHAPTER II. 

INFANCY AND YOUTH OF JESUS--HIS FIRST IMPRESSIONS. 

Jesus was born at Nazareth, [1] a small town of Galilee, which beforehis time had no celebrity. [2] All his life he was designated by thename of "the Nazarene, "[3] and it is only by a rather embarrassed andround-about way, [4] that, in the legends respecting him, he is madeto be born at Bethlehem. We shall see later[5] the motive for thissupposition, and how it was the necessary consequence of the Messianiccharacter attributed to Jesus. [6] The precise date of his birth isunknown. It took place under the reign of Augustus, about the Romanyear 750, probably some years before the year 1 of that era which allcivilized people date from the day on which he was born. [7]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiii. 54, and following; Mark vi. 1, and following;John i. 45-46. ]

[Footnote 2: It is neither named in the writings of the Old Testament, nor in Josephus, nor in the Talmud. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark i. 24; Luke xviii. 37; John xix. 19; _Acts_ ii. 22, iii. 6. Hence the name of _Nazarenes_ for a long time applied toChristians, and which still designates them in all Mohammedancountries. ]

[Footnote 4: The census effected by Quirinus, to which legendattributes the journey from Bethlehem, is at least ten years laterthan the year in which, according to Luke and Matthew, Jesus was born. The two evangelists in effect make Jesus to be born under the reign ofHerod (Matt. Ii. 1, 19, 22; Luke i. 5). Now, the census of Quirinusdid not take place until after the deposition of Archelaus, _i. E. _, ten years after the death of Herod, the 37th year from the era ofActium (Josephus, _Ant. _, XVII. Xiii. 5, XVIII. I. 1, ii. 1). Theinscription by which it was formerly pretended to establish thatQuirinus had levied two censuses is recognized as false (see Orelli, _Inscr. Lat. _, No. 623, and the supplement of Henzen in this number;Borghesi, _Fastes Consulaires_ [yet unpublished], in the year 742). The census in any case would only be applied to the parts reduced toRoman provinces, and not to the tetrarchies. The texts by which it issought to prove that some of the operations for statistics and tributecommanded by Augustus ought to extend to the dominion of the Herods, either do not mean what they have been made to say, or are fromChristian authors who have borrowed this statement from the Gospel ofLuke. That which proves, besides, that the journey of the family ofJesus to Bethlehem is not historical, is the motive attributed to it. Jesus was not of the family of David (see Chap. XV. ), and if he hadbeen, we should still not imagine that his parents should have beenforced, for an operation purely registrative and financial, to come toenrol themselves in the place whence their ancestors had proceeded athousand years before. In imposing such an obligation, the Romanauthority would have sanctioned pretensions threatening her safety. ]

[Footnote 5: Chap. XIV. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Ii. 1, and following; Luke ii. 1, and following. The omission of this narrative in Mark, and the two parallel passages, Matt. Xiii. 54, and Mark vi. 1, where Nazareth figures as the"country" of Jesus, prove that such a legend was absent from theprimitive text which has furnished the rough draft of the presentGospels of Matthew and Mark. It was to meet oft-repeated objectionsthat there were added to the beginning of the Gospel of Matthewreservations, the contradiction of which with the rest of the text wasnot so flagrant, that it was felt necessary to correct the passageswhich had at first been written from quite another point of view. Luke, on the contrary (chap. Iv. 16), writing more carefully, hasemployed, in order to be consistent, a more softened expression. As toJohn, he knows nothing of the journey to Bethlehem; for him, Jesus ismerely "of Nazareth" or "Galilean, " in two circumstances in which itwould have been of the highest importance to recall his birth atBethlehem (chap. I. 45, 46, vi. 41, 42). ]

[Footnote 7: It is known that the calculation which serves as basis ofthe common era was made in the sixth century by _Dionysius the Less_. This calculation implies certain purely hypothetical data. ]

The name of _Jesus_, which was given him, is an alteration from_Joshua_. It was a very common name; but afterward mysteries, and anallusion to his character of Saviour, were naturally sought for init. [1] Perhaps he, like all mystics, exalted himself in this respect. It is thus that more than one great vocation in history has beencaused by a name given to a child without premeditation. Ardentnatures never bring themselves to see aught of chance in what concernsthem. God has regulated everything for them, and they see a sign ofthe supreme will in the most insignificant circumstances. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. I. 21; Luke i. 31. ]

The population of Galilee was very mixed, as the very name of thecountry[1] indicated. This province counted amongst its inhabitants, in the time of Jesus, many who were not Jews (Phoenicians, Syrians, Arabs, and even Greeks). [2] The conversions to Judaism were not rarein these mixed countries. It is therefore impossible to raise here anyquestion of race, and to seek to ascertain what blood flowed in theveins of him who has contributed most to efface the distinction ofblood in humanity. 

[Footnote 1: _Gelil haggoyim_, "Circle of the Gentiles. "]

[Footnote 2: Strabo, XVI. Ii. 35; Jos. , _Vita_, 12. ]

He proceeded from the ranks of the people. [1] His father, Joseph, andhis mother, Mary, were people in humble circumstances, artisans livingby their labor, [2] in the state so common in the East, which isneither ease nor poverty. The extreme simplicity of life in suchcountries, by dispensing with the need of comfort, renders theprivileges of wealth almost useless, and makes every one voluntarilypoor. On the other hand, the total want of taste for art, and for thatwhich contributes to the elegance of material life, gives a nakedaspect to the house of him who otherwise wants for nothing. Apart fromsomething sordid and repulsive which Islamism bears everywhere withit, the town of Nazareth, in the time of Jesus, did not perhaps muchdiffer from what it is to-day. [3] We see the streets where he playedwhen a child, in the stony paths or little crossways which separatethe dwellings. The house of Joseph doubtless much resembled those poorshops, lighted by the door, serving at once for shop, kitchen, andbedroom, having for furniture a mat, some cushions on the ground, oneor two clay pots, and a painted chest. 

[Footnote 1: We shall explain later (Chap. XIV. ) the origin of thegenealogies intended to connect him with the race of David. TheEbionites suppressed them (Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, XXX. 14). ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiii. 55; Mark vi. 3; John vi. 42. ]

[Footnote 3: The rough aspect of the ruins which cover Palestineproves that the towns which were not constructed in the Roman mannerwere very badly built. As to the form of the houses, it is, in Syria, so simple and so imperiously regulated by the climate, that it canscarcely ever have changed. ]

The family, whether it proceeded from one or many marriages, wasrather numerous. Jesus had brothers and sisters, [1] of whom he seemsto have been the eldest. [2] All have remained obscure, for it appearsthat the four personages who were named as his brothers, and amongwhom one, at least--James--had acquired great importance in theearliest years of the development of Christianity, were hiscousins-german. Mary, in fact, had a sister also named Mary, [3] whomarried a certain Alpheus or Cleophas (these two names appear todesignate the same person[4]), and was the mother of several sons whoplayed a considerable part among the first disciples of Jesus. Thesecousins-german who adhered to the young Master, while his own brothersopposed him, [5] took the title of "brothers of the Lord. "[6] The realbrothers of Jesus, like their mother, became important only after hisdeath. [7] Even then they do not appear to have equaled in importancetheir cousins, whose conversion had been more spontaneous, and whosecharacter seems to have had more originality. Their names were solittle known, that when the evangelist put in the mouth of the men ofNazareth the enumeration of the brothers according to naturalrelationship, the names of the sons of Cleophas first presentedthemselves to him. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xii. 46, and following, xiii. 55, and following;Mark iii. 31, and following, vi. 3; Luke viii. 19, and following; Johnii. 12, vii. 3, 5, 10; _Acts_ i. 14. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. I. 25. ]

[Footnote 3: That these two sisters should bear the same name is asingular fact. There is probably some error arising from the habit ofgiving the name of Mary indiscriminately to Galilean women. ]

[Footnote 4: They are not etymologically identical. [Greek: Alphaios]is the transcription of the Syro-Chaldean name Halphaï; [Greek:Klôpas] or [Greek: Kleopas] is a shortened form of [Greek:Kleopatros]. But there might have been an artificial substitution ofone for the other, just as Joseph was called "Hegissippus, " theEliakim "Alcimus, " &c. ]

[Footnote 5: John vii. 3, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: In fact, the four personages who are named (Matt. Xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3) as sons of Mary, mother of Jesus, Jacob, Joseph orJoses, Simon, and Jude, are found again a little later as sons of Maryand Cleophas. (Matt. Xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; _Gal. _ i. 19; _Epist. James_ i. 1; _Epist. Jude_ 1; Euseb. , _Chron. _ ad ann. R. DCCCX. ;_Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 11, 32; _Constit. Apost. _, vii. 46. ) Thehypothesis we offer alone removes the immense difficulty which isfound in supposing two sisters having each three or four sons bearingthe same names, and in admitting that James and Simon, the first twobishops of Jerusalem, designated as brothers of the Lord, may havebeen real brothers of Jesus, who had begun by being hostile to him andthen were converted. The evangelist, hearing these four sons ofCleophas called "brothers of the Lord, " has placed by mistake theirnames in the passage _Matt. _ xiii. 5 = _Mark_ vi. 3, instead of thenames of the real brothers, which have always remained obscure. Inthis matter we may explain how the character of the personages called"brothers of the Lord, " of James, for instance, is so different fromthat of the real brothers of Jesus as they are seen delineated in Johnvii. 2, and following. The expression "brother of the Lord" evidentlyconstituted, in the primitive Church, a kind of order similar to thatof the apostles. See especially 1 _Cor. _ ix. 5. ]

[Footnote 7: _Acts_ i. 14. ]

His sisters were married at Nazareth, [1] and he spent the first yearsof his youth there. Nazareth was a small town in a hollow, openingbroadly at the summit of the group of mountains which close the plainof Esdraelon on the north. The population is now from three to fourthousand, and it can never have varied much. [2] The cold there issharp in winter, and the climate very healthy. The town, like all thesmall Jewish towns at this period, was a heap of huts built withoutstyle, and would exhibit that harsh and poor aspect which villages inSemitic countries now present. The houses, it seems, did not differmuch from those cubes of stone, without exterior or interior elegance, which still cover the richest parts of the Lebanon, and which, surrounded with vines and fig-trees, are still very agreeable. Theenvirons, moreover, are charming; and no place in the world was sowell adapted for dreams of perfect happiness. Even in our timesNazareth is still a delightful abode, the only place, perhaps, inPalestine in which the mind feels itself relieved from the burdenwhich oppresses it in this unequaled desolation. The people areamiable and cheerful; the gardens fresh and green. Anthony the Martyr, at the end of the sixth century, drew an enchanting picture of thefertility of the environs, which he compared to paradise. [3] Somevalleys on the western side fully justify his description. Thefountain, where formerly the life and gaiety of the little town wereconcentrated, is destroyed; its broken channels contain now only amuddy stream. But the beauty of the women who meet there in theevening--that beauty which was remarked even in the sixth century, andwhich was looked upon as a gift of the Virgin Mary[4]--is still moststrikingly preserved. It is the Syrian type in all its languid grace. No doubt Mary was there almost every day, and took her place with herjar on her shoulder in the file of her companions who have remainedunknown. Anthony the Martyr remarks that the Jewish women, generallydisdainful to Christians, were here full of affability. Even nowreligious animosity is weaker at Nazareth than elsewhere. 

[Footnote 1: Mark vi. 3. ]

[Footnote 2: According to Josephus (_B. J. _, III. Iii. 2), the smallesttown of Galilee had more than five thousand inhabitants. This isprobably an exaggeration. ]

[Footnote 3: _Itiner. _, § 5. ]

[Footnote 4: Ant. Martyr, _Itiner. _, § 5. ]

The horizon from the town is limited. But if we ascend a little theplateau, swept by a perpetual breeze, which overlooks the highesthouses, the prospect is splendid. On the west are seen the fineoutlines of Carmel, terminated by an abrupt point which seems toplunge into the sea. Before us are spread out the double summit whichtowers above Megiddo; the mountains of the country of Shechem, withtheir holy places of the patriarchal age; the hills of Gilboa, thesmall, picturesque group to which are attached the graceful orterrible recollections of Shunem and of Endor; and Tabor, with itsbeautiful rounded form, which antiquity compared to a bosom. Through adepression between the mountains of Shunem and Tabor are seen thevalley of the Jordan and the high plains of Peræa, which form acontinuous line from the eastern side. On the north, the mountains ofSafed, in inclining toward the sea conceal St. Jean d'Acre, but permitthe Gulf of Khaïfa to be distinguished. Such was the horizon of Jesus. This enchanted circle, cradle of the kingdom of God, was for years hisworld. Even in his later life he departed but little beyond thefamilial limits of his childhood. For yonder, northward, a glimpse iscaught, almost on the flank of Hermon, of Cæsarea-Philippi, hisfurthest point of advance into the Gentile world; and here southward, the more sombre aspect of these Samaritan hills foreshadows thedreariness of Judea beyond, parched as by a scorching wind ofdesolation and death. 

If the world, remaining Christian, but attaining to a better idea ofthe esteem in which the origin of its religion should be held, shouldever wish to replace by authentic holy places the mean and apocryphalsanctuaries to which the piety of dark ages attached itself, it isupon this height of Nazareth that it will rebuild its temple. There, at the birthplace of Christianity, and in the centre of the actions ofits Founder, the great church ought to be raised in which allChristians may worship. There, also, on this spot where sleep Joseph, the carpenter, and thousands of forgotten Nazarenes who never passedbeyond the horizon of their valley, would be a better station than anyin the world beside for the philosopher to contemplate the course ofhuman affairs, to console himself for their uncertainty, and toreassure himself as to the Divine end which the world pursues throughcountless falterings, and in spite of the universal vanity. 

CHAPTER III. 

EDUCATION OF JESUS. 

This aspect of Nature, at once smiling and grand, was the wholeeducation of Jesus. He learned to read and to write, [1] doubtless, according to the Eastern method, which consisted in putting in thehands of the child a book, which he repeated in cadence with hislittle comrades, until he knew it by heart. [2] It is doubtful, however, if he understood the Hebrew writings in their originaltongue. His biographers make him quote them according to thetranslations in the Aramean tongue;[3] his principles of exegesis, asfar as we can judge of them by those of his disciples, much resembledthose which were then in vogue, and which form the spirit of the_Targums_ and the _Midrashim_. [4]

[Footnote 1: John viii. 6. ]

[Footnote 2: _Testam. Of the Twelve Patriarchs_, Levi. 6. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34. ]

[Footnote 4: Jewish translations and commentaries of the Talmudicepoch. ]

The schoolmaster in the small Jewish towns was the _hazzan_, or readerin the synagogues. [1] Jesus frequented little the higher schools ofthe scribes or _sopherim_ (Nazareth had perhaps none of them), and hehad none of those titles which confer, in the eyes of the vulgar, theprivileges of knowledge. [2] It would, nevertheless, be a great errorto imagine that Jesus was what we call ignorant. Scholastic educationamong us draws a profound distinction, in respect of personal worth, between those who have received and those who have been deprived ofit. It was not so in the East, nor, in general, in the good oldtimes. The state of ignorance in which, among us, owing to ourisolated and entirely individual life, those remain who have notpassed through the schools, was unknown in those societies where moralculture, and especially the general spirit of the age, was transmittedby the perpetual intercourse of man with man. The Arab, who has neverhad a teacher, is often, nevertheless, a very superior man; for thetent is a kind of school always open, where, from the contact ofwell-educated men, there is produced a great intellectual and evenliterary movement. The refinement of manners and the acuteness of theintellect have, in the East, nothing in common with what we calleducation. It is the men from the schools, on the contrary, who areconsidered badly trained and pedantic. In this social state, ignorance, which, among us, condemns a man to an inferior rank, is thecondition of great things and of great originality. 

[Footnote 1: Mishnah, _Shabbath_, i. 3. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiii. 54, and following; John vii. 15. ]

It is not probable that Jesus knew Greek. This language was verylittle spread in Judea beyond the classes who participated in thegovernment, and the towns inhabited by pagans, like Cæsarea. [1] Thereal mother tongue of Jesus was the Syrian dialect mixed with Hebrew, which was then spoken in Palestine. [2] Still less probably had he anyknowledge of Greek culture. This culture was proscribed by the doctorsof Palestine, who included in the same malediction "he who rearsswine, and he who teaches his son Greek science. "[3] At all events ithad not penetrated into little towns like Nazareth. Notwithstandingthe anathema of the doctors, some Jews, it is true, had alreadyembraced the Hellenic culture. Without speaking of the Jewish schoolof Egypt, in which the attempts to amalgamate Hellenism and Judaismhad been in operation nearly two hundred years, a Jew--Nicholas ofDamascus--had become, even at this time, one of the most distinguishedmen, one of the best informed, and one of the most respected of hisage. Josephus was destined soon to furnish another example of a Jewcompletely Grecianized. But Nicholas was only a Jew in blood. Josephusdeclares that he himself was an exception among his contemporaries;[4]and the whole schismatic school of Egypt was detached to such a degreefrom Jerusalem that we do not find the least allusion to it either inthe Talmud or in Jewish tradition. Certain it is that Greek was verylittle studied at Jerusalem, that Greek studies were considered asdangerous, and even servile, that they were regarded, at the best, asa mere womanly accomplishment. [5] The study of the Law was the onlyone accounted liberal and worthy of a thoughtful man. [6] Questioned asto the time when it would be proper to teach children "Greek wisdom, "a learned rabbi had answered, "At the time when it is neither day nornight; since it is written of the Law, Thou shalt study it day andnight. "[7]

[Footnote 1: Mishnah, _Shekalim_, iii. 2; Talmud of Jerusalem, _Megilla_, halaca xi. ; _Sota_, vii. 1; Talmud of Babylon, _Baba Kama_, 83 _a_; _Megilla_, 8 _b_, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matthew xxvii. 46; Mark iii. 17, v. 41, vii. 34, xiv. 36, xv. 34. The expression [Greek: ê patrios phônê] in the writers of thetime, always designates the Semitic dialect, which was spoken inPalestine (II. Macc. Vii. 21, 27, xii. 37; _Acts_ xxi. 37, 40, xxii. 2, xxvi. 14; Josephus, _Ant. _, XVIII. Vi. 10, xx. Sub fin. ; _B. J. _, prooem I; V. Vi. 3, V. Ix. 2, VI. Ii. 1: _Against Appian_, I. 9; _DeMacc. _, 12, 16). We shall show, later, that some of the documentswhich served as the basis for the synoptic Gospels were written inthis Semitic dialect. It was the same with many of the Apocrypha (IV. Book of Macc. Xvi. Ad calcem, &c. ). In fine, the sects issuingdirectly from the first Galilean movement (Nazarenes, _Ebionim_, &c. ), which continued a long time in Batanea and Hauran, spoke a Semiticdialect (Eusebius, _De Situ et Nomin. Loc. Hebr. _, at the word [Greek:Chôba]; Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxix. 7, 9, xxx. 3; St. Jerome, _InMatt. _, xii. 13; _Dial. Adv. Pelag. _, iii. 2). ]

[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, xi. 1; Talmud of Babylon, _BabaKama_, 82 _b_ and 83 _a_; _Sota_, 49 _a_ and _b_; _Menachoth_, 64 _b_;comp. II. Macc. Iv. 10, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Ant. _ XX. Xi. 2. ]

[Footnote 5: Talmud of Jerusalem, _Peah_, i. 1. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _Ant. _, _loc. Cit. _; Orig. , _Contra Celsum_, ii. 34. ]

[Footnote 7: Talmud of Jerusalem, _Peah_, i. 1; Talmud of Babylon, _Menachoth_, 99 _b_. ]

Neither directly nor indirectly, then, did any element of Greekculture reach Jesus. He knew nothing beyond Judaism; his mindpreserved that free innocence which an extended and varied culturealways weakens. In the very bosom of Judaism he remained a stranger tomany efforts often parallel to his own. On the one hand, theasceticism of the Essenes or the Therapeutæ;[1] on the other, the fineefforts of religious philosophy put forth by the Jewish school ofAlexandria, and of which Philo, his contemporary, was the ingeniousinterpreter, were unknown to him. The frequent resemblances which wefind between him and Philo, those excellent maxims about the love ofGod, charity, rest in God, [2] which are like an echo between theGospel and the writings of the illustrious Alexandrian thinker, proceed from the common tendencies which the wants of the timeinspired in all elevated minds. 

[Footnote 1: The _Therapeutæ_ of Philo are a branch of the Essenes. Their name appears to be but a Greek translation of that of the_Essenes_ ([Greek: Essaioi], _asaya_, "doctors"). Cf. Philo, _De VitaContempl. _, init. ]

[Footnote 2: See especially the treatises _Quis Rerum Divinarum HæresSit_ and _De Philanthropia_ of Philo. ]

Happily for him, he was also ignorant of the strange scholasticismwhich was taught at Jerusalem, and which was soon to constitute theTalmud. If some Pharisees had already brought it into Galilee, he didnot associate with them, and when, later, he encountered this sillycasuistry, it only inspired him with disgust. We may suppose, however, that the principles of Hillel were not unknown to him. Hillel, fiftyyears before him, had given utterance to aphorisms very analogous tohis own. By his poverty, so meekly endured, by the sweetness of hischaracter, by his opposition to priests and hypocrites, Hillel was thetrue master of Jesus, [1] if indeed it may be permitted to speak of amaster in connection with so high an originality as his. 

[Footnote 1: _Pirké Aboth_, chap. I. And ii. ; Talm. Of Jerus. , _Pesachim_, vi. 1; Talm. Of Bab. , _Pesachim_, 66 _a_; _Shabbath_, 30_b_ and 31 _a_; _Joma_, 35 _b_. ]

The perusal of the books of the Old Testament made much impressionupon him. The canon of the holy books was composed of two principalparts--the Law, that is to say, the Pentateuch, and the Prophets, suchas we now possess them. An extensive allegorical exegesis was appliedto all these books; and it was sought to draw from them something thatwas not in them, but which responded to the aspirations of the age. The Law, which represented not the ancient laws of the country, butUtopias, the factitious laws and pious frauds of the time of thepietistic kings, had become, since the nation had ceased to governitself, an inexhaustible theme of subtle interpretations. As to theProphets and the Psalms, the popular persuasion was that almost allthe somewhat mysterious traits that were in these books had referenceto the Messiah, and it was sought to find there the type of him whoshould realize the hopes of the nation. Jesus participated in thetaste which every one had for these allegorical interpretations. Butthe true poetry of the Bible, which escaped the puerile exegetists ofJerusalem, was fully revealed to his grand genius. The Law does notappear to have had much charm for him; he thought that he could dosomething better. But the religious lyrics of the Psalms were inmarvellous accordance with his poetic soul; they were, all his life, his food and sustenance. The prophets--Isaiah in particular, and hissuccessor in the record of the time of the captivity, --with theirbrilliant dreams of the future, their impetuous eloquence, and theirinvectives mingled with enchanting pictures, were his true teachers. He read also, no doubt, many apocryphal works--_i. E. _, writingssomewhat modern, the authors of which, for the sake of an authorityonly granted to very ancient writings, had clothed themselves with thenames of prophets and patriarchs. One of these books especially struckhim, namely, the Book of Daniel. This book, composed by anenthusiastic Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, under the name ofan ancient sage, [1] was the _résumé_ of the spirit of those latertimes. Its author, a true creator of the philosophy of history, hadfor the first time dared to see in the march of the world and thesuccession of empires, only a purpose subordinate to the destinies ofthe Jewish people. Jesus was early penetrated by these high hopes. Perhaps, also, he had read the books of Enoch, then revered equallywith the holy books, [2] and the other writings of the same class, which kept up so much excitement in the popular imagination. Theadvent of the Messiah, with his glories and his terrors--the nationsfalling down one after another, the cataclysm of heaven andearth--were the familiar food of his imagination; and, as theserevolutions were reputed near, and a great number of persons sought tocalculate the time when they should happen, the supernatural state ofthings into which such visions transport us, appeared to him from thefirst perfectly natural and simple. 

[Footnote 1: The legend of Daniel existed as early as the seventhcentury B. C. (Ezekiel xiv. 14 and following, xxviii. 3). It was forthe necessities of the legend that he was made to live at the time ofthe Babylonian captivity. ]

[Footnote 2: _Epist. Jude_, 14 and following; 2 Peter ii. 4, 11;_Testam. Of the Twelve Patriarchs_, Simeon, 5; Levi, 14, 16; Judah, 18; Zab. , 3; Dan, 5; Naphtali, 4. The "Book of Enoch" still forms anintegral part of the Ethiopian Bible. Such as we know it from theEthiopian version, it is composed of pieces of different dates, ofwhich the most ancient are from the year 130 to 150 B. C. Some of thesepieces have an analogy with the discourses of Jesus. Compare chaps. Xcvi. -xcix. With Luke vi. 24, and following. ]

That he had no knowledge of the general state of the world is apparentfrom each feature of his most authentic discourses. The earth appearedto him still divided into kingdoms warring with one another; he seemedto ignore the "Roman peace, " and the new state of society which itsage inaugurated. He had no precise idea of the Roman power; the nameof "Cæsar" alone reached him. He saw building, in Galilee or itsenvirons, Tiberias, Julias, Diocæsarea, Cæsarea, gorgeous works of theHerods, who sought, by these magnificent structures, to prove theiradmiration for Roman civilization, and their devotion toward themembers of the family of Augustus, structures whose names, by acaprice of fate, now serve, though strangely altered, to designatemiserable hamlets of Bedouins. He also probably saw Sebaste, a work ofHerod the Great, a showy city, whose ruins would lead to the beliefthat it had been carried there ready made, like a machine which hadonly to be put up in its place. This ostentatious piece ofarchitecture arrived in Judea by cargoes; these hundreds of columns, all of the same diameter, the ornament of some insipid "_Rue deRivoli_" these were what he called "the kingdoms of the world and alltheir glory. " But this luxury of power, this administrative andofficial art, displeased him. What he loved were his Galileanvillages, confused mixtures of huts, of nests and holes cut in therocks, of wells, of tombs, of fig-trees, and of olives. He alwaysclung close to Nature. The courts of kings appeared to him as placeswhere men wear fine clothes. The charming impossibilities with whichhis parables abound, when he brings kings and the mighty ones on thestage, [1] prove that he never conceived of aristocratic society but asa young villager who sees the world through the prism of hissimplicity. 

[Footnote 1: See, for example, Matt. Xxii. 2, and following. ]

Still less was he acquainted with the new idea, created by Grecianscience, which was the basis of all philosophy, and which modernscience has greatly confirmed, to wit, the exclusion of capriciousgods, to whom the simple belief of ancient ages attributed thegovernment of the universe. Almost a century before him, Lucretius hadexpressed, in an admirable manner, the unchangeableness of the generalsystem of Nature. The negation of miracle--the idea that everything inthe world happens by laws in which the personal intervention ofsuperior beings has no share--was universally admitted in the greatschools of all the countries which had accepted Grecian science. Perhaps even Babylon and Persia were not strangers to it. Jesus knewnothing of this progress. Although born at a time when the principleof positive science was already proclaimed, he lived entirely in thesupernatural. Never, perhaps, had the Jews been more possessed withthe thirst for the marvellous. Philo, who lived in a greatintellectual centre, and who had received a very complete education, possessed only a chimerical and inferior knowledge of science. 

Jesus, on this point, differed in no respect from his companions. Hebelieved in the devil, whom he regarded as a kind of evil genius, [1]and he imagined, like all the world, that nervous maladies wereproduced by demons who possessed the patient and agitated him. Themarvellous was not the exceptional for him; it was his normal state. The notion of the supernatural, with its impossibilities, iscoincident with the birth of experimental science. The man who isstrange to all ideas of physical laws, who believes that by praying hecan change the path of the clouds, arrest disease, and even death, finds nothing extraordinary in miracle, inasmuch as the entire courseof things is to him the result of the free will of the Divinity. Thisintellectual state was constantly that of Jesus. But in his great soulsuch a belief produced effects quite opposed to those produced on thevulgar. Among the latter, the belief in the special action of God ledto a foolish credulity, and the deceptions of charlatans. With him itled to a profound idea of the familiar relations of man with God, andan exaggerated belief in the power of man--beautiful errors, whichwere the secret of his power; for if they were the means of one dayshowing his deficiencies in the eyes of the physicist and the chemist, they gave him a power over his own age of which no individual had beenpossessed before his time, or has been since. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Vi. 13. ]

His distinctive character very early revealed itself. Legend delightsto show him even from his infancy in revolt against paternalauthority, and departing from the common way to fulfill hisvocation. [1] It is certain, at least, that he cared little for therelations of kinship. His family do not seem to have loved him, [2]and at times he seems to have been hard toward them. [3] Jesus, likeall men exclusively preoccupied by an idea, came to think little ofthe ties of blood. The bond of thought is the only one that natures ofthis kind recognize. "Behold my mother and my brethren, " said he, inextending his hand toward his disciples; "he who does the will of myFather, he is my brother and my sister. " The simple people did notunderstand the matter thus, and one day a woman passing near him criedout, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which gave theesuck!" But he said, "Yea, rather blessed are they that hear the wordof God, and keep it. "[4] Soon, in his bold revolt against nature, hewent still further, and we shall see him trampling under footeverything that is human, blood, love, and country, and only keepingsoul and heart for the idea which presented itself to him as theabsolute form of goodness and truth. 

[Footnote 1: Luke ii. 42 and following. The Apocryphal Gospels arefull of similar histories carried to the grotesque. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; John vii. 3, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xii. 48; Mark iii. 33; Luke viii. 21; John ii. 4;Gospel according to the Hebrews, in St. Jerome, _Dial. Adv. Pelag. _, iii. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke xi. 27, and following. ]

CHAPTER IV. 

THE ORDER OF THOUGHT WHICH SURROUNDED THE DEVELOPMENT OF JESUS. 

As the cooled earth no longer permits us to understand the phenomenaof primitive creation, because the fire which penetrated it isextinct, so deliberate explanations have always appeared somewhatinsufficient when applying our timid methods of induction to therevolutions of the creative epochs which have decided the fate ofhumanity. Jesus lived at one of those times when the game of publiclife is freely played, and when the stake of human activity isincreased a hundredfold. Every great part, then, entails death; forsuch movements suppose liberty and an absence of preventive measures, which could not exist without a terrible alternative. In these days, man risks little and gains little. In heroic periods of humanactivity, man risked all and gained all. The good and the wicked, orat least those who believe themselves and are believed to be such, form opposite armies. The apotheosis is reached by the scaffold;characters have distinctive features, which engrave them as eternaltypes in the memory of men. Except in the French Revolution, nohistorical centre was as suitable as that in which Jesus was formed, to develop those hidden forces which humanity holds as in reserve, andwhich are not seen except in days of excitement and peril. 

If the government of the world were a speculative problem, and thegreatest philosopher were the man best fitted to tell his fellowswhat they ought to believe, it would be from calmness and reflectionthat those great moral and dogmatic truths called religions wouldproceed. But it is not so. If we except Cakya-Mouni, the greatreligious founders have not been metaphysicians. Buddhism itself, whose origin is in pure thought, has conquered one-half of Asia, bymotives wholly political and moral. As to the Semitic religions, theyare as little philosophical as possible. Moses and Mahomet were notmen of speculation; they were men of action. It was in proposingaction to their fellow-countrymen, and to their contemporaries, thatthey governed humanity. Jesus, in like manner, was not a theologian, or a philosopher, having a more or less well-composed system. In orderto be a disciple of Jesus, it was not necessary to sign any formulary, or to pronounce any confession of faith; one thing only wasnecessary--to be attached to him, to love him. He never disputed aboutGod, for he felt Him directly in himself. The rock of metaphysicalsubtleties, against which Christianity broke from the third century, was in nowise created by the Founder. Jesus had neither dogma norsystem, but a fixed personal resolution, which, exceeding in intensityevery other created will, directs to this hour the destinies ofhumanity. 

The Jewish people had the advantage, from the captivity of Babylon upto the Middle Ages, of being in a state of the greatest tension. Thisis why the interpreters of the spirit of the nation during this longperiod seemed to write under the action of an intense fever, whichplaced them constantly either above or below reason, rarely in itsmiddle path. Never did man seize the problem of the future and of hisdestiny with a more desperate courage, more determined to go toextremes. Not separating the lot of humanity from that of theirlittle race, the Jewish thinkers were the first who sought for ageneral theory of the progress of our species. Greece, always confinedwithin itself, and solely attentive to petty quarrels, has hadadmirable historians; but before the Roman epoch, it would be in vainto seek in her a general system of the philosophy of history, embracing all humanity. The Jew, on the contrary, thanks to a kind ofprophetic sense which renders the Semite at times marvellously apt tosee the great lines of the future, has made history enter intoreligion. Perhaps he owes a little of this spirit to Persia. Persia, from an ancient period, conceived the history of the world as a seriesof evolutions, over each of which a prophet presided. Each prophet hadhis _hazar_, or reign of a thousand years (chiliasm), and from thesesuccessive ages, analogous to the Avatär of India, is composed thecourse of events which prepared the reign of Ormuzd. At the end of thetime when the cycle of chiliasms shall be exhausted, the completeparadise will come. Men then will live happy; the earth will be as oneplain; there will be only one language, one law, and one governmentfor all. But this advent will be preceded by terrible calamities. Dahak (the Satan of Persia) will break his chains and fall upon theworld. Two prophets will come to console mankind, and to prepare thegreat advent. [1] These ideas ran through the world, and penetratedeven to Rome, where they inspired a cycle of prophetic poems, of whichthe fundamental ideas were the division of the history of humanityinto periods, the succession of the gods corresponding to theseperiods--a complete renovation of the world, and the final advent of agolden age. [2] The book of Daniel, the book of Enoch, and certainparts of the Sibylline books, [3] are the Jewish expression of the sametheory. These thoughts were certainly far from being shared by all;they were only embraced at first by a few persons of livelyimagination, who were inclined toward strange doctrines. The dry andnarrow author of the book of Esther never thought of the rest of theworld except to despise it, and to wish it evil. [4] The disabusedepicurean who wrote Ecclesiastes, thought so little of the future, that he considered it even useless to labor for his children; in theeyes of this egotistical celibate, the highest stroke of wisdom was touse his fortune for his own enjoyment. [5] But the great achievementsof a people are generally wrought by the minority. Notwithstanding alltheir enormous defects, hard, egotistical, scoffing, cruel, narrow, subtle, and sophistical, the Jewish people are the authors of thefinest movement of disinterested enthusiasm which history records. Opposition always makes the glory of a country. The greatest men of anation are those whom it puts to death. Socrates was the glory of theAthenians, who would not suffer him to live amongst them. Spinoza wasthe greatest Jew of modern times, and the synagogue expelled him withignominy. Jesus was the glory of the people of Israel, who crucifiedhim. 

[Footnote 1: _Yaçna_, xiii. 24: Theopompus, in Plut. , _De Iside etOsiride_, sec. 47; _Minokhired_, a passage published in the_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, i. , p. 263. ]

[Footnote 2: Virg. , Ecl. Iv. ; Servius, at v. 4 of this Eclogue;Nigidius, quoted by Servius, at v. 10. ]

[Footnote 3: Book iii. , 97-817. ]

[Footnote 4: Esther vi. 13, vii. 10, viii. 7, 11-17, ix. 1-22; and inthe apocryphal parts, ix. 10, 11, xiv. 13, and following, xvi. 20, 24. ]

[Footnote 5: Eccl. I. 11, ii. 16, 18-24, iii. 19-22, iv. 8, 15, 16, v. 17, 18, vi. 3, 6, viii. 15, ix. 9, 10. ]

A gigantic dream haunted for centuries the Jewish people, constantlyrenewing its youth in its decrepitude. A stranger to the theory ofindividual recompense, which Greece diffused under the name of theimmortality of the soul, Judea concentrated all its power of love anddesire upon the national future. She thought she possessed divinepromises of a boundless future; and as the bitter reality, from theninth century before our era, gave more and more the dominion of theworld to physical force, and brutally crushed these aspirations, shetook refuge in the union of the most impossible ideas, and attemptedthe strangest gyrations. Before the captivity, when all the earthlyhopes of the nation had become weakened by the separation of thenorthern tribes, they dreamt of the restoration of the house of David, the reconciliation of the two divisions of the people, and the triumphof theocracy and the worship of Jehovah over idolatry. At the epoch ofthe captivity, a poet, full of harmony, saw the splendor of a futureJerusalem, of which the peoples and the distant isles should betributaries, under colors so charming, that one might say a glimpse ofthe visions of Jesus had reached him at a distance of sixcenturies. [1]

[Footnote 1: Isaiah lx. &c. ]

The victory of Cyrus seemed at one time to realize all that had beenhoped. The grave disciples of the Avesta and the adorers of Jehovahbelieved themselves brothers. Persia had begun by banishing themultiple _dévas_, and by transforming them into demons (_divs_), todraw from the old Arian imaginations (essentially naturalistic) aspecies of Monotheism. The prophetic tone of many of the teachings ofIran had much analogy with certain compositions of Hosea and Isaiah. Israel reposed under the Achemenidae, [1] and under Xerxes (Ahasuerus)made itself feared by the Iranians themselves. But the triumphal andoften cruel entry of Greek and Roman civilization into Asia, threw itback upon its dreams. More than ever it invoked the Messiah as judgeand avenger of the people. A complete renovation, a revolution whichshould shake the world to its very foundation, was necessary in orderto satisfy the enormous thirst of vengeance excited in it by the senseof its superiority, and by the sight of its humiliation. [2]

[Footnote 1: The whole book of Esther breathes a great attachment tothis dynasty. ]

[Footnote 2: Apocryphal letter of Baruch, in Fabricius, _Cod. Pseud. , V. T. _, ii. P. 147, and following. ]

If Israel had possessed the spiritualistic doctrine, which divides manin two parts--the body and the soul--and finds it quite natural thatwhile the body decays, the soul should survive, this paroxysm of rageand of energetic protestation would have had no existence. But such adoctrine, proceeding from the Grecian philosophy, was not in thetraditions of the Jewish mind. The ancient Hebrew writings contain notrace of future rewards or punishments. Whilst the idea of thesolidarity of the tribe existed, it was natural that a strictretribution according to individual merits should not be thought of. So much the worse for the pious man who happened to live in an epochof impiety; he suffered, like the rest, the public misfortunesconsequent on the general irreligion. This doctrine, bequeathed by thesages of the patriarchal era, constantly produced unsustainablecontradictions. Already at the time of Job it was much shaken; the oldmen of Teman who professed it were considered behind the age, and theyoung Elihu, who intervened in order to combat them, dared to utter ashis first word this essentially revolutionary sentiment, "Great menare not always wise; neither do the aged understand judgment. "[1]With the complications which had taken place in the world since thetime of Alexander, the old Temanite and Mosaic principle became stillmore intolerable. [2] Never had Israel been more faithful to the Law, and yet it was subjected to the atrocious persecution of Antiochus. Only a declaimer, accustomed to repeat old phrases denuded of meaning, would dare to assert that these evils proceeded from theunfaithfulness of the people. [3] What! these victims who died fortheir faith, these heroic Maccabees, this mother with her seven sons, will Jehovah forget them eternally? Will he abandon them to thecorruption of the grave?[4] Worldly and incredulous Sadduceeism mightpossibly not recoil before such a consequence, and a consummate sage, like Antigonus of Soco, [5] might indeed maintain that we must notpractise virtue like a slave in expectation of a recompense, that wemust be virtuous without hope. But the mass of the people could not becontented with that. Some, attaching themselves to the principle ofphilosophical immortality, imagined the righteous living in the memoryof God, glorious forever in the remembrance of men, and judging thewicked who had persecuted them. [6] "They live in the sight of God; . .. They are known of God. "[7] That was their reward. Others, especiallythe Pharisees, had recourse to the doctrine of the resurrection. [8]The righteous will live again in order to participate in the Messianicreign. They will live again in the flesh, and for a world of whichthey will be the kings and the judges; they will be present at thetriumph of their ideas and at the humiliation of their enemies. 

[Footnote 1: Job xxxiii. 9. ]

[Footnote 2: It is nevertheless remarkable that Jesus, son of Sirach, adheres to it strictly (chap. Xvii. 26-28, xxii. 10, 11, xxx. 4, andfollowing, xli. 1, 2, xliv. 9). The author of the book of _Wisdom_holds quite opposite opinions (iv. 1, Greek text). ]

[Footnote 3: Esth. Xiv. 6, 7 (apocr. ); the apocryphal Epistle ofBaruch (Fabricius, _Cod. Pseud. , V. T. _, ii. P. 147, and following). ]

[Footnote 4: 2 _Macc. _ vii. ]

[Footnote 5: _Pirké Aboth. _, i. 3. ]

[Footnote 6: _Wisdom_, ii. -vi. ; _De Rationis Imperio_, attributed toJosephus, 8, 13, 16, 18. Still we must remark that the author of thislast treatise estimates the motive of personal recompense in asecondary degree. The primary impulse of martyrs is the pure love ofthe Law, the advantage which their death will procure to the people, and the glory which will attach to their name. Comp. _Wisdom_, iv. 1, and following; _Eccl. _ xliv. , and following; Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Viii. 10, III. Viii. 5. ]

[Footnote 7: _Wisdom_, iv. 1; _De Rat. Imp. _, 16, 18. ]

[Footnote 8: 2 _Macc. _, vii. 9, 14, xii. 43, 44. ]

We find among the ancient people of Israel only very indecisive tracesof this fundamental dogma. The Sadducee, who did not believe it, wasin reality faithful to the old Jewish doctrine; it was the Pharisee, the believer in the resurrection, who was the innovator. But inreligion it is always the zealous sect which innovates, whichprogresses, and which has influence. Besides this, the resurrection, an idea totally different from that of the immortality of the soul, proceeded very naturally from the anterior doctrines and from theposition of the people. Perhaps Persia also furnished some of itselements. [1] In any case, combining with the belief in the Messiah, and with the doctrine of a speedy renewal of all things, it formedthose apocalyptic theories which, without being articles of faith (theorthodox Sanhedrim of Jerusalem does not seem to have adopted them), pervaded all imaginations, and produced an extreme fermentation fromone end of the Jewish world to the other. The total absence ofdogmatic rigor caused very contradictory notions to be admitted atone time, even upon so primary a point Sometimes the righteous were toawait the resurrection;[2] sometimes they were to be received at themoment of death into Abraham's bosom;[3] sometimes the resurrectionwas to be general;[4] sometimes it was to be reserved only for thefaithful;[5] sometimes it supposed a renewed earth and a newJerusalem; sometimes it implied a previous annihilation of theuniverse. 

[Footnote 1: Theopompus, in _Diog. Laert. _, Proem, 9. _Boundehesch_, xxxi. The traces of the doctrine of the resurrection in the Avesta arevery doubtful. ]

[Footnote 2: John xi. 24. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke xvi. 22. Cf. _De Rationis Imp. _, 13, 16, 18. ]

[Footnote 4: Dan. Xii. 2. ]

[Footnote 5: 2 _Macc. _ vii. 14. ]

Jesus, as soon as he began to think, entered into the burningatmosphere which was created in Palestine by the ideas we have juststated. These ideas were taught in no school; but they were in thevery air, and his soul was early penetrated by them. Our hesitationsand our doubts never reached him. On this summit of the mountain ofNazareth, where no man can sit to-day without an uneasy, though it maybe a frivolous, feeling about his destiny, Jesus sat often untroubledby a doubt. Free from selfishness--that source of our troubles, whichmakes us seek with eagerness a reward for virtue beyond the tomb--hethought only of his work, of his race, and of humanity. Thosemountains, that sea, that azure sky, those high plains in the horizon, were for him not the melancholy vision of a soul which interrogatesNature upon her fate, but the certain symbol, the transparent shadow, of an invisible world, and of a new heaven. 

He never attached much importance to the political events of his time, and he probably knew little about them. The court of the Herods formeda world so different to his, that he doubtless knew it only by name. Herod the Great died about the year in which Jesus was born, leavingimperishable remembrances--monuments which must compel the mostmalevolent posterity to associate his name with that of Solomon;nevertheless, his work was incomplete, and could not be continued. Profanely ambitious, and lost in a maze of religious controversies, this astute Idumean had the advantage which coolness and judgment, stripped of morality, give over passionate fanatics. But his idea of asecular kingdom of Israel, even if it had not been an anachronism inthe state of the world in which it was conceived, would inevitablyhave miscarried, like the similar project which Solomon formed, owingto the difficulties proceeding from the character of the nation. Histhree sons were only lieutenants of the Romans, analogous to therajahs of India under the English dominion. Antipater, or Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and of Peræa, of whom Jesus was a subject all hislife, was an idle and useless prince, [1] a favorite and flatterer ofTiberius, [2] and too often misled by the bad influence of his secondwife, Herodias. [3] Philip, tetrarch of Gaulonitis and Batanea, intowhose dominions Jesus made frequent journeys, was a much bettersovereign. [4] As to Archelaus, ethnarch of Jerusalem, Jesus could notknow him, for he was about ten years old when this man, who was weakand without character, though sometimes violent, was deposed byAugustus. [5] The last trace of self-government was thus lost toJerusalem. United to Samaria and Idumea, Judea formed a kind ofdependency of the province of Syria, in which the senator PubliusSulpicius Quirinus, well known as consul, [6] was the imperial legate. A series of Roman procurators, subordinate in important matters tothe imperial legate of Syria--Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus, and lastly (in the twenty-sixth year of our era), Pontius Pilate[7]--followed each other, and were constantly occupiedin extinguishing the volcano which was seething beneath their feet. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, VIII. V. 1, vii. 1 and 2; Luke iii. 19. ]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. , XVIII. Ii. 3, iv. 5, v. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. , XVIII. Vii. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: Ibid. , XVIII. Iv. 6. ]

[Footnote 5: Ibid. , XVII. Xii. 2; and _B. J. _, II. Vii. 3. ]

[Footnote 6: Orelli, _Inscr. Lat. _, No. 3693; Henzen, _Suppl. _, No. 7041; _Fasti prænestini_, on the 6th of March, and on the 28th ofApril (in the _Corpus Inscr. Lat. _, i. 314, 317); Borghesi, _FastesConsulaires_ (yet unedited), in the year 742; R. Bergmann, _De Inscr. Lat. Ad. P. S. Quirinium, ut videtur, referenda_ (Berlin, 1851). Cf. Tac. , _Ann. _, ii. 30, iii. 48; Strabo, XII. Vi. 5. ]

[Footnote 7: Jos. , _Ant. _, l. XVIII. ]

Continual seditions, excited by the zealots of Mosaism, did not cease, in fact, to agitate Jerusalem during all this time. [1] The death ofthe seditious was certain; but death, when the integrity of the Lawwas in question, was sought with avidity. To overturn the Roman eagle, to destroy the works of art raised by the Herods, in which the Mosaicregulations were not always respected[2]--to rise up against thevotive escutcheons put up by the procurators, the inscriptions ofwhich appeared tainted with idolatry[3]--were perpetual temptations tofanatics, who had reached that degree of exaltation which removes allcare for life. Judas, son of Sariphea, Matthias, son of Margaloth, twovery celebrated doctors of the law, formed against the establishedorder a boldly aggressive party, which continued after theirexecution. [4] The Samaritans were agitated by movements of a similarnature. [5] The Law had never counted a greater number of impassioneddisciples than at this time, when he already lived who, by the fullauthority of his genius and of his great soul, was about to abrogateit. The "Zelotes" (Kenaïm), or "Sicarii, " pious assassins, who imposedon themselves the task of killing whoever in their estimation brokethe Law, began to appear. [6] Representatives of a totally differentspirit, the Thaumaturges, considered as in some sort divine, obtainedcredence in consequence of the imperious want which the ageexperienced for the supernatural and the divine. [7]

[Footnote 1: Ibid. , the books XVI. And XVIII. Entirely, and _B. J. _, books I. And II. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. X. 4. Compare Book of Enoch, xcvii. 13, 14. ]

[Footnote 3: Philo, _Leg. Ad Caium_, § 38. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVII. Vi. 2, and following; _B. J. _, I. Xxxiii. 3, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iv. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, ix. 6; John xvi. 2; Jos. , _B. J. _, book IV. , and following. ]

[Footnote 7: _Acts_ viii. 9. Verse 11 leads us to suppose that Simonthe magician was already famous in the time of Jesus. ]

A movement which had much more influence upon Jesus was that of Judasthe Gaulonite, or Galilean. Of all the exactions to which the countrynewly conquered by Rome was subjected, the census was the mostunpopular. [1] This measure, which always astonishes peopleunaccustomed to the requirements of great central administrations, wasparticularly odious to the Jews. We see that already, under David, anumbering of the people provoked violent recriminations, and themenaces of the prophets. [2] The census, in fact, was the basis oftaxation; now taxation, to a pure theocracy, was almost an impiety. God being the sole Master whom man ought to recognize, to pay tithe toa secular sovereign was, in a manner, to put him in the place of God. Completely ignorant of the idea of the State, the Jewish theocracyonly acted up to its logical induction--the negation of civil societyand of all government. The money of the public treasury was accountedstolen money. [3] The census ordered by Quirinus (in the year 6 of theChristian era) powerfully reawakened these ideas, and caused a greatfermentation. An insurrection broke out in the northern provinces. OneJudas, of the town of Gamala, upon the eastern shore of the Lake ofTiberias, and a Pharisee named Sadoc, by denying the lawfulness of thetax, created a numerous party, which soon broke out in open revolt. [4]The fundamental maxims of this party were--that they ought to call noman "master, " this title belonging to God alone; and that liberty wasbetter than life. Judas had, doubtless, many other principles, whichJosephus, always careful not to compromise his co-religionists, designedly suppresses; for it is impossible to understand how, for sosimple an idea, the Jewish historian should give him a place among thephilosophers of his nation, and should regard him as the founder of afourth school, equal to those of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and theEssenes. Judas was evidently the chief of a Galilean sect, deeplyimbued with the Messianic idea, and which became a political movement. The procurator, Coponius, crushed the sedition of the Gaulonite; butthe school remained, and preserved its chiefs. Under the leadership ofMenahem, son of the founder, and of a certain Eleazar, his relative, we find them again very active in the last contests of the Jewsagainst the Romans. [5] Perhaps Jesus saw this Judas, whose idea of theJewish revolution was so different from his own; at all events, heknew his school, and it was probably to avoid his error that hepronounced the axiom upon the penny of Cæsar. Jesus, more wise, andfar removed from all sedition, profited by the fault of hispredecessor, and dreamed of another kingdom and another deliverance. 

[Footnote 1: Discourse of Claudius at Lyons, Tab. Ii. Sub fin. DeBoisseau, _Inscr. Ant. De Lyon_, p. 136. ]

[Footnote 2: 2 Sam. Xxiv. ]

[Footnote 3: Talmud of Babylon, _Baba Kama_, 113 _a_; _Shabbath_, 33_b_. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. I. 1 and 6; _B. J. _, II. Viii. 1;_Acts_ v. 37. Previous to Judas the Gaulonite, the _Acts_ placeanother agitator, Theudas; but this is an anachronism, the movement ofTheudas took place in the year 44 of the Christian era (Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. V. 1). ]

[Footnote 5: Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Xvii. 8, and following. ]

Galilee was thus an immense furnace wherein the most diverse elementswere seething. [1] An extraordinary contempt of life, or, more properlyspeaking, a kind of longing for death, [2] was the consequence of theseagitations. Experience counts for nothing in these great fanaticalmovements. Algeria, at the commencement of the French occupation, sawarise, each spring, inspired men, who declared themselvesinvulnerable, and sent by God to drive away the infidels; thefollowing year their death was forgotten, and their successors foundno less credence. The Roman power, very stern on the one hand, yetlittle disposed to meddle, permitted a good deal of liberty. Thosegreat, brutal despotisms, terrible in repression, were not sosuspicious as powers which have a faith to defend. They allowedeverything up to the point when they thought it necessary to besevere. It is not recorded that Jesus was even once interfered with bythe civil power, in his wandering career. Such freedom, and, aboveall, the happiness which Galilee enjoyed in being much less confinedin the bonds of Pharisaic pedantry, gave to this district a realsuperiority over Jerusalem. The revolution, or, in other words, thebelief in the Messiah, caused here a general fermentation. Men deemedthemselves on the eve of the great renovation; the Scriptures, tortured into divers meanings, fostered the most colossal hopes. Ineach line of the simple writings of the Old Testament they saw theassurance, and, in a manner, the programme of the future reign, whichwas to bring peace to the righteous, and to seal forever the work ofGod. 

[Footnote 1: Luke xiii. 1. The Galilean movement of Judas, son ofHezekiah, does not appear to have been of a religious character;perhaps, however, its character has been misrepresented by Josephus(_Ant. _, XVII. X. 5). ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVI. Vi. 2, 3; XVIII. I. 1. ]

From all time, this division into two parties, opposed in interest andspirit, had been for the Hebrew nation a principle which contributedto their moral growth. Every nation called to high destinies ought tobe a little world in itself, including opposite poles. Greecepresented, at a few leagues' distance from each other, Sparta andAthens--to a superficial observer, the two antipodes; but, in reality, rival sisters, necessary to one another. It was the same with Judea. Less brilliant in one sense than the development of Jerusalem, that ofthe North was on the whole much more fertile; the greatestachievements of the Jewish people have always proceeded thence. Acomplete absence of the love of Nature, bordering upon something dry, narrow, and ferocious, has stamped all the works purely Hierosolymitewith a degree of grandeur, though sad, arid, and repulsive. With itssolemn doctors, its insipid canonists, its hypocritical andatrabilious devotees, Jerusalem has not conquered humanity. The Northhas given to the world the simple Shunammite, the humble Canaanite, the impassioned Magdalene, the good foster-father Joseph, and theVirgin Mary. The North alone has made Christianity; Jerusalem, on thecontrary, is the true home of that obstinate Judaism which, founded bythe Pharisees, and fixed by the Talmud, has traversed the Middle Ages, and come down to us. 

A beautiful external nature tended to produce a much less austerespirit--a spirit less sharply monotheistic, if I may use theexpression, which imprinted a charming and idyllic character on allthe dreams of Galilee. The saddest country in the world is perhapsthe region round about Jerusalem. Galilee, on the contrary, was a verygreen, shady, smiling district, the true home of the Song of Songs, and the songs of the well-beloved. [1] During the two months of Marchand April, the country forms a carpet of flowers of an incomparablevariety of colors. The animals are small, and extremelygentle--delicate and lively turtle-doves, blue-birds so light thatthey rest on a blade of grass without bending it, crested larks whichventure almost under the feet of the traveller, little river tortoiseswith mild and lively eyes, storks with grave and modest mien, which, laying aside all timidity, allow man to come quite near them, and seemalmost to invite his approach. In no country in the world do themountains spread themselves out with more harmony, or inspire higherthoughts. Jesus seems to have had a peculiar love for them. The mostimportant acts of his divine career took place upon the mountains. Itwas there that he was the most inspired;[2] it was there that he heldsecret communion with the ancient prophets; and it was there that hisdisciples witnessed his transfiguration. [3]

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _B. J. _, III. Iii. 1. The horrible state to whichthe country is reduced, especially near Lake Tiberias, ought not todeceive us. These countries, now scorched, were formerly terrestrialparadises. The baths of Tiberias, which are now a frightful abode, were formerly the most beautiful places in Galilee (Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Ii. 3. ) Josephus (_Bell. Jud. _, III. X. 8) extols the beautifultrees of the plain of Gennesareth, where there is no longer a singleone. Anthony the Martyr, about the year 600, consequently fifty yearsbefore the Mussulman invasion, still found Galilee covered withdelightful plantations, and compares its fertility to that of Egypt(_Itin. _, § 5). ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. V. 1, xiv. 23; Luke vi. 12. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xvii. 1, and following; Mark ix. 1, and following;Luke ix. 28, and following. ]

This beautiful country has now become sad and gloomy through theever-impoverishing influence of Islamism. But still everything whichman cannot destroy breathes an air of freedom, mildness, andtenderness, and at the time of Jesus it overflowed with happiness andprosperity. The Galileans were considered energetic, brave, andlaborious. [1] If we except Tiberias, built by Antipas in honor ofTiberius (about the year 15), in the Roman style, [2] Galilee had nolarge towns. The country was, nevertheless, well peopled, covered withsmall towns and large villages, and cultivated in all parts withskill. [3] From the ruins which remain of its ancient splendor, we cantrace an agricultural people, no way gifted in art, caring little forluxury, indifferent to the beauties of form and exclusivelyidealistic. The country abounded in fresh streams and in fruits; thelarge farms were shaded with vines and fig-trees; the gardens werefilled with trees bearing apples, walnuts, and pomegranates. [4] Thewine was excellent, if we may judge by that which the Jews stillobtain at Safed, and they drank much of it. [5] This contented andeasily satisfied life was not like the gross materialism of ourpeasantry, the coarse pleasures of agricultural Normandy, or the heavymirth of the Flemish. It spiritualized itself in ethereal dreams--in akind of poetic mysticism, blending heaven and earth. Leave theaustere Baptist in his desert of Judea to preach penitence, to inveighwithout ceasing, and to live on locusts in the company of jackals. Whyshould the companions of the bridegroom fast while the bridegroom iswith them? Joy will be a part of the kingdom of God. Is she not thedaughter of the humble in heart, of the men of good will?

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _B. J. _, III. Iii. 2. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Ii. 2; _B. J. _, II. Ix. 1; _Vita_, 12, 13, 64. ]

[Footnote 3: Jos. , _B. J. _, III. Iii. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: We may judge of this by some enclosures in theneighborhood of Nazareth. Cf. Song of Solomon ii. 3, 5, 13, iv. 13, vi. 6, 10, vii. 8, 12, viii. 2, 5; Anton. Martyr, _l. C. _ The aspect ofthe great farms is still well preserved in the south of the country ofTyre (ancient tribe of Asher). Traces of the ancient Palestinianagriculture, with its troughs, threshing-floors, wine-presses, mills, &c. , cut in the rock, are found at every step. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Ix. 17, xi. 19; Mark ii. 22; Luke v. 37, vii. 34;John ii. 3, and following. ]

The whole history of infant Christianity has become in this manner adelightful pastoral. A Messiah at the marriage festival--the courtezanand the good Zaccheus called to his feasts--the founders of thekingdom of heaven like a bridal procession; that is what Galilee hasboldly offered, and what the world has accepted. Greece has drawnpictures of human life by sculpture and by charming poetry, but alwayswithout backgrounds or distant receding perspectives. In Galilee werewanting the marble, the practiced workmen, the exquisite and refinedlanguage. But Galilee has created the most sublime ideal for thepopular imagination; for behind its idyl moves the fate of humanity, and the light which illumines its picture is the sun of the kingdom ofGod. 

Jesus lived and grew amidst these enchanting scenes. From his infancy, he went almost annually to the feast at Jerusalem. [1] The pilgrimagewas a sweet solemnity for the provincial Jews. Entire series of psalmswere consecrated to celebrate the happiness of thus journeying infamily companionship[2] during several days in the spring across thehills and valleys, each one having in prospect the splendors ofJerusalem, the solemnities of the sacred courts, and the joy ofbrethren dwelling together in unity. [3] The route which Jesusordinarily took in these journeys was that which is followed to thisday through Ginæa and Shechem. [4] From Shechem to Jerusalem thejourney is very tiresome. But the neighborhood of the old sanctuariesof Shiloh and Bethel, near which the travellers pass, keeps theirinterest alive. _Ain-el-Haramie_, [5] the last halting-place, is acharming and melancholy spot, and few impressions equal thatexperienced on encamping there for the night. The valley is narrow andsombre, and a dark stream issues from the rocks, full of tombs, whichform its banks. It is, I think, the "valley of tears, " or of droppingwaters, which is described as one of the stations on the way in thedelightful Eighty-fourth Psalm, [6] and which became the emblem of lifefor the sad and sweet mysticism of the Middle Ages. Early the next daythey would be at Jerusalem; such an expectation even now sustains thecaravan, rendering the night short and slumber light. 

[Footnote 1: Luke ii. 41. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke ii. 42-44. ]

[Footnote 3: See especially Ps. Lxxxiv. , cxxii. , cxxxiii. (Vulg. , lxxxiii. , cxxi. , cxxxii). ]

[Footnote 4: Luke ix. 51-53, xvii. 11; John iv. 4; Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Vi. 1; _B. J. _, II. Xii. 3; _Vita_, 52. Often, however, the pilgrimscame by Peræa, in order to avoid Samaria, where they incurred dangers;Matt. Xix. 1; Mark x. 1. ]

[Footnote 5: According to Josephus (_Vita_, 52) it was three days'journey. But the stage from Shechem to Jerusalem was generally dividedinto two. ]

[Footnote 6: lxxxiii. According to the Vulgate, v. 7. ]

These journeys, in which the assembled nation exchanged its ideas, andwhich were almost always centres of great agitation, placed Jesus incontact with the mind of his countrymen, and no doubt inspired himwhilst still young with a lively antipathy for the defects of theofficial representatives of Judaism. It is supposed that very earlythe desert had great influence on his development, and that he madelong stays there. [1] But the God he found in the desert was not hisGod. It was rather the God of Job, severe and terrible, accountableto no one. Sometimes Satan came to tempt him. He returned, then, intohis beloved Galilee, and found again his heavenly Father in the midstof the green hills and the clear fountains--and among the crowds ofwomen and children, who, with joyous soul and the song of angels intheir hearts, awaited the salvation of Israel. 

[Footnote 1: Luke iv. 42, v. 16. ]

CHAPTER V. 

THE FIRST SAYINGS OF JESUS--HIS IDEAS OF A DIVINE FATHER AND OF A PURERELIGION--FIRST DISCIPLES. 

Joseph died before his son had taken any public part. Mary remained, in a manner, the head of the family, and this explains why her son, when it was wished to distinguish him from others of the same name, was most frequently called the "son of Mary. "[1] It seems that having, by the death of her husband, been left friendless at Nazareth, shewithdrew to Cana, [2] from which she may have come originally. Cana[3]was a little town at from two to two and a half hours' journey fromNazareth, at the foot of the mountains which bound the plain ofAsochis on the north. [4] The prospect, less grand than at Nazareth, extends over all the plain, and is bounded in the most picturesquemanner by the mountains of Nazareth and the hills of Sepphoris. Jesusappears to have resided some time in this place. Here he probablypassed a part of his youth, and here his greatness first revealeditself. [5]

[Footnote 1: This is the expression of Mark vi. 3; cf. Matt. Xiii. 55. Mark did not know Joseph. John and Luke, on the contrary, prefer theexpression "son of Joseph. " Luke iii. 23, iv. 22; John i. 45, iv. 42. ]

[Footnote 2: John ii. 1, iv. 46. John alone is informed on thispoint. ]

[Footnote 3: I admit, as probable, the idea which identifies Cana ofGalilee with _Kana el Djélil_. We may, nevertheless, attach value tothe arguments for _Kefr Kenna_, a place an hour or an hour and ahalf's journey N. N. E. Of Nazareth. ]

[Footnote 4: Now _El-Buttauf_. ]

[Footnote 5: John ii. 11, iv. 46. One or two disciples were of Cana, John xxi. 2; Matt. X. 4; Mark iii. 18. ]

He followed the trade of his father, which was that of acarpenter. [1] This was not in any degree humiliating or grievous. TheJewish customs required that a man devoted to intellectual work shouldlearn a trade. The most celebrated doctors did so;[2] thus St. Paul, whose education had been so carefully tended, was a tent-maker. [3]Jesus never married. All his power of love centred upon that which heregarded as his celestial vocation. The extremely delicate feelingtoward women, which we remark in him, was not separated from theexclusive devotion which he had for his mission. Like Francis d'Assisiand Francis de Sales, he treated as sisters the women who were lovedof the same work as himself; he had his St. Clare, his Frances deChantal. It is, however, probable that these loved him more than thework; he was, no doubt, more beloved than loving. Thus, as oftenhappens in very elevated natures, tenderness of the heart wastransformed in him into an infinite sweetness, a vague poetry, and auniversal charm. His relations, free and intimate, but of an entirelymoral kind, with women of doubtful character, are also explained bythe passion which attached him to the glory of his Father, and whichmade him jealously anxious for all beautiful creatures who couldcontribute to it. [4]

[Footnote 1: Mark vi. 3; Justin, _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 88. ]

[Footnote 2: For example, "Rabbi Johanan, the shoemaker, Rabbi Isaac, the blacksmith. "]

[Footnote 3: _Acts_ xviii. 3. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke vii. 37, and following; John iv. 7, and following;viii. 3, and following. ]

What was the progress of the ideas of Jesus during this obscure periodof his life? Through what meditations did he enter upon the propheticcareer? We have no information on these points, his history havingcome to us in scattered narratives, without exact chronology. But thedevelopment of character is everywhere the same; and there is nodoubt that the growth of so powerful individuality as that of Jesusobeyed very rigorous laws. A high conception of the Divinity--which hedid not owe to Judaism, and which seems to have been in all its partsthe creation of his great mind--was in a manner the source of all hispower. It is essential here that we put aside the ideas familiar tous, and the discussions in which little minds exhaust themselves. Inorder properly to understand the precise character of the piety ofJesus, we must forget all that is placed between the gospel andourselves. Deism and Pantheism have become the two poles of theology. The paltry discussions of scholasticism, the dryness of spirit ofDescartes, the deep-rooted irreligion of the eighteenth century, bylessening God, and by limiting Him, in a manner, by the exclusion ofeverything which is not His very self, have stifled in the breast ofmodern rationalism all fertile ideas of the Divinity. If God, in fact, is a personal being outside of us, he who believes himself to havepeculiar relations with God is a "visionary, " and as the physical andphysiological sciences have shown us that all supernatural visions areillusions, the logical Deist finds it impossible to understand thegreat beliefs of the past. Pantheism, on the other hand, insuppressing the Divine personality, is as far as it can be from theliving God of the ancient religions. Were the men who have bestcomprehended God--Cakya-Mouni, Plato, St. Paul, St. Francis d'Assisi, and St. Augustine (at some periods of his fluctuating life)--Deists orPantheists? Such a question has no meaning. The physical andmetaphysical proofs of the existence of God were quite indifferent tothem. They felt the Divine within themselves. We must place Jesus inthe first rank of this great family of the true sons of God. Jesushad no visions; God did not speak to him as to one outside of Himself;God was in him; he felt himself with God, and he drew from his heartall he said of his Father. He lived in the bosom of God by constantcommunication with Him; he saw Him not, but he understood Him, withoutneed of the thunder and the burning bush of Moses, of the revealingtempest of Job, of the oracle of the old Greek sages, of the familiargenius of Socrates, or of the angel Gabriel of Mahomet. Theimagination and the hallucination of a St. Theresa, for example, areuseless here. The intoxication of the Soufi proclaiming himselfidentical with God is also quite another thing. Jesus never once gaveutterance to the sacrilegious idea that he was God. He believedhimself to be in direct communion with God; he believed himself to bethe Son of God. The highest consciousness of God which has existed inthe bosom of humanity was that of Jesus. 

We understand, on the other hand, how Jesus, starting with such adisposition of spirit, could never be a speculative philosopher likeCakya-Mouni. Nothing is further from scholastic theology than theGospel. [1] The speculations of the Greek fathers on the Divine essenceproceed from an entirely different spirit. God, conceived simply asFather, was all the theology of Jesus. And this was not with him atheoretical principle, a doctrine more or less proved, which he soughtto inculcate in others. He did not argue with his disciples;[2] hedemanded from them no effort of attention. He did not preach hisopinions; he preached himself. Very great and very disinterested mindsoften present, associated with much elevation, that character ofperpetual attention to themselves, and extreme personalsusceptibility, which, in general, is peculiar to women. [3] Theirconviction that God is in them, and occupies Himself perpetually withthem, is so strong, that they have no fear of obtruding themselvesupon others; our reserve, and our respect for the opinion of others, which is a part of our weakness, could not belong to them. Thisexaltation of self is not egotism; for such men, possessed by theiridea, give their lives freely, in order to seal their work; it is theidentification of self with the object it has embraced, carried to itsutmost limit. It is regarded as vain-glory by those who see in the newteaching only the personal phantasy of the founder; but it is thefinger of God to those who see the result. The fool stands side byside here with the inspired man, only the fool never succeeds. It hasnot yet been given to insanity to influence seriously the progress ofhumanity. 

[Footnote 1: The discourses which the fourth Gospel attributes toJesus contain some germs of theology. But these discourses being inabsolute contradiction with those of the synoptical Gospels, whichrepresent, without any doubt, the primitive _Logia_, ought to countsimply as documents of apostolic history, and not as elements of thelife of Jesus. ]

[Footnote 2: See Matt. Ix. 9, and other analogous accounts. ]

[Footnote 3: See, for example, John xxi. 15, and following. ]

Doubtless, Jesus did not attain at first this high affirmation ofhimself. But it is probable that, from the first, he regarded hisrelationship with God as that of a son with his father. This was hisgreat act of originality; in this he had nothing in common with hisrace. [1] Neither the Jew nor the Mussulman has understood thisdelightful theology of love. The God of Jesus is not that tyrannicalmaster who kills us, damns us, or saves us, according to His pleasure. The God of Jesus is our Father. We hear Him in listening to the gentleinspiration which cries within us, "Abba, Father. "[2] The God of Jesusis not the partial despot who has chosen Israel for His people, andspecially protects them. He is the God of humanity. Jesus was not apatriot, like the Maccabees; or a theocrat, like Judas the Gaulonite. Boldly raising himself above the prejudices of his nation, heestablished the universal fatherhood of God. The Gaulonite maintainedthat we should die rather than give to another than God the name of"Master;" Jesus left this name to any one who liked to take it, andreserved for God a dearer name. Whilst he accorded to the powerful ofthe earth, who were to him representatives of force, a respect full ofirony, he proclaimed the supreme consolation--the recourse to theFather which each one has in heaven--and the true kingdom of God, which each one bears in his heart. 

[Footnote 1: The great soul of Philo is in sympathy here, as on somany other points, with that of Jesus. _De Confus. Ling. _, § 14; _DeMigr. Abr. _, § 1; _De Somniis_, ii. § 41; _De Agric. Noë_, § 12; _DeMutatione Nominum_, § 4. But Philo is scarcely a Jew in spirit. ]

[Footnote 2: Galatians iv. 6. ]

This name of "kingdom of God, " or "kingdom of heaven, "[1] was thefavorite term of Jesus to express the revolution which he brought intothe world. [2] Like almost all the Messianic terms, it came from thebook of Daniel. According to the author of this extraordinary book, the four profane empires, destined to fall, were to be succeeded by afifth empire, that of the saints, which should last forever. [3] Thisreign of God upon earth naturally led to the most diverseinterpretations. To Jewish theology, the "kingdom of God" is mostfrequently only Judaism itself--the true religion, the monotheisticworship, piety. [4] In the later periods of his life, Jesus believedthat this reign would be realized in a material form by a suddenrenovation of the world. But doubtless this was not his first idea. [5]The admirable moral which he draws from the idea of God as Father, isnot that of enthusiasts who believe the world is near its end, and whoprepare themselves by asceticism for a chimerical catastrophe; it isthat of men who have lived, and still would live. "The kingdom of Godis within you, " said he to those who sought with subtlety for externalsigns. [6] The realistic conception of the Divine advent was but acloud, a transient error, which his death has made us forget. TheJesus who founded the true kingdom of God, the kingdom of the meek andthe humble, was the Jesus of early life[7]--of those chaste and puredays when the voice of his Father re-echoed within him in clearertones. It was then for some months, perhaps a year, that God trulydwelt upon the earth. The voice of the young carpenter suddenlyacquired an extraordinary sweetness. An infinite charm was exhaledfrom his person, and those who had seen him up to that time no longerrecognized him. [8] He had not yet any disciples, and the group whichgathered around him was neither a sect nor a school; but a commonspirit, a sweet and penetrating influence was felt. His amiablecharacter, accompanied doubtless by one of those lovely faces[9] whichsometimes appear in the Jewish race, threw around him a fascinationfrom which no one in the midst of these kindly and simple populationscould escape. 

[Footnote 1: The word "heaven" in the rabbinical language of that timeis synonymous with the name of "God, " which they avoided pronouncing. Compare Matt. Xxi. 25; Luke xv. 18, xx. 4. ]

[Footnote 2: This expression occurs on each page of the synopticalGospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and St. Paul. If it only appearsonce in John (iii. 3, 5), it is because the discourses related in thefourth Gospel are far from representing the true words of Jesus. ]

[Footnote 3: Dan. Ii. 44, vii. 13, 14, 22, 27. ]

[Footnote 4: Mishnah, _Berakoth_, ii. 1, 3; Talmud of Jerusalem, _Berakoth_, ii. 2; _Kiddushin_, i. 2; Talm. Of Bab. , _Berakoth_, 15_a_; _Mekilta_, 42 _b_; _Siphra_, 170 _b_. The expression appearsoften in the _Medrashim_. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Vi. 33, xii. 28, xix. 12; Mark xii. 34; Luke xii. 31. ]

[Footnote 6: Luke xvii. 20, 21. ]

[Footnote 7: The grand theory of the revelation of the Son of Man isin fact reserved, in the synoptics, for the chapters which precede thenarrative of the Passion. The first discourses, especially in Matthew, are entirely moral. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Xiii. 54 and following; Mark vi. 2 and following;John v. 43. ]

[Footnote 9: The tradition of the plainness of Jesus (Justin, _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 85, 88, 100) springs from a desire to see realized in hima pretended Messianic trait (Isa. Liii. 2). ]

Paradise would, in fact, have been brought to earth if the ideas ofthe young Master had not far transcended the level of ordinarygoodness beyond which it has not been found possible to raise thehuman race. The brotherhood of men, as sons of God, and the moralconsequences which result therefrom, were deduced with exquisitefeeling. Like all the rabbis of the time, Jesus was little inclinedtoward consecutive reasonings, and clothed his doctrine in conciseaphorisms, and in an expressive form, at times enigmatical andstrange. [1] Some of these maxims come from the books of the OldTestament. Others were the thoughts of more modern sages, especiallythose of Antigonus of Soco, Jesus, son of Sirach, and Hillel, whichhad reached him, not from learned study, but as oft-repeated proverbs. The synagogue was rich in very happily expressed sentences, whichformed a kind of current proverbial literature. [2] Jesus adoptedalmost all this oral teaching, but imbued it with a superiorspirit. [3] Exceeding the duties laid down by the Law and the elders, he demanded perfection. All the virtues of humility--forgiveness, charity, abnegation, and self-denial--virtues which with good reasonhave been called Christian, if we mean by that that they have beentruly preached by Christ, were in this first teaching, thoughundeveloped. As to justice, he was content with repeating thewell-known axiom--"Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, doye even so to them. "[4] But this old, though somewhat selfish wisdom, did not satisfy him. He went to excess, and said--"Whosoever shallsmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyman will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thycloak also. "[5] "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and castit from thee. "[6] "Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, pray for them that persecute you. "[7] "Judge not, that ye be notjudged. "[8] "Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. "[9] "Be ye thereforemerciful as your Father also is merciful. "[10] "It is more blessed togive than to receive. "[11] "Whosoever shall exalt himself shall beabased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted. "[12]

[Footnote 1: The _Logia_ of St. Matthew joins several of these axiomstogether, to form lengthened discourses. But the fragmentary formmakes itself felt notwithstanding. ]

[Footnote 2: The sentences of the Jewish doctors of the time arecollected in the little book entitled, _Pirké Aboth_. ]

[Footnote 3: The comparisons will be made afterward as they presentthemselves. It has been sometimes supposed that--the compilation ofthe Talmud being later than that of the Gospels--parts may have beenborrowed by the Jewish compilers from the Christian morality. But thisis inadmissible--a wall of separation existed between the Church andthe Synagogue. The Christian and Jewish literature had scarcely anyinfluence on one another before the thirteenth century. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Vii. 12; Luke vi. 31. This axiom is in the book of_Tobit_, iv. 16. Hillel used it habitually (Talm. Of Bab. , _Shabbath_, 31 _a_), and declared, like Jesus, that it was the sum of the Law. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. V. 39, and following; Luke vi. 29. CompareJeremiah, _Lamentations_ iii. 30. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. V. 29, 30, xviii. 9; Mark ix. 46. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. V. 44; Luke vi. 27. Compare Talmud of Babylon, _Shabbath_, 88 _b_; _Joma_, 23 _a_. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Vii. 1; Luke vi. 37. Compare Talmud of Babylon, _Kethuboth_, 105 _b_. ]

[Footnote 9: Luke vi. 37. Compare _Lev. _ xix. 18; _Prov. _ xx. 22;_Ecclesiasticus_ xxviii. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 10: Luke vi. 36; Siphré, 51 _b_ (Sultzbach, 1802). ]

[Footnote 11: A saying related in _Acts_ xx. 35. ]

[Footnote 12: Matt. Xxiii. 12; Luke xiv. 11, xviii. 14. The sentencesquoted by St. Jerome from the "Gospel according to the Hebrews"(Comment. In _Epist. Ad Ephes. _, v. 4; in Ezek. Xviii. ; _Dial. Adv. Pelag. _, iii. 2), are imbued with the same spirit. ]

Upon alms, pity, good works, kindness, peacefulness, and completedisinterestedness of heart, he had little to add to the doctrine ofthe synagogue. [1] But he placed upon them an emphasis full of unction, which made the old maxims appear new. Morality is not composed of moreor less well-expressed principles. The poetry which makes the preceptloved, is more than the precept itself, taken as an abstract truth. Now it cannot be denied that these maxims borrowed by Jesus from hispredecessors, produce quite a different effect in the Gospel to thatin the ancient Law, in the _Pirké Aboth_, or in the Talmud. It isneither the ancient Law nor the Talmud which has conquered and changedthe world. Little original in itself--if we mean by that that onemight recompose it almost entirely by the aid of older maxims--themorality of the Gospels remains, nevertheless, the highest creation ofhuman conscience--the most beautiful code of perfect life that anymoralist has traced. 

[Footnote 1: _Deut. _ xxiv. , xxv. , xxvi. , &c. ; Isa. Lviii. 7; _Prov. _xix. 17; _Pirké Aboth_, i. ; Talmud of Jerusalem, _Peah_, i. 1; Talmudof Babylon, _Shabbath_, 63 _a_. ]

Jesus did not speak against the Mosaic law, but it is clear that hesaw its insufficiency, and allowed it to be seen that he did so. Herepeated unceasingly that more must be done than the ancient sages hadcommanded. [1] He forbade the least harsh word;[2] he prohibiteddivorce, [3] and all swearing;[4] he censured revenge;[5] he condemnedusury;[6] he considered voluptuous desire as criminal as adultery;[7]he insisted upon a universal forgiveness of injuries. [8] The motive onwhich he rested these maxims of exalted charity was always thesame. .. . "That ye may be the children of your Father which is inheaven: for He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and the good. For ifye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even thepublicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do yemore than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye thereforeperfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. "[9]

[Footnote 1: Matt. V. 20, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. V. 22. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. V. 31, and following. Compare Talmud of Babylon, _Sanhedrim_, 22 _a_. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. V. 33, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. V. 38, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. V. 42. The Law prohibited it also (_Deut. _ xv. 7, 8), but less formally, and custom authorized it (Luke vii. 41, andfollowing). ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xxvii. 28. Compare Talmud, _Masséket Kalla_ (edit. Fürth, 1793), fol. 34 _b_. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. V. 23, and following. ]

[Footnote 9: Matt. V. 45, and following. Compare _Lev. _ xi. 44, xix. 2. ]

A pure worship, a religion without priests and external observances, resting entirely on the feelings of the heart, on the imitation ofGod, [1] on the direct relation of the conscience with the heavenlyFather, was the result of these principles. Jesus never shrank fromthis bold conclusion, which made him a thorough revolutionist in thevery centre of Judaism. Why should there be mediators between man andhis Father? As God only sees the heart, of what good are thesepurifications, these observances relating only to the body?[2] Eventradition, a thing so sacred to the Jews, is nothing compared tosincerity. [3] The hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who, in praying, turnedtheir heads to see if they were observed, who gave their alms withostentation, and put marks upon their garments, that they might berecognized as pious persons--all these grimaces of false devotiondisgusted him. "They have their recompense, " said he; "but thou, whenthou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right handdoeth, that thy alms may be in secret, and thy Father, which seeth insecret, Himself shall reward thee openly. "[4] "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to praystanding in the synagogues, and in the corners of the streets, thatthey may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have theirreward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet; and whenthou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; andthy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly. But whenye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they thinkthat they shall be heard for their much speaking. Your Father knowethwhat things ye have need of before ye ask Him. "[5]

[Footnote 1: Compare Philo, _De Migr. Abr. _, § 23 and 24; _De VitaContemp. _, the whole. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xv. 11, and following; Mark vii. 6, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark vii. 6, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Vi. 1, and following. Compare _Ecclesiasticus_xvii. 18, xxix. 15; Talm. Of Bab. , _Chagigah_, 5 _a_; _Baba Bathra_, 9_b_. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Vi. 5-8. ]

He did not affect any external signs of asceticism, contenting himselfwith praying, or rather meditating, upon the mountains, and in thesolitary places, where man has always sought God. [1] This high idea ofthe relations of man with God, of which so few minds, even after him, have been capable, is summed up in a prayer which he taught to hisdisciples:[2]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 23; Luke iv. 42, v. 16, vi. 12. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Vi. 9, and following; Luke xi. 2, and following. ]

"Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdomcome; thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this dayour daily bread. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those whotrespass against us. Lead us not into temptation; deliver us from theevil one. "[1] He insisted particularly upon the idea, that theheavenly Father knows better than we what we need, and that we almostsin against Him in asking Him for this or that particular thing. [2]

[Footnote 1: _i. E. _, the devil. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xi. 5, and following. ]

Jesus in this only carried out the consequences of the greatprinciples which Judaism had established, but which the officialclasses of the nation tended more and more to despise. The Greek andRoman prayers were almost always mere egotistical verbiage. Never hadPagan priest said to the faithful, "If thou bring thy offering to thealtar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee;leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first bereconciled with thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. "[1]Alone in antiquity, the Jewish prophets, especially Isaiah, had, intheir antipathy to the priesthood, caught a glimpse of the true natureof the worship man owes to God. "To what purpose is the multitude ofyour sacrifices unto me: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, andthe fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, orof lambs, or of he-goats. .. . Incense is an abomination unto me: foryour hands are full of blood; cease to do evil, learn to do well, seekjudgment, and then come. "[2] In later times, certain doctors, Simeonthe just, [3] Jesus, son of Sirach, [4] Hillel, [5] almost reached thispoint, and declared that the sum of the Law was righteousness. Philo, in the Judæo-Egyptian world, attained at the same time as Jesus ideasof a high moral sanctity, the consequence of which was the disregardof the observances of the Law. [6] Shemaïa and Abtalion also more thanonce proved themselves to be very liberal casuists. [7] Rabbi Johananere long placed works of mercy above even the study of the Law![8]Jesus alone, however, proclaimed these principles in an effectivemanner. Never has any one been less a priest than Jesus, never agreater enemy of forms, which stifle religion under the pretext ofprotecting it. By this we are all his disciples and his successors; bythis he has laid the eternal foundation-stone of true religion; and ifreligion is essential to humanity, he has by this deserved the Divinerank the world has accorded to him. An absolutely new idea, the ideaof a worship founded on purity of heart, and on human brotherhood, through him entered into the world--an idea so elevated, that theChristian Church ought to make it its distinguishing feature, but anidea which, in our days, only few minds are capable of embodying. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. V. 23, 24. ]

[Footnote 2: Isaiah i. 11, and following. Compare ibid. , lviii. Entirely; Hosea vi. 6; Malachi i. 10, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: _Pirké Aboth_, i. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: _Ecclesiasticus_ xxxv. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Talm. Of Jerus. , _Pesachim_, vi. 1. Talm. Of Bab. , thesame treatise 66 _a_; _Shabbath_, 31 _a_. ]

[Footnote 6: _Quod Deus Immut. _, § 1 and 2; _De Abrahamo_, § 22;_Quis Rerum Divin. Hæres_, § 13, and following; 55, 58, and following;_De Profugis_, § 7 and 8; _Quod Omnis Probus Liber_, entirely; _DeVita Contemp. _, entirely. ]

[Footnote 7: Talm. Of Bab. , _Pesachim_, 67 _b_. ]

[Footnote 8: Talmud of Jerus. , _Peah_, i. 1. ]

An exquisite sympathy with Nature furnished him each moment withexpressive images. Sometimes a remarkable ingenuity, which we callwit, adorned his aphorisms; at other times, their liveliness consistedin the happy use of popular proverbs. "How wilt thou say to thybrother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, abeam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam outof thine own eye, and then thou shalt see clearly to cast out the moteout of thy brother's eye. "[1]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Vii. 4, 5. Compare Talmud of Babylon, _BabaBathra_, 15 _b_, _Erachin_, 16 _b_. ]

These lessons, long hidden in the heart of the young Master, soongathered around him a few disciples. The spirit of the time favoredsmall churches; it was the period of the Essenes or Therapeutæ. Rabbis, each having his distinctive teaching, Shemaïa, Abtalion, Hillel, Shammai, Judas the Gaulonite, Gamaliel, and many others, whosemaxims form the Talmud, [1] appeared on all sides. They wrote verylittle; the Jewish doctors of this time did not write books;everything was done by conversations, and in public lessons, to whichit was sought to give a form easily remembered. [2] The proclamation bythe young carpenter of Nazareth of these maxims, for the most partalready generally known, but which, thanks to him, were to regeneratethe world, was therefore no striking event. It was only one rabbi more(it is true, the most charming of all), and around him some young men, eager to hear him, and thirsting for knowledge. It requires time tocommand the attention of men. As yet there were no Christians; thoughtrue Christianity was founded, and, doubtless, it was never moreperfect than at this first period. Jesus added to it nothing durableafterward. Indeed, in one sense, he compromised it; for everymovement, in order to triumph, must make sacrifices; we never comefrom the contest of life unscathed. 

[Footnote 1: See especially _Pirké Aboth_, ch. I. ]

[Footnote 2: The Talmud, a _résumé_ of this vast movement of theschools, was scarcely commenced till the second century of our era. ]

To conceive the good, in fact, is not sufficient; it must be made tosucceed amongst men. To accomplish this, less pure paths must befollowed. Certainly, if the Gospel was confined to some chapters ofMatthew and Luke, it would be more perfect, and would not now be opento so many objections; but would Jesus have converted the worldwithout miracles? If he had died at the period of his career we havenow reached, there would not have been in his life a single page towound us; but, greater in the eyes of God, he would have remainedunknown to men; he would have been lost in the crowd of great unknownspirits, himself the greatest of all; the truth would not have beenpromulgated, and the world would not have profited from the greatmoral superiority with which his Father had endowed him. Jesus, son ofSirach, and Hillel, had uttered aphorisms almost as exalted as thoseof Jesus. Hillel, however, will never be accounted the true founder ofChristianity. In morals, as in art, precept is nothing, practice iseverything. The idea which is hidden in a picture of Raphael is oflittle moment; it is the picture itself which is prized. So, too, inmorals, truth is but little prized when it is a mere sentiment, andonly attains its full value when realized in the world as fact. Men ofindifferent morality have written very good maxims. Very virtuous men, on the other hand, have done nothing to perpetuate in the world thetradition of virtue. The palm is his who has been mighty both in wordsand in works, who has discerned the good, and at the price of hisblood has caused its triumph. Jesus, from this double point of view, is without equal; his glory remains entire, and will ever be renewed. 

CHAPTER VI. 

JOHN THE BAPTIST--VISIT OF JESUS TO JOHN, AND HIS ABODE IN THE DESERTOF JUDEA--ADOPTION OF THE BAPTISM OF JOHN. 

An extraordinary man, whose position, from the absence of documentaryevidence, remains to us in some degree enigmatical, appeared aboutthis time, and was unquestionably to some extent connected with Jesus. This connection tended rather to make the young prophet of Nazarethdeviate from his path; but it suggested many important accessories tohis religious institution, and, at all events, furnished a very strongauthority to his disciples in recommending their Master in the eyes ofa certain class of Jews. 

About the year 28 of our era (the fifteenth year of the reign ofTiberius) there spread throughout Palestine the reputation of acertain Johanan, or John, a young ascetic full of zeal and enthusiasm. John was of the priestly race, [1] and born, it seems, at Juttah nearHebron, or at Hebron itself. [2] Hebron, the patriarchal city _parexcellence_, situated at a short distance from the desert of Judea, and within a few hours' journey of the great desert of Arabia, was atthis period what it is to-day--one of the bulwarks of Semitic ideas, in their most austere form. From his infancy, John was _Nazir_--thatis to say, subjected by vow to certain abstinences. [3] The desert bywhich he was, so to speak, surrounded, early attracted him. [4] He ledthere the life of a Yogi of India, clothed with skins or stuffs ofcamel's hair, having for food only locusts and wild honey. [5] Acertain number of disciples were grouped around him, sharing his lifeand studying his severe doctrine. We might imagine ourselvestransported to the banks of the Ganges, if particular traits had notrevealed in this recluse the last descendant of the great prophets ofIsrael. 

[Footnote 1: Luke i. 5; passage from the Gospel of the Ebionites, preserved by Epiphanius, (_Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 13. )]

[Footnote 2: Luke i. 39. It has been suggested, not withoutprobability, that "the city of Juda" mentioned in this passage ofLuke, is the town of _Jutta_ (Josh. Xv. 55, xxi. 16). Robinson(_Biblical Researches_, i. 494, ii. 206) has discovered this _Jutta_, still bearing the same name, at two hours' journey south of Hebron. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke i. 15. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke i. 80. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Iii. 4; Mark i. 6; fragm. Of the Gospel of theEbionites, in Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 13. ]

From the time that the Jewish nation had begun to reflect upon itsdestiny with a kind of despair, the imagination of the people hadreverted with much complacency to the ancient prophets. Now, of allthe personages of the past, the remembrance of whom came like thedreams of a troubled night to awaken and agitate the people, thegreatest was Elias. This giant of the prophets, in his rough solitudeof Carmel, sharing the life of savage beasts, dwelling in the hollowsof the rocks, whence he came like a thunderbolt, to make and unmakekings, had become, by successive transformations, a sort of superhumanbeing, sometimes visible, sometimes invisible, and as one who had nottasted death. It was generally believed that Elias would return andrestore Israel. [1] The austere life which he had led, the terribleremembrances he had left behind him--the impression of which is stillpowerful in the East[2]--the sombre image which, even in our own time, causes trembling and death--all this mythology, full of vengeance andterror, vividly struck the mind of the people, and stamped as with abirth-mark all the creations of the popular mind. Whoever aspired toact powerfully upon the people, must imitate Elias; and, as solitarylife had been the essential characteristic of this prophet, they wereaccustomed to conceive "the man of God" as a hermit. They imaginedthat all the holy personages had had their days of penitence, ofsolitude, and of austerity. [3] The retreat to the desert thus becamethe condition and the prelude of high destinies. 

[Footnote 1: Malachi iv. 5, 6; (iii. 23, 24, according to the Vulg. );_Ecclesiasticus_ xlviii. 10; Matt. Xvi. 14, xvii. 10, and following;Mark vi. 15, viii. 28, ix. 10, and following; Luke ix. 8, 19; John i. 21, 25. ]

[Footnote 2: The ferocious Abdallah, pacha of St. Jean d'Acre, nearlydied from fright at seeing him in a dream, standing erect on hismountain. In the pictures of the Christian churches, he is surroundedwith decapitated heads. The Mussulmans dread him. ]

[Footnote 3: _Isaiah_ ii. 9-11. ]

No doubt this thought of imitation had occupied John's mind. [1] Theanchorite life, so opposed to the spirit of the ancient Jewish people, and with which the vows, such as those of the Nazirs and theRechabites, had no relation, pervaded all parts of Judea. The Essenesor Therapeutæ were grouped near the birthplace of John, on the easternshores of the Dead Sea. [2] It was imagined that the chiefs of sectsought to be recluses, having rules and institutions of their own, likethe founders of religious orders. The teachers of the young were alsoat times species of anchorites, [3] somewhat resembling the_gourous_[4] of Brahminism. In fact, might there not in this be aremote influence of the _mounis_ of India? Perhaps some of thosewandering Buddhist monks who overran the world, as the firstFranciscans did in later times, preaching by their actions andconverting people who knew not their language, might have turned theirsteps toward Judea, as they certainly did toward Syria and Babylon?[5]On this point we have no certainty. Babylon had become for some time atrue focus of Buddhism. Boudasp (Bodhisattva) was reputed a wiseChaldean, and the founder of Sabeism. _Sabeism_ was, as its etymologyindicates, [6] _baptism_--that is to say, the religion of manybaptisms--the origin of the sect still existing called "Christians ofSt. John, " or Mendaites, which the Arabs call _el-Mogtasila_, "theBaptists. "[7] It is difficult to unravel these vague analogies. Thesects floating between Judaism, Christianity, Baptism, and Sabeism, which we find in the region beyond the Jordan during the firstcenturies of our era, [8] present to criticism the most singularproblem, in consequence of the confused accounts of them which havecome down to us. We may believe, at all events, that many of theexternal practices of John, of the Essenes, [9] and of the Jewishspiritual teachers of this time, were derived from influences then butrecently received from the far East. The fundamental practice whichcharacterized the sect of John, and gave it its name, has always hadits centre in lower Chaldea, and constitutes a religion which isperpetuated there to the present day. 

[Footnote 1: Luke i. 17. ]

[Footnote 2: Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, v. 17; Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xix. 1and 2. ]

[Footnote 3: Josephus, _Vita_, 2. ]

[Footnote 4: Spiritual preceptors. ]

[Footnote 5: I have developed this point elsewhere. _Hist. Génér. DesLangues Sémitiques_, III. Iv. 1; _Journ. Asiat. _, February-March, 1856. ]

[Footnote 6: The Aramean word _seba_, origin of the name of _Sabians_, is synonymous with [Greek: baptizô]. ]

[Footnote 7: I have treated of this at greater length in the _JournalAsiatique_, Nov. -Dec. , 1853, and August-Sept. , 1855. It is remarkablethat the Elchasaïtes, a Sabian or Baptist sect, inhabited the samedistrict as the Essenes, (the eastern bank of the Dead Sea), and wereconfounded with them (Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xix. 1, 2, 4, xxx. 16, 17, liii. 1, 2; _Philosophumena_, IX. Iii. 15, 16, X. Xx. 29). ]

[Footnote 8: See the remarks of Epiphanius on the Essenes, Hemero-Baptists, Nazarites, Ossenes, Nazarenes, Ebionites, Samsonites(_Adv. Hær. _, books i. And ii. ), and those of the author of the_Philosophumena_ on the Elchasaïtes (books ix. And x). ]

[Footnote 9: Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xix. , xxx. , liii. ]

This practice was baptism, or total immersion. Ablutions were alreadyfamiliar to the Jews, as they were to all religions of the East. [1]The Essenes had given them a peculiar extension. [2] Baptism had becomean ordinary ceremony on the introduction of proselytes into the bosomof the Jewish religion, a sort of initiatory rite. [3] Never beforeJohn the Baptist, however, had either this importance or this formbeen given to immersion. John had fixed the scene of his activity inthat part of the desert of Judea which is in the neighborhood of theDead Sea. [4] At the periods when he administered baptism, he went tothe banks of the Jordan, [5] either to Bethany or Bethabara, [6] uponthe eastern shore, probably opposite to Jericho, or to a place called_Ænon_, or "the Fountains, "[7] near Salim, where there was muchwater. [8] Considerable crowds, especially of the tribe of Judah, hastened to him to be baptized. [9] In a few months he thus became oneof the most influential men in Judea, and acquired much importance inthe general estimation. 

[Footnote 1: Mark vii. 4; Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 2; Justin, _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 17, 29, 80; Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xvii. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Viii. 5, 7, 9, 13. ]

[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Pesachim_, viii. 8; Talmud of Babylon, _Jebamoth_, 46 _b_; _Kerithuth_, 9 _a_; _Aboda Zara_, 57 _a_;_Masséket Gérim_ (edit. Kirchheim, 1851), pp. 38-40. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Iii. 1; Mark i. 4. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke iii. 3. ]

[Footnote 6: John i. 28, iii. 26. All the manuscripts say _Bethany_;but, as no one knows of Bethany in these places, Origen (_Comment. InJoann. _, vi. 24) has proposed to substitute _Bethabara_, and hiscorrection has been generally accepted. The two words have, moreover, analogous meanings, and seem to indicate a place where there was aferry-boat to cross the river. ]

[Footnote 7: _Ænon_ is the Chaldean plural, _Ænawan_, "fountains. "]

[Footnote 8: John iii. 23. The locality of this place is doubtful. Thecircumstance mentioned by the evangelist would lead us to believe thatit was not very near the Jordan. Nevertheless, the synoptics areagreed in placing the scene of the baptisms of John on the banks ofthat river (Matt. Iii. 6; Mark i. 5; Luke iii. 3). The comparison ofverses 22 and 23 of chap. Iii. Of John, and of verses 3 and 4 of chap. Iv. Of the same Gospel, would lead us to believe that Salim was inJudea, and consequently in the oasis of Jericho, near the mouth of theJordan; since it would be difficult to find in any other district ofthe tribe of Judah a single natural basin in which any one might betotally immersed. Saint Jerome wishes to place Salim much more north, near Beth-Schean or Scythopolis. But Robinson (_Bibl. Res. _, iii. 333)has not been able to find anything at these places that justifies thisassertion. ]

[Footnote 9: Mark i. 5; Josephus, _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 2. ]

The people took him for a prophet, [1] and many imagined that it wasElias who had risen again. [2] The belief in these resurrections waswidely spread;[3] it was thought that God would raise from the tombcertain of the ancient prophets to guide Israel toward its finaldestiny. Others held John to be the Messiah himself, although he madeno such pretensions. [4] The priests and the scribes, opposed to thisrevival of prophetism, and the constant enemies of enthusiasts, despised him. But the popularity of the Baptist awed them, and theydared not speak against him. [5] It was a victory which the ideas ofthe multitude gained over the priestly aristocracy. When the chiefpriests were compelled to declare themselves explicitly on this point, they were considerably embarrassed. [6]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 5, xxi. 26. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Vi. 14; Mark vi. 15; John i. 21. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xiv. 2; Luke ix. 8. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke iii. 15, and following; John i. 20. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xxi. 25, and following; Luke vii. 30. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. , _loc. Cit. _]

Baptism with John was only a sign destined to make an impression, andto prepare the minds of the people for some great movement. No doubthe was possessed in the highest degree with the Messianic hope, andthat his principal action was in accordance with it. "Repent, " saidhe, "for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. "[1] He announced a "greatwrath, " that is to say, terrible calamities which should come topass, [2] and declared that the axe was already laid at the root of thetree, and that the tree would soon be cast into the fire. Herepresented the Messiah with a fan in his hand, collecting the goodwheat and burning the chaff. Repentance, of which baptism was thetype, the giving of alms, the reformation of habits, [3] were in John'sview the great means of preparation for the coming events, though wedo not know exactly in what light he conceived them. It is, however, certain that he preached with much power against the same adversariesas Jesus, against rich priests, the Pharisees, the doctors, in oneword, against official Judaism; and that, like Jesus, he was speciallywelcomed by the despised classes. [4] He made no account of the title"son of Abraham, " and said that God could raise up sons unto Abrahamfrom the stones of the road. [5] It does not seem that he possessedeven the germ of the great idea which led to the triumph of Jesus, theidea of a pure religion; but he powerfully served this idea insubstituting a private rite for the legal ceremonies which requiredpriests, as the Flagellants of the Middle Ages were the precursors ofthe Reformation, by depriving the official clergy of the monopoly ofthe sacraments and of absolution. The general tone of his sermons wasstern and severe. The expressions which he used against hisadversaries appear to have been most violent. [6] It was a harsh andcontinuous invective. It is probable that he did not remain quite astranger to politics. Josephus, who, through his teacher Banou, wasbrought into almost direct connection with John, suggests as much byhis ambiguous words, [7] and the catastrophe which put an end to John'slife seems to imply this. His disciples led a very austere life, [8]fasted often, and affected a sad and anxious demeanor. We have attimes glimpses of communism--the rich man being ordered to share allthat he had with the poor. [9] The poor man appeared as the one whowould be specially benefited by the kingdom of God. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Iii. 2. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Iii. 7. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke iii. 11-14; Josephus, _Ant. _ XVIII. V. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxi. 32; Luke iii. 12-14. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Iii. 9. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Iii. 7; Luke iii. 7. ]

[Footnote 7: _Ant. _ XVIII. V. 2. We must observe that, when Josephusdescribed the secret and more or less seditious doctrines of hiscountrymen, he suppressed everything which had reference to theMessianic beliefs, and, in order not to give umbrage to the Romans, spread over these doctrines a vulgar and commonplace air, which madeall the heads of Jewish sects appear as mere professors of morals orstoics. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Ix. 14. ]

[Footnote 9: Luke iii. 11. ]

Although the centre of John's action was Judea, his fame quicklypenetrated to Galilee and reached Jesus, who, by his first discourses, had already gathered around himself a small circle of hearers. Enjoying as yet little authority, and doubtless impelled by the desireto see a teacher whose instruction had so much in common with his own, Jesus quitted Galilee and repaired with his small group of disciplesto John. [1] The newcomers were baptized like every one else. Johnwelcomed this group of Galilean disciples, and did not object to theirremaining distinct from his own. The two teachers were young; they hadmany ideas in common; they loved one another, and publicly vied witheach other in exhibitions of kindly feeling. At the first glance, sucha fact surprises us in John the Baptist, and we are tempted to call itin question. Humility has never been a feature of strong Jewish minds. It might have been expected that a character so stubborn, a sort ofLamennais always irritated, would be very passionate, and sufferneither rivalry nor half adhesion. But this manner of viewing thingsrests upon a false conception of the person of John. We imagine him anold man; he was, on the contrary, of the same age as Jesus, [2] andvery young according to the ideas of the time. In mental development, he was the brother rather than the father of Jesus. The two youngenthusiasts, full of the same hopes and the same hatreds, were able tomake common cause, and mutually to support each other. Certainly anaged teacher, seeing a man without celebrity approach him, andmaintain toward him an aspect of independence, would have rebelled; wehave scarcely an example of a leader of a school receiving witheagerness his future successor. But youth is capable of any sacrifice, and we may admit that John, having recognized in Jesus a spirit akinto his own, accepted him without any personal reservation. These goodrelations became afterward the starting-point of a whole systemdeveloped by the evangelists, which consisted in giving the Divinemission of Jesus the primary basis of the attestation of John. Suchwas the degree of authority acquired by the Baptist, that it was notthought possible to find in the world a better guarantee. But far fromJohn abdicating in favor of Jesus, Jesus, during all the time that hepassed with him, recognized him as his superior, and only developedhis own genius with timidity. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Iii. 13, and following; Mark i. 9, and following;Luke iii. 21, and following; John i. 29, and following; iii. 22, andfollowing. The synoptics make Jesus come to John, before he had playedany public part. But if it is true, as they state, that Johnrecognized Jesus from the first and welcomed him, it must be supposedthat Jesus was already a somewhat renowned teacher. The fourth Gospelbrings Jesus to John twice, the first time while yet unknown, thesecond time with a band of disciples. Without touching here thequestion of the precise journeys of Jesus (an insoluble question, seeing the contradictions of the documents and the little care theevangelists had in being exact in such matters), and without denyingthat Jesus might have made a journey to John when he had as yet nonotoriety, we adopt the information furnished by the fourth Gospel(iii. 22, and following), namely, that Jesus, before beginning tobaptize like John, had formed a school. We must remember, besides, that the first pages of the fourth Gospel are notes tacked togetherwithout rigorous chronological arrangement. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke i. , although indeed all the details of thenarrative, especially those which refer to the relationship of Johnwith Jesus, are legendary. ]

It seems, in fact, that, notwithstanding his profound originality, Jesus, during some weeks at least, was the imitator of John. His wayas yet was not clear before him. At all times, moreover, Jesus yieldedmuch to opinion, and adopted many things which were not in exactaccordance with his own ideas, or for which he cared little, merelybecause they were popular; but these accessories never injured hisprincipal idea, and were always subordinate to it. Baptism had beenbrought by John into very great favor; Jesus thought himself obligedto do like John; therefore he baptized, and his disciples baptizedalso. [1] No doubt he accompanied baptism with preaching, similar tothat of John. The Jordan was thus covered on all sides with Baptists, whose discourses were more or less successful. The pupil soon equaledthe master, and his baptism was much sought after. There was on thissubject some jealousy among the disciples;[2] the disciples of Johncame to complain to him of the growing success of the young Galilean, whose baptism would, they thought, soon supplant his own. But the twoteachers remained superior to this meanness. The superiority of Johnwas, besides, too indisputable for Jesus, still little known, to thinkof contesting it. Jesus only wished to increase under John'sprotection; and thought himself obliged, in order to gain themultitude, to employ the external means which had given John suchastonishing success. When he recommenced to preach after John'sarrest, the first words put into his mouth are but the repetition ofone of the familiar phrases of the Baptist. [3] Many other of John'sexpressions may be found repeated verbally in the discourses ofJesus. [4] The two schools appear to have lived long on good terms witheach other;[5] and after the death of John, Jesus, as his trustyfriend, was one of the first to be informed of the event. [6]

[Footnote 1: John iii. 22-26, iv. 1, 2. The parenthesis of ver. 2appears to be an interpolation, or perhaps a tardy scruple of Johncorrecting himself. ]

[Footnote 2: John iii. 26, iv. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Iii. 2, iv. 17. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Iii. 7, xii. 34, xxiii. 33. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xi. 2-13. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xiv. 12. ]

John, in fact, was soon cut short in his prophetic career. Like theancient Jewish prophets, he was, in the highest degree, a censurer ofthe established authorities. [1] The extreme vivacity with which heexpressed himself at their expense could not fail to bring him intotrouble. In Judea, John does not appear to have been disturbed byPilate; but in Perea, beyond the Jordan, he came into the territory ofAntipas. This tyrant was uneasy at the political leaven which was solittle concealed by John in his preaching. The great assemblages ofmen gathered around the Baptist, by religious and patrioticenthusiasm, gave rise to suspicion. [2] An entirely personal grievancewas also added to these motives of state, and rendered the death ofthe austere censor inevitable. 

[Footnote 1: Luke iii. 19. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 2. ]

One of the most strongly marked characters of this tragical family ofthe Herods was Herodias, granddaughter of Herod the Great. Violent, ambitious, and passionate, she detested Judaism, and despised itslaws. [1] She had been married, probably against her will, to her uncleHerod, son of Mariamne, [2] whom Herod the Great had disinherited, [3]and who never played any public part. The inferior position of herhusband, in respect to the other persons of the family, gave her nopeace; she determined to be sovereign at whatever cost. [4] Antipas wasthe instrument of whom she made use. This feeble man having becomedesperately enamored of her, promised to marry her, and to repudiatehis first wife, daughter of Hareth, king of Petra, and emir of theneighboring tribes of Perea. The Arabian princess, receiving a hint ofthis design, resolved to fly. Concealing her intention, she pretendedthat she wished to make a journey to Machero, in her father'sterritory, and caused herself to be conducted thither by the officersof Antipas. [5]

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 4. ]

[Footnote 2: Matthew (chap. Xiv. 3, in the Greek text) and Mark (chap. Vi. 17) have it that this was Philip; but this is certainly aninadvertency (see Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 1, 4). The wife of Philipwas Salome, daughter of Herodias. ]

[Footnote 3: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iv. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: Ibid. , XVIII. Vii. 1, 2, _B. J. _, II. Ix. 6. ]

[Footnote 5: Ibid. , XVIII. V. 1. ]

Makaur, [1] or Machero, was a colossal fortress built by AlexanderJannaeus, and rebuilt by Herod, in one of the most abrupt wâdys to theeast of the Dead Sea. [2] It was a wild and desolate country, filledwith strange legends, and believed to be haunted by demons. [3] Thefortress was just on the boundary of the lands of Hareth and ofAntipas. At that time it was in the possession of Hareth. [4] Thelatter having been warned, had prepared everything for the flight ofhis daughter, who was conducted from tribe to tribe to Petra. 

[Footnote 1: This form is found in the Talmud of Jerusalem (_Shebiit_, ix. 2), and in the Targums of Jonathan and of Jerusalem (_Numb. _ xxii. 35). ]

[Footnote 2: Now Mkaur, in the wâdy Zerka Main. This place has notbeen visited since Seetzen was there. ]

[Footnote 3: Josephus, _De Bell. Jud. _, VII. Vi. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 1. ]

The almost incestuous[1] union of Antipas and Herodias then tookplace. The Jewish laws on marriage were a constant rock of offencebetween the irreligious family of the Herods and the strict Jews. [2]The members of this numerous and rather isolated dynasty being obligedto marry amongst themselves, frequent violations of the limitsprescribed by the Law necessarily took place. John, in energeticallyblaming Antipas, was the echo of the general feeling. [3] This was morethan sufficient to decide the latter to follow up his suspicions. Hecaused the Baptist to be arrested, and ordered him to be shut up inthe fortress of Machero, which he had probably seized after thedeparture of the daughter of Hareth. [4]

[Footnote 1: _Lev. _ xviii. 16. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Vii. 10. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xiv. 4; Mark vi. 18; Luke iii. 19. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 2. ]

More timid than cruel, Antipas did not desire to put him to death. According to certain rumors, he feared a popular sedition. [1]According to another version, [2] he had taken pleasure in listening tothe prisoner, and these conversations had thrown him into greatperplexities. It is certain that the detention was prolonged, and thatJohn, in his prison, preserved an extended influence. He correspondedwith his disciples, and we find him again in connection with Jesus. His faith in the near approach of the Messiah only became firmer; hefollowed with attention the movements outside, and sought to discoverin them the signs favorable to the accomplishment of the hopes whichhe cherished. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 5. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark vi. 20. I read [Greek: êporei], and not [Greek:epoiei]. ]

CHAPTER VII. 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE IDEAS OF JESUS RESPECTING THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 

Up to the arrest of John, which took place about the summer of theyear 29, Jesus did not quit the neighborhood of the Dead Sea and ofthe Jordan. An abode in the desert of Judea was generally consideredas the preparation for great things, as a sort of "retreat" beforepublic acts. Jesus followed in this respect the example of others, andpassed forty days with no other companions than savage beasts, maintaining a rigorous fast. The disciples speculated much concerningthis sojourn. The desert was popularly regarded as the residence ofdemons. [1] There exist in the world few regions more desolate, moreabandoned by God, more shut out from life, than the rocky declivitywhich forms the western shore of the Dead Sea. It was believed thatduring the time which Jesus passed in this frightful country, he hadgone through terrible trials; that Satan had assailed him with hisillusions, or tempted him with seductive promises; that afterward, inorder to recompense him for his victory, the angels had come tominister to him. [2]

[Footnote 1: _Tobit_ viii. 3; Luke xi. 24. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Iv. 1, and following; Mark i. 12, 13; Luke iv. 1, and following. Certainly, the striking similarity that thesenarratives present to the analogous legends of the _Vendidad_ (farg. Xix. ) and of the _Lalitavistara_ (chap. Xvii. , xviii. , xxi. ) wouldlead us to regard them only as myths. But the meagre and concisenarrative of Mark, which evidently represents on this point theprimitive compilation, leads us to suppose a real fact, whichfurnished later the theme of legendary developments. ]

It was probably in coming from the desert that Jesus learned of thearrest of John the Baptist. He had no longer any reason to prolong hisstay in a country which was partly strange to him. Perhaps he fearedalso being involved in the severities exercised toward John, and didnot wish to expose himself, at a time in which, seeing the littlecelebrity he had, his death could in no way serve the progress of hisideas. He regained Galilee, [1] his true home, ripened by an importantexperience, and having, through contact with a great man, verydifferent from himself, acquired a consciousness of his ownoriginality. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Iv. 12; Mark i. 14; Luke iv. 14; John iv. 3. ]

On the whole, the influence of John had been more hurtful than usefulto Jesus. It checked his development; for everything leads us tobelieve that he had, when he descended toward the Jordan, ideassuperior to those of John, and that it was by a sort of concessionthat he inclined for a time toward baptism. Perhaps if the Baptist, whose authority it would have been difficult for him to escape, hadremained free, Jesus would not have been able to throw off the yoke ofexternal rites and ceremonies, and would then, no doubt, have remainedan unknown Jewish sectary; for the world would not have abandoned itsold ceremonies merely for others of a different kind. It has been bythe power of a religion, free from all external forms, thatChristianity has attracted elevated minds. The Baptist onceimprisoned, his school was soon diminished, and Jesus found himselfleft to his own impulses. The only things he owed to John, werelessons in preaching and in popular action. From this moment, in fact, he preached with greater power, and spoke to the multitude withauthority. [1]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Vii. 29; Mark i. 22; Luke iv. 32. ]

It seems also that his sojourn with John had, not so much by theinfluence of the Baptist, as by the natural progress of his ownthought, considerably ripened his ideas on "the kingdom of heaven. "His watchword, henceforth, is the "good tidings, " the announcementthat the kingdom of God is at hand. [1] Jesus is no longer simply adelightful moralist, aspiring to express sublime lessons in short andlively aphorisms; he is the transcendent revolutionary, who essays torenovate the world from its very basis, and to establish upon earththe ideal which he had conceived. "To await the kingdom of God" ishenceforth synonymous with being a disciple of Jesus. [2] This phrase, "kingdom of God, " or "kingdom of heaven, " was, as we have said, already long familiar to the Jews. But Jesus gave it a moral sense, asocial application, which even the author of the Book of Daniel, inhis apocalyptic enthusiasm, had scarcely dared to imagine. 

[Footnote 1: Mark i. 14, 15. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark xv. 43. ]

He declared that in the present world evil is the reigning power. Satan is "the prince of this world, "[1] and everything obeys him. Thekings kill the prophets. The priests and the doctors do not that whichthey command others to do; the righteous are persecuted, and the onlyportion of the good is weeping. The "world" is in this manner theenemy of God and His saints:[2] but God will awaken and avenge Hissaints. The day is at hand, for the abomination is at its height. Thereign of goodness will have its turn. 

[Footnote 1: John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11. (Comp. 2 _Cor. _ iv. 4;_Ephes. _ ii. 2. )]

[Footnote 2: John i. 10, vii. 7, xiv. 17, 22, 27, xv. 18, andfollowing; xvi. 8, 20, 33, xvii. 9, 14, 16, 25. This meaning of theword "world" is especially applied in the writings of Paul and John. ]

The advent of this reign of goodness will be a great and suddenrevolution. The world will seem to be turned upside down; the actualstate being bad, in order to represent the future, it suffices toconceive nearly the reverse of that which exists. The first shall belast. [1] A new order shall govern humanity. Now the good and the badare mixed, like the tares and the good grain in a field. The masterlets them grow together; but the hour of violent separation willarrive. [2] The kingdom of God will be as the casting of a great net, which gathers both good and bad fish; the good are preserved, and therest are thrown away. [3] The germ of this great revolution will not berecognizable in its beginning. It will be like a grain ofmustard-seed, which is the smallest of seeds, but which, thrown intothe earth, becomes a tree under the foliage of which the birdsrepose;[4] or it will be like the leaven which, deposited in the meal, makes the whole to ferment. [5] A series of parables, often obscure, was designed to express the suddenness of this event, its apparentinjustice, and its inevitable and final character. [6]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xix. 30, xx. 16; Mark x. 31; Luke xiii. 30. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiii. 24, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xiii. 47, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xiii. 31, and following; Mark iv. 31, andfollowing; Luke xiii. 19, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xiii. 33; Luke xiii. 21. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xiii. Entirely; xviii. 23, and following; xx. 1, and following; Luke xiii. 18, and following. ]

Who was to establish this kingdom of God? Let us remember that thefirst thought of Jesus, a thought so deeply rooted in him that it hadprobably no beginning, and formed part of his very being, was that hewas the Son of God, the friend of his Father, the doer of his will. The answer of Jesus to such a question could not therefore bedoubtful. The persuasion that he was to establish the kingdom of Godtook absolute possession of his mind. He regarded himself as theuniversal reformer. The heavens, the earth, the whole of nature, madness, disease, and death, were but his instruments. In his paroxysmof heroic will, he believed himself all powerful. If the earth wouldnot submit to this supreme transformation, it would be broken up, purified by fire, and by the breath of God. A new heaven would becreated, and the entire world would be peopled with the angels ofGod. [1]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxii. 30. ]

A radical revolution, [1] embracing even nature itself, was thefundamental idea of Jesus. Henceforward, without doubt, he renouncedpolitics; the example of Judas, the Gaulonite, had shown him theinutility of popular seditions. He never thought of revolting againstthe Romans and tetrarchs. His was not the unbridled and anarchicalprinciple of the Gaulonite. His submission to the established powers, though really derisive, was in appearance complete. He paid tribute toCæsar, in order to avoid disturbance. Liberty and right were not ofthis world, why should he trouble his life with vain anxieties?Despising the earth, and convinced that the present world was notworth caring for, he took refuge in his ideal kingdom; he establishedthe great doctrine of transcendent disdain, [2] the true doctrine ofliberty of souls, which alone can give peace. But he had not yet said, "My kingdom is not of this world. " Much darkness mixed itself witheven his most correct views. Sometimes strange temptations crossed hismind. In the desert of Judea, Satan had offered him the kingdoms ofthe earth. Not knowing the power of the Roman empire, he might, withthe enthusiasm there was in the heart of Judea, and which ended soonafter in so terrible an outbreak, hope to establish a kingdom by thenumber and the daring of his partisans. Many times, perhaps, thesupreme question presented itself--will the kingdom of God be realizedby force or by gentleness, by revolt or by patience? One day, it issaid, the simple men of Galilee wished to carry him away and make himking, [3] but Jesus fled into the mountain and remained there some timealone. His noble nature preserved him from the error which would havemade him an agitator, or a chief of rebels, a Theudas or a Barkokeba. 

[Footnote 1: [Greek: Apochatastasis pantôn], _Acts_ iii. 21. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xvii. 23-26; xxii. 16-22. ]

[Footnote 3: John vi. 15. ]

The revolution he wished to effect was always a moral revolution; buthe had not yet begun to trust to the angels and the last trumpet forits execution. It was upon men and by the aid of men themselves thathe wished to act. A visionary who had no other idea than the proximityof the last judgment, would not have had this care for theamelioration of man, and would not have given utterance to the finestmoral teaching that humanity has received. Much vagueness no doubttinged his ideas, and it was rather a noble feeling than a fixeddesign, that urged him to the sublime work which was realized by him, though in a very different manner to what he imagined. 

It was indeed the kingdom of God, or in other words, the kingdom ofthe Spirit, which he founded; and if Jesus, from the bosom of hisFather, sees his work bear fruit in the world, he may indeed say withtruth, "This is what I have desired. " That which Jesus founded, thatwhich will remain eternally his, allowing for the imperfections whichmix themselves with everything realized by humanity, is the doctrineof the liberty of the soul. Greece had already had beautiful ideas onthis subject. [1] Various stoics had learned how to be free even undera tyrant. But in general the ancient world had regarded liberty asattached to certain political forms; freedom was personified inHarmodius and Aristogiton, Brutus and Cassius. The true Christianenjoys more real freedom; here below he is an exile; what matters itto him who is the transitory governor of this earth, which is not hishome? Liberty for him is truth. [2] Jesus did not know historysufficiently to understand that such a doctrine came most opportunelyat the moment when republican liberty ended, and when the smallmunicipal constitutions of antiquity were absorbed in the unity of theRoman empire. But his admirable good sense, and the truly propheticinstinct which he had of his mission, guided him with marvelouscertainty. By the sentence, "Render unto Cæsar the things which areCæsar's, and to God the things which are God's, " he created somethingapart from politics, a refuge for souls in the midst of the empire ofbrute force. Assuredly, such a doctrine had its dangers. To establishas a principle that we must recognize the legitimacy of a power by theinscription on its coins, to proclaim that the perfect man paystribute with scorn and without question, was to destroy republicanismin the ancient form, and to favor all tyranny. Christianity, in thissense, has contributed much to weaken the sense of duty of thecitizen, and to deliver the world into the absolute power of existingcircumstances. But in constituting an immense free association, whichduring three hundred years was able to dispense with politics, Christianity amply compensated for the wrong it had done to civicvirtues. The power of the state was limited to the things of earth;the mind was freed, or at least the terrible rod of Roman omnipotencewas broken forever. 

[Footnote 1: See Stobæus, _Florilegium_, ch. Lxii. , lxxvii. , lxxxvi. , and following. ]

[Footnote 2: John viii. 32, and following. ]

The man who is especially preoccupied with the duties of public life, does not readily forgive those who attach little importance to hisparty quarrels. He especially blames those who subordinate politicalto social questions, and profess a sort of indifference for theformer. In one sense he is right, for exclusive power is prejudicialto the good government of human affairs. But what progress have"parties" been able to effect in the general morality of our species?If Jesus, instead of founding his heavenly kingdom, had gone to Rome, had expended his energies in conspiring against Tiberius, or inregretting Germanicus, what would have become of the world? As anaustere republican, or zealous patriot, he would not have arrested thegreat current of the affairs of his age, but in declaring thatpolitics are insignificant, he has revealed to the world this truth, that one's country is not everything, and that the man is before, andhigher than, the citizen. 

Our principles of positive science are offended by the dreamscontained in the programme of Jesus. We know the history of the earth;cosmical revolutions of the kind which Jesus expected are onlyproduced by geological or astronomical causes, the connection of whichwith spiritual things has never yet been demonstrated. But, in orderto be just to great originators, they must not be judged by theprejudices in which they have shared. Columbus discovered America, though starting from very erroneous ideas; Newton believed his foolishexplanation of the Apocalypse to be as true as his system of theworld. Shall we place an ordinary man of our time above a Francisd'Assisi, a St. Bernard, a Joan of Arc, or a Luther, because he isfree from errors which these last have professed? Should we measuremen by the correctness of their ideas of physics, and by the more orless exact knowledge which they possess of the true system of theworld? Let us understand better the position of Jesus and that whichmade his power. The Deism of the eighteenth century, and a certainkind of Protestantism, have accustomed us to consider the founder ofthe Christian faith only as a great moralist, a benefactor of mankind. We see nothing more in the Gospel than good maxims; we throw a prudentveil over the strange intellectual state in which it was originated. There are even persons who regret that the French Revolution departedmore than once from principles, and that it was not brought about bywise and moderate men. Let us not impose our petty and commonplaceideas on these extraordinary movements so far above our every-daylife. Let us continue to admire the "morality of the gospel"--let ussuppress in our religious teachings the chimera which was its soul;but do not let us believe that with the simple ideas of happiness, orof individual morality, we stir the world. The idea of Jesus was muchmore profound; it was the most revolutionary idea ever formed in ahuman brain; it should be taken in its totality, and not with thosetimid suppressions which deprive it of precisely that which hasrendered it efficacious for the regeneration of humanity. 

The ideal is ever a Utopia. When we wish nowadays to represent theChrist of the modern conscience, the consoler, and the judge of thenew times, what course do we take? That which Jesus himself dideighteen hundred and thirty years ago. We suppose the conditions ofthe real world quite other than what they are; we represent a moralliberator breaking without weapons the chains of the negro, ameliorating the condition of the poor, and giving liberty tooppressed nations. We forget that this implies the subversion of theworld, the climate of Virginia and that of Congo modified, the bloodand the race of millions of men changed, our social complicationsrestored to a chimerical simplicity, and the political stratificationsof Europe displaced from their natural order. The "restitution of allthings"[1] desired by Jesus was not more difficult. This new earth, this new heaven, this new Jerusalem which comes from above, this cry:"Behold I make all things new!"[2] are the common characteristics ofreformers. The contrast of the ideal with the sad reality, alwaysproduces in mankind those revolts against unimpassioned reason whichinferior minds regard as folly, till the day arrives in which theytriumph, and in which those who have opposed them are the first torecognize their reasonableness. 

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ iii. 21. ]

[Footnote 2: _Rev. _ xxi. 1, 2, 5. ]

That there may have been a contradiction between the belief in theapproaching end of the world and the general moral system of Jesus, conceived in prospect of a permanent state of humanity, nearlyanalogous to that which now exists, no one will attempt to deny. [1] Itwas exactly this contradiction that insured the success of his work. The millenarian alone would have done nothing lasting; the moralistalone would have done nothing powerful. The millenarianism gave theimpulse, the moralist insured the future. Hence Christianity unitedthe two conditions of great success in this world, a revolutionarystarting-point, and the possibility of continuous life. Everythingwhich is intended to succeed ought to respond to these two wants; forthe world seeks both to change and to last. Jesus, at the same timethat he announced an unparalleled subversion in human affairs, proclaimed the principles upon which society has reposed for eighteenhundred years. 

[Footnote 1: The millenarian sects of England present the samecontrast, I mean the belief in the near end of the world, notwithstanding much good sense in the conduct of life, and anextraordinary understanding of commercial affairs and industry. ]

That which in fact distinguishes Jesus from the agitators of his time, and from those of all ages, is his perfect idealism. Jesus, in somerespects, was an anarchist, for he had no idea of civil government. That government seemed to him purely and simply an abuse. He spoke ofit in vague terms, and as a man of the people who had no idea ofpolitics. Every magistrate appeared to him a natural enemy of thepeople of God; he prepared his disciples for contests with the civilpowers, without thinking for a moment that there was anything in thisto be ashamed of. [1] But he never shows any desire to put himself inthe place of the rich and the powerful. He wishes to annihilate richesand power, but not to appropriate them. He predicts persecution andall kinds of punishment to his disciples;[2] but never once does thethought of armed resistance appear. The idea of being all-powerful bysuffering and resignation, and of triumphing over force by purity ofheart, is indeed an idea peculiar to Jesus. Jesus is not aspiritualist, for to him everything tended to a palpable realization;he had not the least notion of a soul separated from the body. But heis a perfect idealist, matter being only to him the sign of the idea, and the real, the living expression of that which does not appear. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. X. 17, 18; Luke xii. 11. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. V. 10, and following; x. Entirely; Luke vi. 22, andfollowing; John xv. 18, and following; xvi. 2, and following, 20, 33;xvii. 14. ]

To whom should we turn, to whom should we trust to establish thekingdom of God? The mind of Jesus on this point never hesitated. Thatwhich is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight ofGod. [1] The founders of the kingdom of God are the simple. Not therich, not the learned, not priests; but women, common people, thehumble, and the young. [2] The great characteristic of the Messiah is, that "the poor have the gospel preached to them. "[3] The idyllic andgentle nature of Jesus here resumed the superiority. A great socialrevolution, in which rank will be overturned, in which all authorityin this world will be humiliated, was his dream. The world will notbelieve him; the world will kill him. But his disciples will not be ofthe world. [4] They will be a little flock of the humble and thesimple, who will conquer by their very humility. The idea which hasmade "Christian" the antithesis of "worldly, " has its fulljustification in the thoughts of the master. [5]

[Footnote 1: Luke xvi. 15. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. V. 3, 10, xviii. 3, xix. 14, 23, 24, xxi. 31, xxii. 2, and following; Mark x. 14, 15, 23-25; Luke iv. 18, and following;vi. 20, xviii. 16, 17, 24, 25. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xi. 5. ]

[Footnote 4: John xv. 19, xvii. 14, 16. ]

[Footnote 5: See especially chapter xvii. Of St. John, expressing, ifnot a real discourse delivered by Jesus, at least a sentiment whichwas very deeply rooted in his disciples, and which certainly came fromhim. ]

CHAPTER VIII. 

JESUS AT CAPERNAUM. 

Beset by an idea, gradually becoming more and more imperious andexclusive, Jesus proceeds henceforth with a kind of fatalimpassibility in the path marked out by his astonishing genius and theextraordinary circumstances in which he lived. Hitherto he had onlycommunicated his thoughts to a few persons secretly attracted to him;henceforward his teaching was sought after by the public. He was aboutthirty years of age. [1] The little group of hearers who hadaccompanied him to John the Baptist had, doubtless, increased, andperhaps some disciples of John had attached themselves to him. [2] Itwas with this first nucleus of a church that he boldly announced, onhis return into Galilee, the "good tidings of the kingdom of God. "This kingdom was approaching, and it was he, Jesus, who was that "Sonof Man" whom Daniel had beheld in his vision as the divine herald ofthe last and supreme revelation. 

[Footnote 1: Luke iii. 23; Gospel of the Ebionites, in Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 13. ]

[Footnote 2: John i. 37, and following. ]

We must remember, that in the Jewish ideas, which were averse to artand mythology, the simple form of man had a superiority over that of_Cherubs_, and of the fantastic animals which the imagination of thepeople, since it had been subjected to the influence of Assyria, hadranged around the Divine Majesty. Already in Ezekiel, [1] the Beingseated on the supreme throne, far above the monsters of themysterious chariot, the great revealer of prophetic visions, had thefigure of a man. In the book of Daniel, in the midst of the vision ofthe empires, represented by animals, at the moment when the greatjudgment commences, and when the books are opened, a Being "like untoa Son of Man, " advances toward the Ancient of days, who confers on himthe power to judge the world, and to govern it for eternity. [2] _Sonof Man_, in the Semitic languages, especially in the Aramean dialects, is a simple synonym of _man_. But this chief passage of Daniel struckthe mind; the words, _Son of Man_, became, at least in certainschools, [3] one of the titles of the Messiah, regarded as judge of theworld, and as king of the new era about to be inaugurated. [4] Theapplication which Jesus made of it to himself was therefore theproclamation of his Messiahship, and the affirmation of the comingcatastrophe in which he was to figure as judge, clothed with the fullpowers which had been delegated to him by the Ancient of days. [5]

[Footnote 1: Chap. I. 5, 26, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Daniel vii. 13, 14; comp. Viii. 15, x. 16. ]

[Footnote 3: In John xii. 34, the Jews do not appear to be aware ofthe meaning of this word. ]

[Footnote 4: Book of Enoch, xlvi. 1-3, xlviii. 2, 3, lxii. 9, 14, lxx. 1 (division of Dilmann); Matt. X. 23, xiii. 41, xvi. 27, 28, xix. 28, xxiv. 27, 30, 37, 39, 44, xxv. 31, xxvi. 64; Mark xiii. 26, xiv. 62;Luke xii. 40, xvii. 24, 26, 30, xxi. 27, 36, xxii. 69; _Acts_ vii. 55. But the most significant passage is John v. 27, compared with _Rev. _i. 13, xiv. 14. The expression "Son of woman, " for the Messiah, occursonce in the book of Enoch, lxii. 5. ]

[Footnote 5: John v. 22, 27. ]

The success of the teaching of the new prophet was this time decisive. A group of men and women, all characterized by the same spirit ofjuvenile frankness and simple innocence, adhered to him, and said, "Thou art the Messiah. " As the Messiah was to be the son of David, they naturally conceded him this title, which was synonymous with theformer. Jesus allowed it with pleasure to be given to him, althoughit might cause him some embarrassment, his birth being well known. Thename which he preferred himself was that of "Son of Man, " anapparently humble title, but one which connected itself directly withthe Messianic hopes. This was the title by which he designatedhimself, [1] and he used "The Son of Man" as synonymous with thepronoun "I, " which he avoided. But he was never thus addressed, doubtless because the name in question would be fully applicable tohim only on the day of his future appearance. 

[Footnote 1: This title occurs eighty-three times in the Gospels, andalways in the discourses of Jesus. ]

His centre of action, at this epoch of his life, was the little townof Capernaum, situated on the shore of the lake of Gennesareth. Thename of Capernaum, containing the word _caphar_, "village, " seems todesignate a small town of the ancient character, in opposition to thegreat towns built according to the Roman method, like Tiberias. [1]That name was so little known that Josephus, in one passage of hiswritings, [2] takes it for the name of a fountain, the fountain havingmore celebrity than the village situated near it. Like Nazareth, Capernaum had no history, and had in no way participated in theprofane movement favored by the Herods. Jesus was much attached tothis town, and made it a second home. [3] Soon after his return, heattempted to commence his work at Nazareth, but without success. [4] Hecould not perform any miracle there, according to the simple remarkof one of his biographers. [5] The knowledge which existed there abouthis family, not an important one, injured his authority too much. People could not regard as the son of David, one whose brother, sister, and brother-in-law they saw every day, and it is remarkablebesides, that his family were strongly opposed to him, and plainlyrefused to believe in his mission. [6] The Nazarenes, much moreviolent, wished, it is said, to kill him by throwing him from a steeprock. [7] Jesus aptly remarked that this treatment was the fate of allgreat men, and applied to himself the proverb, "No one is a prophet inhis own country. "

[Footnote 1: It is true that Tell-Houm, which is generally identifiedwith Capernaum, contains the remains of somewhat fine monuments. But, besides this identification being doubtful, these monuments may be ofthe second or third century after Christ. ]

[Footnote 2: _B. J. _, III. X. 8. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Ix. 1; Mark ii. 1. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xiii. 54, and following; Mark vi. 1, and following;Luke iv. 16, and following, 23-24; John iv. 44. ]

[Footnote 5: Mark vi. 5; cf. Matt. Xii. 58; Luke iv. 23. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xiii. 57; Mark vi. 4; John vii. 3, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke iv. 29. Probably the rock referred to here is thepeak which is very near Nazareth, above the present church of theMaronites, and not the pretended _Mount of Precipitation_, at anhour's journey from Nazareth. See Robinson, ii. 335, and following. ]

This check far from discouraged him. He returned to Capernaum, [1]where he met with a much more favorable reception, and from thence heorganized a series of missions among the small surrounding towns. Thepeople of this beautiful and fertile country were scarcely everassembled except on Saturday. This was the day which he chose for histeaching. At that time each town had its synagogue, or place ofmeeting. This was a rectangular room, rather small, with a portico, decorated in the Greek style. The Jews not having any architecture oftheir own, never cared to give these edifices an original style. Theremains of many ancient synagogues still exist in Galilee. [2] They areall constructed of large and good materials; but their style issomewhat paltry, in consequence of the profusion of floral ornaments, foliage, and twisted work, which characterize the Jewish buildings. [3]In the interior there were seats, a chair for public reading, and acloset to contain the sacred rolls. [4] These edifices, which hadnothing of the character of a temple, were the centre of the wholeJewish life. There the people assembled on the Sabbath for prayer, andreading of the law and the prophets. As Judaism, except in Jerusalem, had, properly speaking, no clergy, the first comer stood up, gave thelessons of the day (_parasha_ and _haphtara_), and added thereto a_midrash_, or entirely personal commentary, in which he expressed hisown ideas. [5] This was the origin of the "homily, " the finished modelof which we find in the small treatises of Philo. The audience had theright of making objections and putting questions to the reader; sothat the meeting soon degenerated into a kind of free assembly. It hada president, [6] "elders, "[7] a _hazzan_, _i. E. _, a recognized reader, or apparitor, [8] deputies, [9] who were secretaries or messengers, andconducted the correspondence between one synagogue and another, a_shammash_, or sacristan. [10] The synagogues were thus really littleindependent republics, having an extensive jurisdiction. Like allmunicipal corporations, up to an advanced period of the Roman empire, they issued honorary decrees, [11] voted resolutions, which had theforce of law for the community, and ordained corporal punishments, ofwhich the _hazzan_ was the ordinary executor. [12]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Iv. 13; Luke iv. 31. ]

[Footnote 2: At Tell-Houm, Irbid (Arbela), Meiron (Mero), Jisch(Giscala), Kasyoun, Nabartein, and two at Kefr-Bereim. ]

[Footnote 3: I dare not decide upon the age of those buildings, norconsequently affirm that Jesus taught in any of them. How great wouldbe the interest attaching to the synagogue of Tell-Houm were we toadmit such an hypothesis! The great synagogue of Kefr-Bereim seems tome the most ancient of all. Its style is moderately pure. That ofKasyoun bears a Greek inscription of the time of Septimus Severus. Thegreat importance which Judaism acquired in Upper Galilee after theRoman war, leads us to believe that several of these edifices onlydate back to the third century--a time in which Tiberias became a sortof capital of Judaism. ]

[Footnote 4: 2 _Esdras_ viii. 4; Matt. Xxiii. 6; Epist. James ii. 3;Mishnah, _Megilla_, iii. 1; _Rosh Hasshana_, iv. 7, etc. Seeespecially the curious description of the synagogue of Alexandria inthe Talmud of Babylon, _Sukka_, 51 _b_. ]

[Footnote 5: Philo, quoted in Eusebius, _Præp. Evang. _, viii. 7, and_Quod Omnis Probus Liber_, § 12; Luke iv. 16; _Acts_ xiii. 15, xv. 21;Mishnah, _Megilla_, iii. 4, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: [Greek: Archisunagôgos]. ]

[Footnote 7: [Greek: Presbyteroi]. ]

[Footnote 8: [Greek: Hupêretês]. ]

[Footnote 9: [Greek: Apostoloi], or [Greek: angeloi]. ]

[Footnote 10: [Greek: Diakonos]. Mark v. 22, 35, and following; Lukeiv. 20, vii. 3, viii. 41, 49, xiii. 14; _Acts_ xiii. 15, xviii. 8, 17;_Rev. _ ii. 1; Mishnah, _Joma_, vii. 1; _Rosh Hasshana_, iv. 9; Talm. Of Jerus. , _Sanhedrim_, i. 7; Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 4, 11. ]

[Footnote 11: Inscription of Berenice, in the _Corpus Inscr. Græc. _, No. 5361; inscription of Kasyoun, in the _Mission de Phenicie_, bookiv. [in the press. ]]

[Footnote 12: Matt. V. 25, x. 17, xxiii. 34; Mark xiii. 9; Luke xx. 11, xxi. 12; _Acts_ xxii. 19, xxvi. 11; 2 _Cor. _ xi. 24; Mishnah, _Maccoth_, iii. 12; Talmud of Babylon, _Megilla_, 7 _b;_ Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 11. ]

With the extreme activity of mind which has always characterized theJews, such an institution, notwithstanding the arbitrary rigors ittolerated, could not fail to give rise to very animated discussions. Thanks to the synagogues, Judaism has been able to sustain intacteighteen centuries of persecution. They were like so many littleseparate worlds, in which the national spirit was preserved, and whichoffered a ready field for intestine struggles. A large amount ofpassion was expended there. The quarrels for precedence were ofconstant occurrence. To have a seat of honor in the first rank was thereward of great piety, or the most envied privilege of wealth. [1] Onthe other hand, the liberty, accorded to every one, of institutinghimself reader and commentator of the sacred text, afforded marvelousfacilities for the propagation of new ideas. This was one of thegreat instruments of power wielded by Jesus, and the most habitualmeans he employed to propound his doctrinal instruction. [2] He enteredthe synagogue, and stood up to read; the _hazzan_ offered him thebook, he unrolled it, and reading the _parasha_ or the _haphtara_ ofthe day, he drew from this reading a lesson in conformity with his ownideas. [3] As there were few Pharisees in Galilee, the discussion didnot assume that degree of vivacity, and that tone of acrimony againsthim, which at Jerusalem would have arrested him at the outset. Thesegood Galileans had never heard discourses so adapted to their cheerfulimaginations. [4] They admired him, they encouraged him, they foundthat he spoke well, and that his reasons were convincing. He answeredthe most difficult objections with confidence; the charm of his speechand his person captivated the people, whose simple minds had not yetbeen cramped by the pedantry of the doctors. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxiii. 6; Epist. James ii. 3; Talmud of Bab. , _Sukka_, 51 _b_. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Iv. 23, ix. 35; Mark i. 21, 39, vi. 2; Luke iv. 15, 16, 31, 44, xiii. 10; John xviii. 20. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke iv. 16, and following. Comp. Mishnah, _Joma_, vii. 1. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Vii. 28, xiii. 54; Mark i. 22, vi. 1; Luke iv. 22, 32. ]

The authority of the young master thus continued increasing every day, and, naturally, the more people believed in him, the more he believedin himself. His sphere of action was very limited. It was confined tothe valley in which the Lake of Tiberias is situated, and even in thisvalley there was one region which he preferred. The lake is five orsix leagues long and three or four broad; although it presents theappearance of an almost perfect oval, it forms, commencing fromTiberias up to the entrance of the Jordan, a sort of gulf, the curveof which measures about three leagues. Such is the field in which theseed sown by Jesus found at last a well-prepared soil. Let us runover it step by step, and endeavor to raise the mantle of aridity andmourning with which it has been covered by the demon of Islamism. 

On leaving Tiberias, we find at first steep rocks, like a mountainwhich seems to roll into the sea. Then the mountains gradually recede;a plain (_El Ghoueir_) opens almost at the level of the lake. It is adelightful copse of rich verdure, furrowed by abundant streams whichproceed partly from a great round basin of ancient construction(_Ain-Medawara_). At the entrance of this plain, which is, properlyspeaking, the country of Gennesareth, there is the miserable villageof _Medjdel_. At the other extremity of the plain (always followingthe sea), we come to the site of a town (_Khan-Minyeh_), with verybeautiful streams (_Ain-et-Tin_), a pretty road, narrow and deep, cutout of the rock, which Jesus often traversed, and which serves as apassage between the plain of Gennesareth and the northern slopes ofthe lake. A quarter of an hour's journey from this place, we cross astream of salt water (_Ain-Tabiga_), issuing from the earth by severallarge springs at a little distance from the lake, and entering it inthe midst of a dense mass of verdure. At last, after a journey offorty minutes further, upon the arid declivity which extends fromAin-Tabiga to the mouth of the Jordan, we find a few huts and acollection of monumental ruins, called _Tell-Houm_. 

Five small towns, the names of which mankind will remember as long asthose of Rome and Athens, were, in the time of Jesus, scattered in thespace which extends from the village of Medjdel to Tell-Houm. Of thesefive towns, Magdala, Dalmanutha, Capernaum, Bethsaida, andChorazin, [1] the first alone can be found at the present time withany certainty. The repulsive village of Medjdel has no doubt preservedthe name and the place of the little town which gave to Jesus his mostfaithful female friend. [2] Dalmanutha[3] was probably near there. Itis possible that Chorazin was a little more inland, on the northernside. [4] As to Bethsaida and Capernaum, it is in truth almost athazard that they have been placed at Tell-Houm, Ain-et-Tin, Khan-Minyeh, and Ain-Medawara. [5] We might say that in topography, aswell as in history, a profound design has wished to conceal the tracesof the great founder. It is doubtful whether we shall ever be able, upon this extensively devastated soil, to ascertain the places wheremankind would gladly come to kiss the imprint of his feet. 

[Footnote 1: The ancient Kinnereth had disappeared or changed itsname. ]

[Footnote 2: We know in fact that it was very near Tiberias. --Talmudof Jerusalem, _Maasaroth_, iii. 1; _Shebiit_, ix. 1; _Erubin_, v. 7. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark viii. 10. Comp. Matt. Xv. 39. ]

[Footnote 4: In the place named _Khorazi_ or _Bir-kerazeh_, aboveTell-Houm. ]

[Footnote 5: The ancient hypothesis which identified Tell-Houm withCapernaum, though strongly disputed some years since, has stillnumerous defenders. The best argument we can give in its favor is thename of _Tell-Houm_ itself, _Tell_ entering into the names of manyvillages, and being a substitute for _Caphar_. It is impossible, onthe other hand, to find near Tell-Houm a fountain corresponding tothat mentioned by Josephus (_B. J. _, III. X. 8. ) This fountain ofCapernaum seems to be Ain-Medawara, but Ain-Medawara is half an hour'sjourney from the lake, while Capernaum was a fishing town on theborders of the lake (Matt. Iv. 13; John vi. 17. ) The difficultiesabout Bethsaida are still greater; for the hypothesis, somewhatgenerally admitted, of two Bethsaidas, the one on the eastern, theother on the western shore of the lake, and at two or three leaguesfrom one another, is rather singular. ]

The lake, the horizon, the shrubs, the flowers, are all that remain ofthe little canton, three or four leagues in extent, where Jesusfounded his Divine work. The trees have totally disappeared. In thiscountry, in which the vegetation was formerly so brilliant thatJosephus saw in it a kind of miracle--Nature, according to him, beingpleased to bring hither side by side the plants of cold countries, theproductions of the torrid zone, and the trees of temperate climates, laden all the year with flowers and fruits[1]--in this countrytravellers are obliged now to calculate a day beforehand the placewhere they will the next day find a shady resting-place. The lake hasbecome deserted. A single boat in the most miserable condition nowploughs the waves once so rich in life and joy. But the waters arealways clear and transparent. [2] The shore, composed of rocks andpebbles, is that of a little sea, not that of a pond, like the shoresof Lake Huleh. It is clean, neat, free from mud, and always beaten inthe same place by the light movement of the waves. Small promontories, covered with rose laurels, tamarisks, and thorny caper bushes, areseen there; at two places, especially at the mouth of the Jordan, nearTarichea, and at the boundary of the plain of Gennesareth, there areenchanting parterres, where the waves ebb and flow over masses of turfand flowers. The rivulet of Ain-Tabiga makes a little estuary, full ofpretty shells. Clouds of aquatic birds hover over the lake. Thehorizon is dazzling with light. The waters, of an empyrean blue, deeply imbedded amid burning rocks, seem, when viewed from the heightof the mountains of Safed, to lie at the bottom of a cup of gold. Onthe north, the snowy ravines of Hermon are traced in white lines uponthe sky; on the west, the high, undulating plateaux of Gaulonitis andPerea, absolutely arid, and clothed by the sun with a sort of velvetyatmosphere, form one compact mountain, or rather a long and veryelevated terrace, which from Cæsarea Philippi runs indefinitely towardthe south. 

[Footnote 1: _B. J. _, III. X. 8. ]

[Footnote 2: _B. J. _, III. X. 7; Jac. De Vitri, in the _Gesta Dei perFrancos_, i. 1075. ]

The heat on the shore is now very oppressive. The lake lies in ahollow six hundred and fifty feet below the level of theMediterranean, [1] and thus participates in the torrid conditions ofthe Dead Sea. [2] An abundant vegetation formerly tempered theseexcessive heats; it would be difficult to understand that a furnace, such as the whole basin of the lake now is, commencing from the monthof May, had ever been the scene of great activity. Josephus, moreover, considered the country very temperate. [3] No doubt there has beenhere, as in the _campagna_ of Rome, a change of climate introduced byhistorical causes. It is Islamism, and especially the Mussulmanreaction against the Crusades, which has withered as with a blast ofdeath the district preferred by Jesus. The beautiful country ofGennesareth never suspected that beneath the brow of this peacefulwayfarer its highest destinies lay hidden. 

[Footnote 1: This is the estimate of Captain Lynch (in Ritter, _Erdkunde_ xv. , 1st part, p. 20. ) It nearly agrees with that of M. DeBertou (_Bulletin de la Soc. De Geogr. _, 2d series, xii. , p. 146. )]

[Footnote 2: The depression of the Dead Sea is twice as much. ]

[Footnote 3: _B. J. _, III. X. 7 and 8. ]

Dangerous countryman! Jesus has been fatal to the country which hadthe formidable honor of bearing him. Having become a universal objectof love or of hate, coveted by two rival fanaticisms, Galilee, as theprice of its glory, has been changed to a desert. But who would saythat Jesus would have been happier, if he had lived obscure in hisvillage to the full age of man? And who would think of theseungrateful Nazarenes, if one of them had not, at the risk ofcompromising the future of their town, recognized his Father, andproclaimed himself the Son of God?

Four or five large villages, situated at half an hour's journey fromone another, formed the little world of Jesus at the time of which wespeak. He appears never to have visited Tiberias, a city inhabited formost part by Pagans, and the habitual residence of Antipas. [1]Sometimes, however, he wandered from his favorite region. He went byboat to the eastern shore, to Gergesa, for instance. [2] Toward thenorth we see him at Paneas or Cæsarea Philippi, [3] at the foot ofMount Hermon. Lastly, he journeyed once in the direction of Tyre andSidon, [4] a country which must have been marvellously flourishing atthat time. In all these countries he was in the midst of Paganism. [5]At Cæsarea, he saw the celebrated grotto of _Panium_, thought to bethe source of the Jordan, and with which the popular belief hadassociated strange legends;[6] he could admire the marble temple whichHerod had erected near there in honor of Augustus;[7] he probablystopped before the numerous votive statues to Pan, to the Nymphs, tothe Echo of the Grotto, which piety had already begun to accumulate inthis beautiful place. [8]

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Ii. 3; _Vita_, 12, 13, 64. ]

[Footnote 2: I adopt the opinion of Dr. Thomson (_The Land and theBook_, ii. 34, and following), according to which the Gergesa ofMatthew viii. 28, identical with the Canaanite town of _Girgash_(_Gen. _ x. 16, xv. 21; _Deut. _ vii. 1; _Josh. _ xxiv. 11), would be thesite now named _Kersa_ or _Gersa_, on the eastern shore, nearlyopposite Magdala. Mark v. 1, and Luke viii. 26, name _Gadara_ or_Gerasa_ instead of Gergesa. _Gerasa_ is an impossible reading, theevangelists teaching us that the town in question was near the lakeand opposite Galilee. As to Gadara, now _Om-Keis_, at a journey of anhour and a half from the lake and from the Jordan, the localcircumstances given by Mark and Luke scarcely suit it. It is possible, moreover, that _Gergesa_ may have become _Gerasa_, a much more commonname, and that the topographical impossibilities which this latterreading offered may have caused Gadara to be adopted. --Cf. Orig. , _Comment. In Joann. _, vi. 24, x. 10; Eusebius and St. Jerome, _De situet nomin. Loc. Hebr. _, at the words [Greek: Gergesa], [Greek:Gergasei]. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xvi. 13; Mark viii. 27. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xv. 21; Mark vii. 24, 31. ]

[Footnote 5: Jos. , _Vita_, 13. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. X. 3; _B. J. _, I. Xxi. 3, III. X. 7;Benjamin of Tudela, p. 46, edit. Asher. ]

[Footnote 7: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. X. 3. ]

[Footnote 8: _Corpus inscr. Gr. _, Nos. 4537, 4538, 4538 _b_, 4539. ]

A rationalistic Jew, accustomed to take strange gods for deified menor for demons, would consider all these figurative representations asidols. The seductions of the naturalistic worships, which intoxicatedthe more sensitive nations, never affected him. He was doubtlessignorant of what the ancient sanctuary of Melkarth, at Tyre, mightstill contain of a primitive worship more or less analogous to that ofthe Jews. [1] The Paganism which, in Phoenicia, had raised a temple anda sacred grove on every hill, all this aspect of great industry andprofane riches, [2] interested him but little. Monotheism takes awayall aptitude for comprehending the Pagan religion; the Mussulman, thrown into polytheistic countries, seems to have no eyes. Jesusassuredly learned nothing in these journeys. He returned always to hiswell-beloved shore of Gennesareth. There was the centre of histhoughts; there he found faith and love. 

[Footnote 1: Lucianus (ut fertur), _De Dea Syria_, 3. ]

[Footnote 2: The traces of the rich Pagan civilization of that timestill cover all the Beled-Besharrah, and especially the mountainswhich form the group of Cape Blanc and Cape Nakoura. ]

CHAPTER IX. 

THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 

In this terrestrial paradise, which the great revolutions of historyhad till then scarcely touched, there lived a population in perfectharmony with the country itself, active, honest, joyous, andtender-hearted. The Lake of Tiberias is one of the best supplied withfish of any in the world. [1] Very productive fisheries wereestablished, especially at Bethsaida, and at Capernaum, and hadproduced a certain degree of wealth. These families of fishermenformed a gentle and peaceable society, extending by numerous ties ofrelationship through the whole district of the lake which we havedescribed. Their comparatively easy life left entire freedom to theirimagination. The ideas about the kingdom of God found in these smallcompanies of worthy people more credence than anywhere else. Nothingof that which we call civilization, in the Greek and worldly sense, had reached them. Neither was there any of our Germanic and Celticearnestness; but, although goodness amongst them was often superficialand without depth, their habits were quiet, and they were in somedegree intelligent and shrewd. We may imagine them as somewhatanalogous to the better populations of the Lebanon, but with the gift, not possessed by the latter, of producing great men. Jesus met herehis true family. He installed himself as one of them; Capernaumbecame "his own city;"[2] in the centre of the little circle whichadored him, he forgot his sceptical brothers, ungrateful Nazareth andits mocking incredulity. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Iv. 18; Luke v. 44, and following; John i. 44, xxi. 1, and following; Jos. , _B. J. _, III. X. 7; Jac. De Vitri, in the_Gesta Dei per Francos_, i. P. 1075. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Ix. 1; Mark ii. 1, 2. ]

One house especially at Capernaum offered him an agreeable refuge anddevoted disciples. It was that of two brothers, both sons of a certainJonas, who probably was dead at the period when Jesus came to stay onthe borders of the lake. These two brothers were Simon, surnamed_Cephas_ or _Peter_, and Andrew. Born at Bethsaida, [1] they wereestablished at Capernaum when Jesus commenced his public life. Peterwas married and had children; his mother-in-law lived with him. [2]Jesus loved this house and dwelt there habitually. [3] Andrew appearsto have been a disciple of John the Baptist, and Jesus had perhapsknown him on the banks of the Jordan. [4] The two brothers continuedalways, even at the period in which it seems they must have been mostoccupied with their master, to follow their business as fishermen. [5]Jesus, who loved to play upon words, said at times that he would makethem fishers of men. [6] In fact, among all his disciples he had nonemore faithfully attached. 

[Footnote 1: John i. 44. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Viii. 14; Mark i. 30; Luke iv. 38; 1 _Cor. _ ix. 5;1 Peter v. 13; Clem. Alex. , _Strom. _, iii. 6, vii. 11; Pseudo-Clem. , _Recogn. _, vii. 25; Eusebius, _H. E. _, iii. 30. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Viii. 14, xvii. 24; Mark i. 29-31; Luke iv. 38. ]

[Footnote 4: John i. 40, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 3; John xxi. 3. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Iv. 19; Mark i. 17; Luke v. 10. ]

Another family, that of Zabdia or Zebedee, a well-to-do fisherman andowner of several boats, [1] gave Jesus a welcome reception. Zebedee hadtwo sons: James, who was the elder, and a younger son, John, who laterwas called to play so prominent a part in the history of infantChristianity. Both were zealous disciples. Salome, wife of Zebedee, was also much attached to Jesus, and accompanied him until hisdeath. [2]

[Footnote 1: Mark i. 20; Luke v. 10, viii. 3; John xix. 27. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1. ]

Women, in fact, received him with eagerness. He manifested toward themthose reserved manners which render a very sweet union of ideaspossible between the two sexes. The separation of men from women, which has prevented all refined development among the Semitic peoples, was no doubt then, as in our days, much less rigorous in the ruraldistricts and villages than in the large towns. Three or four devotedGalilean women always accompanied the young master, and disputed thepleasure of listening to and of tending him in turn. [1] They infusedinto the new sect an element of enthusiasm and of the marvellous, theimportance of which had already begun to be understood. One of them, Mary of Magdala, who has rendered the name of this poor town socelebrated in the world, appears to have been of a very enthusiastictemperament. According to the language of the time, she had beenpossessed by seven demons. [2] That is, she had been affected withnervous and apparently inexplicable maladies. Jesus, by his pure andsweet beauty, calmed this troubled nature. The Magdalene was faithfulto him, even unto Golgotha, and on the day but one after his death, played a prominent part; for, as we shall see later, she was theprincipal means by which faith in the resurrection was established. Joanna, wife of Chuza, one of the stewards of Antipas, Susanna, andothers who have remained unknown, followed him constantly andministered unto him. [3] Some were rich, and by their fortune enabledthe young prophet to live without following the trade which he haduntil then practiced. [4]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41; Luke viii. 2, 3, xxiii. 49. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2; cf. _Tobit_ iii. 8, vi. 14. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke viii. 3, xxiv. 10. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke viii. 3. ]

Many others followed him habitually, and recognized him as theirmaster--a certain Philip of Bethsaida; Nathanael, son of Tolmai orPtolemy, of Cana, perhaps a disciple of the first period;[1] andMatthew, probably the one who was the Xenophon of the infantChristianity. The latter had been a publican, and, as such, doubtlesshandled the _Kalam_ more easily than the others. Perhaps it was thisthat suggested to him the idea of writing the _Logia_, [2] which arethe basis of what we know of the teachings of Jesus. Among thedisciples are also mentioned Thomas, or Didymus, [3] who doubtedsometimes, but who appears to have been a man of warm heart and ofgenerous sympathies;[4] one Lebbæus, or Thaddeus; Simon Zelotes, [5]perhaps a disciple of Judas the Gaulonite, belonging to the party ofthe _Kenaïm_, which was formed about that time, and which was soon toplay so great a part in the movements of the Jewish people. Lastly, Judas, son of Simon, of the town of Kerioth, who was an exception inthe faithful flock, and drew upon himself such a terrible notoriety. He was the only one who was not a Galilean. Kerioth was a town at theextreme south of the tribe of Judah, [6] a day's journey beyond Hebron. 

[Footnote 1: John i. 44, and following; xxi. 2. I admit theidentification of Nathanael with the apostle who figures in the listsunder the name of Bartholomew. ]

[Footnote 2: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 39. ]

[Footnote 3: This second name is the Greek translation of the first. ]

[Footnote 4: John xi. 16, xx. 24, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. X. 4; Mark iii. 18; Luke vi. 15; _Acts_ i. 13;Gospel of the Ebionites, in Epiphanes, _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 13. ]

[Footnote 6: Now _Kuryétein_, or _Kereitein_. ]

We have seen that in general the family of Jesus were little inclinedtoward him. [1] James and Jude, however, his cousins by Mary Cleophas, henceforth became his disciples, and Mary Cleophas herself was one ofthe women who followed him to Calvary. [2] At this period we do not seehis mother beside him. It was only after the death of Jesus that Maryacquired great importance, [3] and that the disciples sought to attachher to themselves. [4] It was then, also, that the members of thefamily of the founder, under the title of "brothers of of the Lord, "formed an influential group, which was a long time at the head of thechurch of Jerusalem, and which, after the sack of the city, tookrefuge in Batanea. [5] The simple fact of having been familiar with himbecame a decisive advantage, in the same manner as, after the death ofMahomet, the wives and daughters of the prophet, who had no importancein his life, became great authorities. 

[Footnote 1: The circumstance related in John xix. 25-27 seems toimply that at no period of the public life of Jesus did his ownbrothers become attached to him. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; John xix. 25. ]

[Footnote 3: _Acts_ i. 14. Compare Luke i. 28, ii. 35, alreadyimplying a great respect for Mary. ]

[Footnote 4: John xix. 25, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Julius Africanus, in Eusebius, _H. E. _, i. 7. ]

In this friendly group Jesus had evidently his favorites, and, so tospeak, an inner circle. The two sons of Zebedee, James and John, appear to have been in the first rank. They were full of fire andpassion. Jesus had aptly surnamed them "sons of thunder, " on accountof their excessive zeal, which, if it could have controlled thethunder, would often have made use of it. [1] John, especially, appearsto have been on very familiar terms with Jesus. Perhaps the warmaffection which the master felt for this disciple has beenexaggerated in his Gospel, in which the personal interests of thewriter are not sufficiently concealed. [2] The most significant factis, that, in the synoptical Gospels, Simon Bar-jona, or Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and John, his brother, form a sort of intimatecouncil, which Jesus calls at certain times, when he suspects thefaith and intelligence of the others. [3] It seems, moreover, that theywere all three associated in their fishing. [4] The affection of Jesusfor Peter was strong. The character of the latter--upright, sincere, impulsive--pleased Jesus, who at times permitted himself to smile athis resolute manners. Peter, little of a mystic, communicated to themaster his simple doubts, his repugnances, and his entirely humanweaknesses, [5] with an honest frankness which recalls that ofJoinville toward St. Louis. Jesus chided him, in a friendly manner, full of confidence and esteem. As to John, his youth, [6] his exquisitetenderness of heart, [7] and his lively imagination, [8] must have had agreat charm. The personality of this extraordinary man, who hasexerted so peculiar an influence on infant Christianity, did notdevelop itself till afterward. When old, he wrote that strangeGospel, [9] which contains such precious teaching, but in which, in ouropinion, the character of Jesus is falsified upon many points. Thenature of John was too powerful and too profound for him to bendhimself to the impersonal tone of the first evangelists. He was thebiographer of Jesus, as Plato was of Socrates. Accustomed to ponderover his recollections with the feverish restlessness of an excitedmind, he transformed his master in wishing to describe him, andsometimes he leaves it to be suspected (unless other hands havealtered his work) that perfect good faith was not invariably his ruleand law in the composition of this singular writing. 

[Footnote 1: Mark iii. 17, ix. 37, and following; x. 35, andfollowing; Luke ix. 49, and following; 54, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: John xiii. 23, xviii. 15, and following, xix. 26, 27, xx. 2, 4, xxi. 7, 20, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xvii. 1, xxvi. 37; Mark v. 37, ix. 1, xiii. 3, xiv. 33; Luke ix. 28. The idea that Jesus had communicated to these threedisciples a Gnosis, or secret doctrine, was very early spread. It issingular that John, in his Gospel, does not once mention James, hisbrother. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Iv. 18-22; Luke v. 10; John xxi. 2, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xiv. 28, xvi. 22; Mark viii. 32, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: He appears to have lived till near the year 100. See hisGospel, xxi. 15-23, and the ancient authorities collected by Eusebius, _H. E. _, iii. 20, 23. ]

[Footnote 7: See the epistles attributed to him, which are certainlyby the same author as the fourth Gospel. ]

[Footnote 8: Nevertheless we do not mean to affirm that the Apocalypseis by him. ]

[Footnote 9: The common tradition seems sufficiently justified to meon this point. It is evident, besides, that the school of Johnretouched his Gospel (see the whole of chap. Xxi. )]

No hierarchy, properly speaking, existed in the new sect. They were tocall each other "brothers;" and Jesus absolutely proscribed titles ofsuperiority, such as _rabbi_, "master, " father--he alone being master, and God alone being father. The greatest was to become the servant ofthe others. [1] Simon Bar-jona, however, was distinguished amongst hisfellows by a peculiar degree of importance. Jesus lived with him, andtaught in his boat;[2] his house was the centre of the Gospelpreaching. In public he was regarded as the chief of the flock; and itis to him that the overseers of the tolls address themselves tocollect the taxes which were due from the community. [3] He was thefirst who had recognized Jesus as the Messiah. [4] In a moment ofunpopularity, Jesus, asking of his disciples, "Will ye also go away?"Simon answered, "Lord, to whom should we go? Thou hast the words ofeternal life. "[5] Jesus, at various times, gave him a certain priorityin his church;[6] and gave him the Syrian surname of _Kepha_ (stone), by which he wished to signify by that, that he made him thecorner-stone of the edifice. [7] At one time he seems even to promisehim "the keys of the kingdom of heaven, " and to grant him the right ofpronouncing upon earth decisions which should always be ratified ineternity. [8]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xviii. 4, xx. 25-26, xxiii. 8-12; Mark ix. 34, x. 42-46. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke v. 3. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xvii. 23. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xvi. 16, 17. ]

[Footnote 5: John vi. 68-70. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. X. 2; Luke xxii. 32; John xxi. 15, and following;_Acts_ i. , ii. , v. , etc. ; _Gal. _ i. 18, ii. 7, 8. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xvi. 18; John i. 42. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Xvi. 19. Elsewhere, it is true (Matt. Xviii. 18), the same power is granted to all the apostles. ]

No doubt, this priority of Peter excited a little jealousy. Jealousywas kindled especially in view of the future--and of this kingdom ofGod, in which all the disciples would be seated upon thrones, on theright and on the left of the master, to judge the twelve tribes ofIsrael. [1] They asked who would then be nearest to the Son of man, andact in a manner as his prime minister and assessor. The two sons ofZebedee aspired to this rank. Preoccupied with such a thought, theyprompted their mother Salome, who one day took Jesus aside, and askedhim for the two places of honor for her sons. [2] Jesus evaded therequest by his habitual maxim that he who exalteth himself shall behumbled, and that the kingdom of heaven will be possessed by thelowly. This created some disturbance in the community; there was greatdiscontent against James and John. [3] The same rivalry appears to showitself in the Gospel of John, where the narrator unceasingly declareshimself to be "the disciple whom Jesus loved, " to whom the master indying confided his mother, and seeks systematically to place himselfnear Simon Peter, and at times to put himself before him, in importantcircumstances where the older evangelists had omitted mentioninghim. [4]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xviii. 1, and following; Mark ix. 33; Luke ix. 46, xxii. 30. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xx. 20, and following; Mark x. 35, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark x. 41. ]

[Footnote 4: John xviii. 15, and following, xix. 26, 27, xx. 2, andfollowing, xxi. 7, 21. Comp. I. 35, and following, in which thedisciple referred to is probably John. ]

Among the preceding personages, all those of whom we know anything hadbegun by being fishermen. At all events, none of them belonged to asocially elevated class. Only Matthew or Levi, son of Alpheus, [1] hadbeen a publican. But those to whom they gave this name in Judea werenot the farmers-general of taxes, men of elevated rank (always Romanpatricians), who were called at Rome _publicani_. [2] They were theagents of these contractors, employés of low rank, simply officers ofthe customs. The great route from Acre to Damascus, one of the mostancient routes of the world, which crossed Galilee, skirting thelake, [3] made this class of employé very numerous there. Capernaum, which was perhaps on the road, possessed a numerous staff of them. [4]This profession is never popular, but with the Jews it was consideredquite criminal. Taxation, new to them, was the sign of theirsubjection; one school, that of Judas the Gaulonite, maintained thatto pay it was an act of paganism. The customs-officers, also, wereabhorred by the zealots of the law. They were only named in companywith assassins, highway robbers, and men of infamous life. [5] The Jewswho accepted such offices were excommunicated, and became incapable ofmaking a will; their money was accursed, and the casuists forbade thechanging of money with them. [6] These poor men, placed under the banof society, visited amongst themselves. Jesus accepted a dinneroffered him by Levi, at which there were, according to the language ofthe time, "many publicans and sinners. " This gave great offense. [7] Inthese ill-reputed houses there was a risk of meeting bad society. Weshall often see him thus, caring little to shock the prejudices ofwell-disposed persons, seeking to elevate the classes humiliated bythe orthodox, and thus exposing himself to the liveliest reproaches ofthe zealots. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Ix. 9, x. 3; Mark ii. 14, iii. 18; Luke v. 27, vi. 15; _Acts_ i. 13. Gospel of the Ebionites, in Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 13. We must suppose, however strange it may seem, that these twonames were borne by the same personage. The narrative, Matt. Ix. 9, conceived in accordance with the ordinary model of legends, describingthe call to apostleship, is, it is true, somewhat vague, and hascertainly not been written by the apostle in question. But we mustremember that, in the existing Gospel of Matthew, the only part whichis by the apostle consists of the Discourses of Jesus. See Papias, inEusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, III. 39. ]

[Footnote 2: Cicero, _De Provinc. Consular. _, 5; _Pro Plancio_, 9;Tac. , _Ann. _, IV. 6; Pliny, _Hist. Nat. _, XII. 32; Appian, _Bell. Civ. _, II. 13. ]

[Footnote 3: It remained celebrated, up to the time of the Crusades, under the name of _Via Maris_. Cf. Isaiah ix. 1; Matt. Iv. 13-15;Tobit, i. 1. I think that the road cut in the rock near Ain-et-Tinformed part of it, and that the route was directed from thence towardthe _Bridge of the Daughters of Jacob_, just as it is now. A part ofthe road from Ain-et-Tin to this bridge is of ancient construction. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Ix. 9, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. V. 46, 47, ix. 10, 11, xi. 19, xviii. 17, xxi. 31, 32; Mark ii. 15, 16; Luke v. 30, vii. 34, xv. 1, xviii. 11, xix. 7;Lucian, _Necyomant_, ii. ; Dio Chrysost. , orat. Iv. , p. 85, orat. Xiv. , p. 269 (edit. Emperius); Mishnah, _Nedarim_, iii. 4. ]

[Footnote 6: Mishnah, _Baba Kama_, x. 1; Talmud of Jerusalem, _Demai_, ii. 3; Talmud of Bab. , _Sanhedrim_, 25 _b_. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke v. 29, and following. ]

Jesus owed these numerous conquests to the infinite charm of hisperson and his speech. A penetrating word, a look falling upon asimple conscience, which only wanted awakening, gave him an ardentdisciple. Sometimes Jesus employed an innocent artifice, which Joan ofArc also used: he affected to know something intimate respecting himwhom he wished to gain, or he would perhaps recall to him somecircumstance dear to his heart. It was thus that he attractedNathanael, [1] Peter, [2] and the Samaritan woman. [3] Concealing thetrue source of his strength--his superiority over all that surroundedhim--he permitted people to believe (in order to satisfy the ideas ofthe time--ideas which, moreover, fully coincided with his own) that arevelation from on high revealed to him all secrets and laid bare allhearts. Every one thought that Jesus lived in a sphere superior tothat of humanity. They said that he conversed on the mountains withMoses and Elias;[4] they believed that in his moments of solitude theangels came to render him homage, and established a supernaturalintercourse between him and heaven. [5]

[Footnote 1: John i. 48, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: John i. 42. ]

[Footnote 3: John iv. 17, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xvii. 3; Mark ix. 3; Luke ix. 30-31. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Iv. 11; Mark i. 13. ]

CHAPTER X. 

THE PREACHINGS ON THE LAKE. 

Such was the group which, on the borders of the lake of Tiberias, gathered around Jesus. The aristocracy was represented there by acustoms-officer and by the wife of one of Herod's stewards. The restwere fishermen and common people. Their ignorance was extreme; theirintelligence was feeble; they believed in apparitions and spirits. [1]Not one element of Greek culture had penetrated this first assembly ofthe saints. They had very little Jewish instruction; but heart andgood-will overflowed. The beautiful climate of Galilee made the lifeof these honest fishermen a perpetual delight. They truly preluded thekingdom of God--simple, good, and happy--rocked gently on theirdelightful little sea, or at night sleeping on its shores. We do notrealize to ourselves the intoxication of a life which thus glides awayin the face of heaven--the sweet yet strong love which this perpetualcontact with Nature gives, and the dreams of these nights passed inthe brightness of the stars, under an azure dome of infinite expanse. It was during such a night that Jacob, with his head resting upon astone, saw in the stars the promise of an innumerable posterity, andthe mysterious ladder by which the angels of God came and went fromheaven to earth. At the time of Jesus the heavens were not closed, northe earth grown cold. The cloud still opened above the Son of man;the angels ascended and descended upon his head;[2] the visions ofthe kingdom of God were everywhere, for man carried them in his heart. The clear and mild eyes of these simple souls contemplated theuniverse in its ideal source. The world unveiled perhaps its secret tothe divinely enlightened conscience of these happy children, whosepurity of heart deserved one day to behold God. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 26; Mark vi. 49; Luke xxiv. 39; John vi. 19. ]

[Footnote 2: John i. 51. ]

Jesus lived with his disciples almost always in the open air. Sometimes he got into a boat, and instructed his hearers, who werecrowded upon the shore. [1] Sometimes he sat upon the mountains whichbordered the lake, where the air is so pure and the horizon soluminous. The faithful band led thus a joyous and wandering life, gathering the inspirations of the master in their first bloom. Aninnocent doubt was sometimes raised, a question slightly sceptical;but Jesus, with a smile or a look, silenced the objection. At eachstep--in the passing cloud, the germinating seed, the ripeningcorn--they saw the sign of the Kingdom drawing nigh, they believedthemselves on the eve of seeing God, of being masters of the world;tears were turned into joy; it was the advent upon earth of universalconsolation. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiii. 1, 2; Mark iii. 9, iv. 1; Luke v. 3. ]

"Blessed, " said the master, "are the poor in spirit: for theirs is thekingdom of heaven. 

"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: forthey shall be filled. 

"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 

"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children ofGod. 

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: fortheirs is the kingdom of heaven. "[1]

[Footnote 1: Matt. V. 3-10; Luke vi. 20-25. ]

His preaching was gentle and pleasing, breathing Nature and theperfume of the fields. He loved the flowers, and took from them hismost charming lessons. The birds of heaven, the sea, the mountains, and the games of children, furnished in turn the subject of hisinstructions. His style had nothing of the Grecian in it, butapproached much more to that of the Hebrew parabolists, and especiallyof sentences from the Jewish doctors, his contemporaries, such as weread them in the "_Pirké Aboth_. " His teachings were not veryextended, and formed a species of sorites in the style of the Koran, which, joined together, afterward composed those long discourses whichwere written by Matthew. [1] No transition united these diverse pieces;generally, however, the same inspiration penetrated them and made themone. It was, above all, in parable that the master excelled. Nothingin Judaism had given him the model of this delightful style. [2] Hecreated it. It is true that we find in the Buddhist books parables ofexactly the same tone and the same character as the Gospelparables;[3] but it is difficult to admit that a Buddhist influencehas been exercised in these. The spirit of gentleness and the depth offeeling which equally animate infant Christianity and Buddhism, suffice perhaps to explain these analogies. 

[Footnote 1: This is what the [Greek: Logia kuriaka] were called. Papias, in Eusebius, _H. E. _, iii. 39. ]

[Footnote 2: The apologue, as we find it in _Judges_ ix. 8, andfollowing, 2 _Sam. _ xii. 1, and following, only resembles the Gospelparable in form. The profound originality of the latter is in thethought with which it is filled. ]

[Footnote 3: See especially the _Lotus of the Good Law_, chap. Iii. And iv. ]

A total indifference to exterior life and the vain appanage of the"comfortable, " which our drearier countries make necessary to us, wasthe consequence of the sweet and simple life lived in Galilee. Coldclimates, by compelling man to a perpetual contest with externalnature, cause too much value to be attached to researches aftercomfort and luxury. On the other hand, the countries which awaken fewdesires are the countries of idealism and of poesy. The accessories oflife are there insignificant compared with the pleasure of living. Theembellishment of the house is superfluous, for it is frequented aslittle as possible. The strong and regular food of less generousclimates would be considered heavy and disagreeable. And as to theluxury of garments, what can rival that which God has given to theearth and the birds of heaven? Labor in climates of this kind appearsuseless; what it gives is not equal to what it costs. The animals ofthe field are better clothed than the most opulent man, and they donothing. This contempt, which, when it is not caused by idleness, contributes greatly to the elevation of the soul, inspired Jesus withsome charming apologues: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures uponearth, " said he, "where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thievesbreak through and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures inheaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves donot break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there willyour heart be also. [1] No man can serve two masters: for either hewill hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to one anddespise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon. [2] Therefore I sayunto you, take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what yeshall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not thelife more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls ofthe air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather intobarns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much betterthan they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto hisstature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies ofthe field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yetI say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayedlike one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he notmuch more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithalshall we be clothed? For after all these things do the Gentiles seek;for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all thesethings. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, [3] and hisrighteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Taketherefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thoughtof the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evilthereof. "[4]

[Footnote 1: Compare Talm. Of Bab. , _Baba Bathra_, 11 _a_. ]

[Footnote 2: The god of riches and hidden treasures, a kind of Plutusin the Phoenician and Syrian mythology. ]

[Footnote 3: I here adopt the reading of Lachmann and Tischendorf. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Vi. 19-21, 24-34. Luke xii. 22-31, 33, 34, xvi. 13. Compare the precepts in Luke x. 7, 8, full of the same simplesentiment, and Talmud of Babylon, _Sota_, 48 _b_. ]

This essentially Galilean sentiment had a decisive influence on thedestiny of the infant sect. The happy flock, relying on the heavenlyFather for the satisfaction of its wants, had for its first principlethe regarding of the cares of life as an evil which choked the germ ofall good in man. [1] Each day they asked of God the bread for themorrow. [2] Why lay up treasure? The kingdom of God is at hand. "Sellthat ye have and give alms, " said the master. "Provide yourselves bagswhich wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not. "[3]What more foolish than to heap up treasures for heirs whom thou wiltnever behold?[4] As an example of human folly, Jesus loved to cite thecase of a man who, after having enlarged his barns and amassed wealthfor long years, died before having enjoyed it![5] The brigandage whichwas deeply rooted in Galilee, [6] gave much force to these views. Thepoor, who did not suffer from it, would regard themselves as thefavored of God; whilst the rich, having a less sure possession, werethe truly disinherited. In our societies, established upon a veryrigorous idea of property, the position of the poor is horrible; theyhave literally no place under the sun. There are no flowers, no grass, no shade, except for him who possesses the earth. In the East, theseare gifts of God which belong to no one. The proprietor has but aslender privilege; nature is the patrimony of all. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiii. 22; Mark iv. 19; Luke viii. 14. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Vi. 11; Luke xi. 3. This is the meaning of the word[Greek: epiousios]. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke xii. 33, 34. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke xii. 20. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xii. 16, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVII. X. 4, and following: _Vita_, 11, etc. ]

The infant Christianity, moreover, in this only followed the footstepsof the Essenes, or Therapeutæ, and of the Jewish sects founded on themonastic life. A communistic element entered into all these sects, which were equally disliked by Pharisees and Sadducees. The Messianicdoctrine, which was entirely political among the orthodox Jews, wasentirely social amongst them. By means of a gentle, regulated, contemplative existence, leaving its share to the liberty of theindividual, these little churches thought to inaugurate the heavenlykingdom upon earth. Utopias of a blessed life, founded on thebrotherhood of men and the worship of the true God, occupied elevatedsouls, and produced from all sides bold and sincere, but short-livedattempts to realize these doctrines. 

Jesus, whose relations with the Essenes are difficult to determine(resemblances in history not always implying relations), was on thispoint certainly their brother. The community of goods was for sometime the rule in the new society. [1] Covetousness was the cardinalsin. [2] Now it must be remarked that the sin of covetousness, againstwhich Christian morality has been so severe, was then the simpleattachment to property. The first condition of becoming a disciple ofJesus was to sell one's property and to give the price of it to thepoor. Those who recoiled from this extremity were not admitted intothe community. [3] Jesus often repeated that he who has found thekingdom of God ought to buy it at the price of all his goods, and thatin so doing he makes an advantageous bargain. "The kingdom of heavenis like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath andbuyeth that field. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto amerchantman seeking goodly pearls; who, when he had found one pearl ofgreat price, went and sold all that he had and bought it. "[4] Alas!the inconveniences of this plan were not long in making themselvesfelt. A treasurer was wanted. They chose for that office Judas ofKerioth. Rightly or wrongly, they accused him of stealing from thecommon purse;[5] it is certain that he came to a bad end. 

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ iv. 32, 34-37; v. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiii. 22; Luke xii. 15, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xix. 21; Mark x. 21, and following, 29, 30; Lukexviii. 22, 23, 28. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xiii. 44-46. ]

[Footnote 5: John xii. 6. ]

Sometimes the master, more versed in things of heaven than those ofearth, taught a still more singular political economy. In a strangeparable, a steward is praised for having made himself friends amongthe poor at the expense of his master, in order that the poor might intheir turn introduce him into the kingdom of heaven. The poor, infact, becoming the dispensers of this kingdom, will only receive thosewho have given to them. A prudent man, thinking of the future, oughttherefore to seek to gain their favor. "And the Pharisees also, " saysthe evangelist, "who were covetous, heard all these things: and theyderided him. "[1] Did they also hear the formidable parable whichfollows? "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purpleand fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: and there was acertain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full ofsores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the richman's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it cameto pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels intoAbraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;[2] and inhell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afaroff, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of hisfinger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedstthy good things; and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he iscomforted and thou art tormented. "[3] What more just? Afterward thisparable was called that of the "wicked rich man. " But it is purely andsimply the parable of the "rich man. " He is in hell because he isrich, because he does not give his wealth to the poor, because hedines well, while others at his door dine badly. Lastly, in a lessextravagant moment, Jesus does not make it obligatory to sell one'sgoods and give them to the poor except as a suggestion toward greaterperfection. But he still makes this terrible declaration: "It iseasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a richman to enter into the kingdom of God. "[4]

[Footnote 1: Luke xvi. 1-14. ]

[Footnote 2: See the Greek text. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke xvi. 19-25. Luke, I am aware, has a very decidedcommunistic tendency (comp. Vi. 20, 21, 25, 26), and I think he hasexaggerated this shade of the teaching of Jesus. But the features ofthe [Greek: Logia] of Matthew are sufficiently significant. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xix. 24; Mark x. 25; Luke xviii. 25. Thisproverbial phrase is found in the Talmud (Bab. , _Berakoth_, 55 _b_, _Baba metsia_, 38 _b_) and in the Koran (Sur. , vii. 38. ) Origen andthe Greek interpreters, ignorant of the Semitic proverb, thought thatit meant a cable ([Greek: kamilos]). ]

An admirable idea governed Jesus in all this, as well as the band ofjoyous children who accompanied him and made him for eternity the truecreator of the peace of the soul, the great consoler of life. Indisengaging man from what he called "the cares of the world, " Jesusmight go to excess and injure the essential conditions of humansociety; but he founded that high spiritualism which for centurieshas filled souls with joy in the midst of this vale of tears. He sawwith perfect clearness that man's inattention, his want of philosophyand morality, come mostly from the distractions which he permitshimself, the cares which besiege him, and which civilizationmultiplies beyond measure. [1] The Gospel, in this manner, has been themost efficient remedy for the weariness of ordinary life, a perpetual_sursum corda_, a powerful diversion from the miserable cares ofearth, a gentle appeal like that of Jesus in the ear ofMartha--"Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about manythings; but one thing is needful. " Thanks to Jesus, the dullestexistence, that most absorbed by sad or humiliating duties, has hadits glimpse of heaven. In our busy civilizations the remembrance ofthe free life of Galilee has been like perfume from another world, like the "dew of Hermon, "[2] which has prevented drought andbarrenness from entirely invading the field of God. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiii. 22. ]

[Footnote 2: Psalm cxxxiii. 3. ]

CHAPTER XI. 

THE KINGDOM OF GOD CONCEIVED AS THE INHERITANCE OF THE POOR. 

These maxims, good for a country where life is nourished by the airand the light, and this delicate communism of a band of children ofGod reposing in confidence on the bosom of their Father, might suit asimple sect constantly persuaded that its Utopia was about to berealized. But it is clear that they could not satisfy the whole ofsociety. Jesus understood very soon, in fact, that the official worldof his time would by no means adopt his kingdom. He took hisresolution with extreme boldness. Leaving the world, with its hardheart and narrow prejudices on one side, he turned toward the simple. A vast substitution of classes would take place. The kingdom of Godwas made--1st, for children, and those who resemble them; 2d, for theoutcasts of this world, victims of that social arrogance whichrepulses the good but humble man; 3d, for heretics and schismatics, publicans, Samaritans, and Pagans of Tyre and Sidon. An energeticparable explained this appeal to the people and justified it. [1] Aking has prepared a wedding feast, and sends his servants to seekthose invited. Each one excuses himself; some ill-treat themessengers. The king, therefore, takes a decided step. The greatpeople have not accepted his invitation. Be it so. His guests shall bethe first comers; the people collected from the highways and byways, the poor, the beggars, and the lame; it matters not who, the room mustbe filled. "For I say unto you, " said he, "that none of those menwhich were bidden shall taste of my supper. "

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxii. 2, and following; Luke xiv. 16, andfollowing. Comp. Matt. Viii. 11, 12, xxi. 33, and following. ]

Pure _Ebionism_--that is, the doctrine that the poor (_ebionim_) aloneshall be saved, that the reign of the poor is approaching--was, therefore, the doctrine of Jesus. "Woe unto you that are rich, " saidhe, "for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that arefull, for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shallmourn and weep. "[1] "Then said he also to him that bade him, When thoumakest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they also bid theeagain, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: and thou shalt beblessed; for they cannot recompense thee; for thou shalt berecompensed at the resurrection of the just. "[2] It is perhaps in ananalogous sense that he often repeated, "Be good bankers"[3]--that isto say, make good investments for the kingdom of God, in giving yourwealth to the poor, conformably to the old proverb, "He that hath pityupon the poor, lendeth unto the Lord. "[4]

[Footnote 1: Luke vi. 24, 25. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xiv. 12, 14. ]

[Footnote 3: A saying preserved by very ancient tradition, and muchused, Clement of Alexandria, _Strom. _ i. 28. It is also found inOrigen, St. Jerome, and a great number of the Fathers of the Church. ]

[Footnote 4: Prov. Xix. 17. ]

This, however, was not a new fact. The most exalted democraticmovement of which humanity has preserved the remembrance (the onlyone, also, which has succeeded, for it alone has maintained itself inthe domain of pure thought), had long disturbed the Jewish race. Thethought that God is the avenger of the poor and the weak, against therich and the powerful, is found in each page of the writings of theOld Testament. The history of Israel is of all histories that in whichthe popular spirit has most constantly predominated. The prophets, thetrue, and, in one sense, the boldest tribunes, had thunderedincessantly against the great, and established a close relation, onthe one hand, between the words "rich, impious, violent, wicked, " and, on the other, between the words "poor, gentle, humble, pious. "[1]Under the Seleucidæ, the aristocrats having almost all apostatized andgone over to Hellenism, these associations of ideas only becamestronger. The Book of Enoch contains still more violent maledictionsthan those of the Gospel against the world, the rich, and thepowerful. [2] Luxury is there depicted as a crime. The "Son of man, " inthis strange Apocalypse, dethrones kings, tears them from theirvoluptuous life, and precipitates them into hell. [3] The initiation ofJudea into secular life, the recent introduction of an entirelyworldly element of luxury and comfort, provoked a furious reaction infavor of patriarchal simplicity. "Woe unto you who despise the humbledwelling and inheritance of your fathers! Woe unto you who build yourpalaces with the sweat of others! Each stone, each brick, of which itis built, is a sin. "[4] The name of "poor" (_ebion_) had become asynonym of "saint, " of "friend of God. " This was the name that theGalilean disciples of Jesus loved to give themselves; it was for along time the name of the Judaizing Christians of Batanea and of theHauran (Nazarenes, Hebrews) who remained faithful to the tongue, aswell as to the primitive instructions of Jesus, and who boasted thatthey possessed amongst themselves the descendants of his family. [5] Atthe end of the second century, these good sectaries, having remainedbeyond the reach of the great current which had carried away all theother churches, were treated as heretics (_Ebionites_), and apretended heretical leader (_Ebion_) was invented to explain theirname. [6]

[Footnote 1: See, in particular, Amos ii. 6; Isa. Lxiii. 9; Ps. Xxv. 9, xxxvii. 11, lxix. 33; and, in general, the Hebrew dictionaries, atthe words:

 [Hebrew: evion, dal, ani, anav, chasid, ashir, holelim, aritz]. ]

[Footnote 2: Ch. Lxii. , lxiii. , xcvii. , c. , civ. ]

[Footnote 3: _Enoch_, ch. Xlvi. 4-8. ]

[Footnote 4: _Enoch_, xcix. 13, 14. ]

[Footnote 5: Julius Africanus in Eusebius, _H. E. _, i. 7; Eus. , _Desitu et nom. Loc. Hebr. _, at the word [Greek: Chôba]; Orig. , _ContraCelsus_, ii. 1, v. 61; Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxix. 7, 9, xxx. 2, 18. ]

[Footnote 6: See especially Origen, _Contra Celsus_, ii. 1; _DePrincipiis_, iv. 22. Compare Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 17. Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, and the apostolic Constitutions, ignore theexistence of such a personage. The author of the _Philosophumena_seems to hesitate (vii. 34 and 35, x. 22 and 23. ) It is by Tertullian, and especially by Epiphanes, that the fable of one _Ebion_ has beenspread. Besides, all the Fathers are agreed on the etymology, [Greek:Ebiôn] = [Greek: ptôchos]. ]

We may see, in fact, without difficulty, that this exaggerated tastefor poverty could not be very lasting. It was one of those Utopianelements which always mingle in the origin of great movements, andwhich time rectifies. Thrown into the centre of human society, Christianity very easily consented to receive rich men into her bosom, just as Buddhism, exclusively monkish in its origin, soon began, asconversions multiplied, to admit the laity. But the mark of origin isever preserved. Although it quickly passed away and became forgotten, _Ebionism_ left a leaven in the whole history of Christianinstitutions which has not been lost. The collection of the _Logia_, or discourses of Jesus, was formed in the Ebionitish centre ofBatanea. [1] "Poverty" remained an ideal from which the true followersof Jesus were never after separated. To possess nothing was the trulyevangelical state; mendicancy became a virtue, a holy condition. Thegreat Umbrian movement of the thirteenth century, which, among all theattempts at religious construction, most resembles the Galileanmovement, took place entirely in the name of poverty. Francisd'Assisi, the man who, more than any other, by his exquisite goodness, by his delicate, pure, and tender intercourse with universal life, most resembled Jesus, was a poor man. The mendicant orders, theinnumerable communistic sects of the middle ages (_Pauvres de Lyon_, _Bégards_, _Bons-Hommes_, _Fratricelles_, _Humiliés_, _Pauvresévangéliques_, &c. ) grouped under the banner of the "EverlastingGospel, " pretended to be, and in fact were, the true disciples ofJesus. But even in this case the most impracticable dreams of the newreligion were fruitful in results. Pious mendicity, so impatientlyborne by our industrial and well-organized communities, was in itsday, and in a suitable climate, full of charm. It offered to amultitude of mild and contemplative souls the only condition suited tothem. To have made poverty an object of love and desire, to haveraised the beggar to the altar, and to have sanctified the coat of thepoor man, was a master-stroke which political economy may notappreciate, but in the presence of which the true moralist cannotremain indifferent. Humanity, in order to bear its burdens, needs tobelieve that it is not paid entirely by wages. The greatest servicewhich can be rendered to it is to repeat often that it lives not bybread alone. 

[Footnote 1: Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xix. , xxix. , and xxx. , especiallyxxix. 9. ]

Like all great men, Jesus loved the people, and felt himself at homewith them. The Gospel, in his idea, is made for the poor; it is tothem he brings the glad tidings of salvation. [1] All the despised onesof orthodox Judaism were his favorites. Love of the people, and pityfor its weakness (the sentiment of the democratic chief, who feels thespirit of the multitude live in him, and recognize him as its naturalinterpreter), shine forth at each moment in his acts anddiscourses. [2]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xi. 5; Luke vi. 20, 21. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Ix. 36; Mark vi. 34. ]

The chosen flock presented, in fact, a very mixed character, and onelikely to astonish rigorous moralists. It counted in its fold men withwhom a Jew, respecting himself, would not have associated. [1] PerhapsJesus found in this society, unrestrained by ordinary rules, more mindand heart than in a pedantic and formal middle-class, proud of itsapparent morality. The Pharisees, exaggerating the Mosaicprescriptions, had come to believe themselves defiled by contact withmen less strict than themselves; in their meals they almost rivalledthe puerile distinctions of caste in India. Despising these miserableaberrations of the religious sentiment, Jesus loved to eat with thosewho suffered from them;[2] by his side at table were seen persons saidto lead wicked lives, perhaps only so called because they did notshare the follies of the false devotees. The Pharisees and the doctorsprotested against the scandal. "See, " said they, "with what men heeats!" Jesus returned subtle answers, which exasperated thehypocrites: "They that be whole need not a physician. "[3] Or again:"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go afterthat which is lost until he find it? And when he hath found it, helayeth it on his shoulders rejoicing. "[4] Or again: "The Son of Man iscome to save that which was lost. "[5] Or again: "I am not come to callthe righteous, but sinners. "[6] Lastly, that delightful parable of theprodigal son, in which he who is fallen is represented as having akind of privilege of love above him who has always been righteous. Weak or guilty women, surprised at so much that was charming, andrealizing, for the first time, the attractions of contact with virtue, approached him freely. People were astonished that he did not repulsethem. "Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spakewithin himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would haveknown who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for sheis a sinner. " Jesus replied by the parable of a creditor who forgiveshis debtors' unequal debts, and he did not hesitate to prefer the lotof him to whom was remitted the greater debt. [7] He appreciatedconditions of soul only in proportion to the love mingled therein. Women, with tearful hearts, and disposed through their sins tofeelings of humility, were nearer to his kingdom than ordinarynatures, who often have little merit in not having fallen. We mayconceive, on the other hand, that these tender souls, finding in theirconversion to the sect an easy means of restoration, wouldpassionately attach themselves to him. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Ix. 10, and following; Luke xv. Entirely. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Ix. 11; Mark ii. 16; Luke v. 30. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Ix. 12. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke xv. 4, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xviii. 11; Luke xix. 10. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Ix. 13. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke vii. 36, and following. Luke, who likes to bring outin relief everything that relates to the forgiveness of sinners (comp. X. 30, and following, xv. Entirely, xvii. 16, and following, xix. 2, and following, xxiii. 39-43), has included in this narrative passagesfrom another history, that of the anointing of feet, which took placeat Bethany some days before the death of Jesus. But the pardon ofsinful women was undoubtedly one of the essential features of theanecdotes of the life of Jesus. --Cf. John viii. 3, and following;Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 30. ]

Far from seeking to soothe the murmurs stirred up by his disdain forthe social susceptibilities of the time, he seemed to take pleasure inexciting them. Never did any one avow more loftily this contempt forthe "world, " which is the essential condition of great things and ofgreat originality. He pardoned a rich man, but only when the rich man, in consequence of some prejudice, was disliked by society. [1] Hegreatly preferred men of equivocal life and of small consideration inthe eyes of the orthodox leaders. "The publicans and the harlots gointo the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you and yebelieved him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him. "[2]We can understand how galling the reproach of not having followed thegood example set by prostitutes must have been to men making aprofession of seriousness and rigid morality. 

[Footnote 1: Luke xix. 2, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxi. 31, 32. ]

He had no external affectation or show of austerity. He did not flyfrom pleasure; he went willingly to marriage feasts. One of hismiracles was performed to enliven a wedding at a small town. Weddingsin the East take place in the evening. Each one carries a lamp; andthe lights coming and going produce a very agreeable effect. Jesusliked this gay and animated aspect, and drew parables from it. [1] Suchconduct, compared with that of John the Baptist, gave offence. [2] Oneday, when the disciples of John and the Pharisees were observing thefast, it was asked, "Why do the disciples of John and the Phariseesfast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can thechildren of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them?As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. Butthe days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then they shall fast in those days. "[3] His gentle gaiety foundexpression in lively ideas and amiable pleasantries. "But whereunto, "said he, "shall I liken this generation? It is like unto childrensitting in the markets, and calling unto their fellows, and saying, Wehave piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented. [4] For John came neither eating nordrinking, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of man came eatingand drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But Wisdom is justified of herchildren. "[5]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxv. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark ii. 18; Luke v. 33. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Ix. 14, and following; Mark ii. 18, and following;Luke v. 33, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: An allusion to some children's game. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xi. 16, and following; Luke vii. 34, and following. A proverb which means "The opinion of men is blind. The wisdom of theworks of God is only proclaimed by His works themselves. " I read[Greek: ergôn], with the manuscript B. Of the Vatican, and not [Greek:teknôn]. ]

He thus traversed Galilee in the midst of a continual feast. He rodeon a mule. In the East this is a good and safe mode of traveling; thelarge, black eyes of the animal, shaded by long eyelashes, give it anexpression of gentleness. His disciples sometimes surrounded him witha kind of rustic pomp, at the expense of their garments, which theyused as carpets. They placed them on the mule which carried him, orextended them on the earth in his path. [1] His entering a house wasconsidered a joy and a blessing. He stopped in the villages and thelarge farms, where he received an eager hospitality. In the East, thehouse into which a stranger enters becomes at once a public place. Allthe village assembles there, the children invade it, and thoughdispersed by the servants, always return. Jesus could not permit thesesimple auditors to be treated harshly; he caused them to be brought tohim and embraced them. [2] The mothers, encouraged by such a reception, brought him their children in order that he might touch them. [3] Womencame to pour oil upon his head, and perfume on his feet. His disciplessometimes repulsed them as troublesome; but Jesus, who loved theancient usages, and all that indicated simplicity of heart, repairedthe ill done by his too zealous friends. He protected those who wishedto honor him. [4] Thus children and women adored him. The reproach ofalienating from their families these gentle creatures, always easilymisled, was one of the most frequent charges of his enemies. [5]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxi. 7, 8. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xix. 13, and following; Mark ix. 35, x. 13, andfollowing; Luke xviii. 15, 16. ]

[Footnote 3: Ibid. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvi. 7, and following; Mark xiv. 3, and following;Luke vii. 37, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Gospel of Marcion, addition to ver. 2 of chap. Xxiii. OfLuke (Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xlii. 11). If the suppressions of Marcionare without critical value, such is not the case with his additions, when they proceed, not from a special view, but from the condition ofthe manuscripts which he used. ]

The new religion was thus in many respects a movement of women andchildren. The latter were like a young guard around Jesus for theinauguration of his innocent royalty, and gave him little ovationswhich much pleased him, calling him "son of David, " crying_Hosanna_, [1] and bearing palms around him. Jesus, like Savonarola, perhaps made them serve as instruments for pious missions; he wasvery glad to see these young apostles, who did not compromise him, rush into the front and give him titles which he dared not takehimself. He let them speak, and when he was asked if he heard, hereplied in an evasive manner that the praise which comes from younglips is the most agreeable to God. [2]

[Footnote 1: A cry which was raised at the feast of tabernacles, amidst the waving of palms. Mishnah, _Sukka_, iii. 9. This customstill exists among the Israelites. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxi. 15, 16. ]

He lost no opportunity of repeating that the little ones are sacredbeings, [1] that the kingdom of God belongs to children, [2] that wemust become children to enter there, [3] that we ought to receive it asa child, [4] that the heavenly Father hides his secrets from the wiseand reveals them to the little ones. [5] The idea of disciples is inhis mind almost synonymous with that of children. [6] On one occasion, when they had one of those quarrels for precedence, which were notuncommon, Jesus took a little child, placed him in their midst, andsaid to them, "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this littlechild, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. "[7]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xviii. 5, 10, 14; Luke xvii. 2. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xix. 14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xviii. 1, and following; Mark ix. 33, andfollowing; Luke ix. 46. ]

[Footnote 4: Mark x. 15. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xi. 25; Luke x. 21. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. X. 42, xviii. 5, 14; Mark ix. 36; Luke xvii. 2. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xviii. 4; Mark ix. 33-36; Luke ix. 46-48. ]

It was infancy, in fact, in its divine spontaneity, in its simplebewilderments of joy, which took possession of the earth. Every onebelieved at each moment that the kingdom so much desired was about toappear. Each one already saw himself seated on a throne[1] beside themaster. They divided amongst themselves the positions of honor in thenew kingdom, [2] and strove to reckon the precise date of its advent. This new doctrine was called the "Good Tidings;" it had no other name. An old word, "_paradise_, " which the Hebrew, like all the languages ofthe East, had borrowed from the Persian, and which at first designatedthe parks of the Achæmenidæ, summed up the general dream; a delightfulgarden, where the charming life which was led here below would becontinued forever. [3] How long this intoxication lasted we know not. No one, during the course of this magical apparition, measured timeany more than we measure a dream. Duration was suspended; a week wasan age. But whether it filled years or months, the dream was sobeautiful that humanity has lived upon it ever since, and it is stillour consolation to gather its weakened perfume. Never did so much joyfill the breast of man. For a moment humanity, in this the mostvigorous effort she ever made to rise above the world, forgot theleaden weight which binds her to earth and the sorrows of the lifebelow. Happy he who has been able to behold this divine unfolding, andto share, were it but for one day, this unexampled illusion! But stillmore happy, Jesus would say to us, is he who, freed from all illusion, shall reproduce in himself the celestial vision, and, with nomillenarian dream, no chimerical paradise, no signs in the heavens, but by the uprightness of his will and the poetry of his soul, shallbe able to create anew in his heart the true kingdom of God!

[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 30. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark x. 37, 40, 41. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke xxiii. 43; 2 _Cor. _ xii. 4. Comp. _Carm. Sibyll. , prooem_, 36; Talm. Of Bab. , _Chagigah_, 14 _b_. ]

CHAPTER XII. 

EMBASSY FROM JOHN IN PRISON TO JESUS--DEATH OF JOHN--RELATIONS OF HISSCHOOL WITH THAT OF JESUS. 

Whilst joyous Galilee was celebrating in feasts the coming of thewell-beloved, the sorrowful John, in his prison of Machero, was piningaway with expectation and desire. The success of the young master, whom he had seen some months before as his auditor, reached his ears. It was said that the Messiah predicted by the prophets, he who was tore-establish the kingdom of Israel, was come, and was proving hispresence in Galilee by marvelous works. John wished to inquire intothe truth of this rumor, and as he communicated freely with hisdisciples, he chose two of them to go to Jesus in Galilee. [1]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xi. 2, and following; Luke vii. 18, and following. ]

The two disciples found Jesus at the height of his fame. The air ofgladness which reigned around him surprised them. Accustomed to fasts, to persevering prayer, and to a life of aspiration, they wereastonished to see themselves transported suddenly into the midst ofthe joys attending the welcome of the Messiah. [1] They told Jesustheir message: "Art thou he that should come? Or do we look foranother?" Jesus, who from that time hesitated no longer respecting hispeculiar character as Messiah, enumerated the works which ought tocharacterize the coming of the kingdom of God--such as the healing ofthe sick, and the good tidings of a speedy salvation preached to thepoor. He did all these works. "And blessed is he, " said Jesus, "whosoever shall not be offended in me. " We know not whether thisanswer found John the Baptist living, or in what temper it put theaustere ascetic. Did he die consoled and certain that he whom he hadannounced already lived, or did he remain doubtful as to the missionof Jesus? There is nothing to inform us. Seeing, however, that hisschool continued to exist a considerable time parallel with theChristian churches, we are led to think that, notwithstanding hisregard for Jesus, John did not look upon him as the one who was torealize the divine promises. Death came, moreover, to end hisperplexities. The untamable freedom of the ascetic was to crown hisrestless and stormy career by the only end which was worthy of it. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Ix. 14, and following. ]

The leniency which Antipas had at first shown toward John was not oflong duration. In the conversations which, according to the Christiantradition, John had had with the tetrarch, he did not cease to declareto him that his marriage was unlawful, and that he ought to send awayHerodias. [1] We can easily imagine the hatred which the granddaughterof Herod the Great must have conceived toward this importunatecounsellor. She only waited an opportunity to ruin him. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 4, and following; Mark vi. 18, and following;Luke iii. 19. ]

Her daughter, Salome, born of her first marriage, and like herambitious and dissolute, entered into her designs. That year (probablythe year 30) Antipas was at Machero on the anniversary of hisbirthday. Herod the Great had constructed in the interior of thefortress a magnificent palace, where the tetrarch frequentlyresided. [1] He gave a great feast there, during which Salome executedone of those dances in character which were not considered in Syria asunbecoming a distinguished person. Antipas being much pleased, askedthe dancer what she most desired, and she replied, at the instigationof her mother, "Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. "[2]Antipas was sorry, but he did not like to refuse. A guard took thedish, went and cut off the head of the prisoner, and brought it. [3]

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _De Bello jud. _, VII. Vi. 2. ]

[Footnote 2: A portable dish on which liquors and viands are served inthe East. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xiv. 3, and following; Mark vi. 14-29; Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 2. ]

The disciples of the Baptist obtained his body and placed it in atomb, but the people were much displeased. Six years after, Hareth, having attacked Antipas, in order to recover Machero and avenge thedishonor of his daughter, Antipas was completely beaten; and hisdefeat was generally regarded as a punishment for the murder ofJohn. [1]

[Footnote 1: Josephus, _Ant. _, XVIII. V. 1, 2. ]

The news of John's death was brought to Jesus by the disciples of theBaptist. [1] John's last act toward Jesus had effectually united thetwo schools in the most intimate bonds. Jesus, fearing an increase ofill-will on the part of Antipas, took precautions and retired to thedesert, [2] where many people followed him. By exercising an extremefrugality, the holy band was enabled to live there, and in this therewas naturally seen a miracle. [3] From this time Jesus always spoke ofJohn with redoubled admiration. He declared unhesitatingly[4] that hewas more than a prophet, that the Law and the ancient prophets hadforce only until he came, [5] that he had abrogated them, but that thekingdom of heaven would displace him in turn. In fine, he attributedto him a special place in the economy of the Christian mystery, whichconstituted him the link of union between the Old Testament and theadvent of the new reign. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 12. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiv. 13. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xiv. 15, and following; Mark vi. 35, and following;Luke ix. 11, and following; John vi. 2, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xi. 7, and following; Luke vii. 24, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xi. 12, 13; Luke xvi. 16. ]

The prophet Malachi, whose opinion in this matter was soon brought tobear, [1] had announced with much energy a precursor of the Messiah, who was to prepare men for the final renovation, a messenger whoshould come to make straight the paths before the elected one of God. This messenger was no other than the prophet Elias, who, according toa widely spread belief, was soon to descend from heaven, whither hehad been carried, in order to prepare men by repentance for the greatadvent, and to reconcile God with his people. [2] Sometimes theyassociated with Elias, either the patriarch Enoch, to whom for one ortwo centuries they had attributed high sanctity;[3] or Jeremiah, [4]whom they considered as a sort of protecting genius of the people, constantly occupied in praying for them before the throne of God. [5]This idea, that two ancient prophets should rise again in order toserve as precursors to the Messiah, is discovered in so striking aform in the doctrine of the Parsees that we feel much inclined tobelieve that it comes from that source. [6] However this may be, itformed at the time of Jesus an integral portion of the Jewish theoriesabout the Messiah. It was admitted that the appearance of "twofaithful witnesses, " clothed in garments of repentance, would be thepreamble of the great drama about to be unfolded, to the astonishmentof the universe. [7]

[Footnote 1: Malachi iii. And iv. ; _Ecclesiasticus_ xlviii. 10. See_ante_, Chap. VI. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xi. 14, xvii. 10; Mark vi. 15, viii. 28, ix. 10, and following; Luke ix. 8, 19. ]

[Footnote 3: _Ecclesiasticus_ xliv. 16. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xvi. 14. ]

[Footnote 5: 2 _Macc. _ v. 13, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Texts cited by Anquetil-Duperron, _Zend-Avesta_, i. 2dpart, p. 46, corrected by Spiegel, in the _Zeitschrift der deutschenmorgenländischen Gesellschaft_, i. 261, and following; extracts fromthe _Jamasp-Nameh_, in the _Avesta_ of Spiegel, i. , p. 34. None of theParsee texts, which truly imply the idea of resuscitated prophets andof precursors, are ancient; but the ideas contained in them appear tobe much anterior to the time of the compilation itself. ]

[Footnote 7: _Rev. _ xi. 3, and following. ]

It will be seen that, with these ideas, Jesus and his disciples couldnot hesitate about the mission of John the Baptist. When the scribesraised the objection that the Messiah could not have come becauseElias had not yet appeared, [1] they replied that Elias was come, thatJohn was Elias raised from the dead. [2] By his manner of life, by hisopposition to the established political authorities, John in factrecalled that strange figure in the ancient history of Israel. [3]Jesus was not silent on the merits and excellencies of his forerunner. He said that none greater was born among the children of men. Heenergetically blamed the Pharisees and the doctors for not havingaccepted his baptism, and for not being converted at his voice. [4]

[Footnote 1: Mark ix. 10. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xi. 14, xvii. 10-13; Mark vi. 15, ix. 10-12; Lukeix. 8; John i. 21-25. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke i. 17. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxi. 32; Luke vii. 29, 30. ]

The disciples of Jesus were faithful to these principles of theirmaster. This respect for John continued during the whole of the firstChristian generation. [1] He was supposed to be a relative of Jesus. [2]In order to establish the mission of the latter upon testimonyadmitted by all, it was declared that John, at the first sight ofJesus, proclaimed him the Messiah; that he recognized himself hisinferior, unworthy to unloose the latchets of his shoes; that herefused at first to baptize him, and maintained that it was he whoought to be baptized by Jesus. [3] These were exaggerations, which aresufficiently refuted by the doubtful form of John's last message. [4]But, in a more general sense, John remains in the Christian legendthat which he was in reality--the austere forerunner, the gloomypreacher of repentance before the joy on the arrival of thebridegroom, the prophet who announces the kingdom of God and diesbefore beholding it. This giant in the early history of Christianity, this eater of locusts and wild honey, this rough redresser of wrongs, was the bitter which prepared the lip for the sweetness of the kingdomof God. His beheading by Herodias inaugurated the era of Christianmartyrs; he was the first witness for the new faith. The worldly, whorecognized in him their true enemy, could not permit him to live; hismutilated corpse, extended on the threshold of Christianity, tracedthe bloody path in which so many others were to follow. 

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ xix. 4. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke i. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Iii. 14, and following; Luke iii. 16; John i. 15, and following, v. 32, 33. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xi. 2, and following; Luke vii. 18, and following. ]

The school of John did not die with its founder. It lived some timedistinct from that of Jesus, and at first a good understanding existedbetween the two. Many years after the death of the two masters, peoplewere baptized with the baptism of John. Certain persons belonged tothe two schools at the same time--for example, the celebrated Apollos, the rival of St. Paul (toward the year 50), and a large number of theChristians of Ephesus. [1] Josephus placed himself (year 53) in theschool of an ascetic named Banou, [2] who presents the greatestresemblance to John the Baptist, and who was perhaps of his school. This Banou[3] lived in the desert, clothed with the leaves of trees;he supported himself only on wild plants and fruits, and baptizedhimself frequently, both day and night, in cold water, in order topurify himself. James, he who was called the "brother of the Lord"(there is here perhaps some confusion of homonyms), practised asimilar asceticism. [4] Afterward, toward the year 80, Baptism was instrife with Christianity, especially in Asia Minor. John theevangelist appears to combat it in an indirect manner. [5] One of theSibylline[6] poems seems to proceed from this school. As to the sectsof Hemero-baptists, Baptists, and Elchasaïtes (_Sabiens Mogtasila_ ofthe Arabian writers[7]), who, in the second century, filled Syria, Palestine and Babylonia, and whose representatives still exist in ourdays among the Mendaites, called "Christians of St. John;" they havethe same origin as the movement of John the Baptist, rather than anauthentic descent from John. The true school of the latter, partlymixed with Christianity, became a small Christian heresy, and died outin obscurity. John had foreseen distinctly the destiny of the twoschools. If he had yielded to a mean rivalry, he would to-day havebeen forgotten in the crowd of sectaries of his time. By hisself-abnegation he has attained a glorious and unique position in thereligious pantheon of humanity. 

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ xviii. 25, xix. 1-5. Cf. Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxx. 16. ]

[Footnote 2: _Vita_, 2. ]

[Footnote 3: Would this be the Bounaï who is reckoned by the Talmud(Bab. , _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_) amongst the disciples of Jesus?]

[Footnote 4: Hegesippus, in Eusebius, _H. E. _, ii. 23. ]

[Footnote 5: Gospel, i. 26, 33, iv. 2; 1st Epistle, v. 6. Cf. _Acts_x. 47. ]

[Footnote 6: Book iv. See especially v. 157, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: _Sabiens_ is the Aramean equivalent of the word"Baptists. " _Mogtasila_ has the same meaning in Arabic. ]

CHAPTER XIII. 

FIRST ATTEMPTS ON JERUSALEM. 

Jesus, almost every year, went to Jerusalem for the feast of thepassover. The details of these journeys are little known, for thesynoptics do not speak of them, [1] and the notes of the fourth Gospelare very confused on this point. [2] It was, it appears, in the year31, and certainly after the death of John, that the most important ofthe visits of Jesus to Jerusalem took place. Many of the disciplesfollowed him. Although Jesus attached from that time little value tothe pilgrimage, he conformed himself to it in order not to woundJewish opinion, with which he had not yet broken. These journeys, moreover, were essential to his design; for he felt already that inorder to play a leading part, he must go from Galilee, and attackJudaism in its stronghold, which was Jerusalem. 

[Footnote 1: They, however, imply them obscurely (Matt. Xxiii. 37;Luke xiii. 34). They knew as well as John the relation of Jesus withJoseph of Arimathea. Luke even (x. 38-42) knew the family of Bethany. Luke (ix. 51-54) has a vague idea of the system of the fourth Gospelrespecting the journeys of Jesus. Many discourses against thePharisees and the Sadducees, said by the synoptics to have beendelivered in Galilee, have scarcely any meaning, except as having beengiven at Jerusalem. And again, the lapse of eight days is much tooshort to explain all that happened between the arrival of Jesus inthat city and his death. ]

[Footnote 2: Two pilgrimages are clearly indicated (John ii. 13, andv. 1), without speaking of his last journey (vii. 10), after whichJesus returned no more to Galilee. The first took place while John wasstill baptizing. It would belong consequently to the Easter of theyear 29. But the circumstances given as belonging to this journey areof a more advanced period. (Comp. Especially John ii. 14, andfollowing, and Matt. Xxi. 12, 13; Mark xi. 15-17; Luke xix. 45, 46. )There are evidently transpositions of dates in these chapters of John, or rather he has mixed the circumstances of different journeys. ]

The little Galilean community were here far from being at home. Jerusalem was then nearly what it is to-day, a city of pedantry, acrimony, disputes, hatreds, and littleness of mind. Its fanaticismwas extreme, and religious seditions very frequent. The Pharisees weredominant; the study of the Law, pushed to the most insignificantminutiæ, and reduced to questions of casuistry, was the only study. This exclusively theological and canonical culture contributed in norespect to refine the intellect. It was something analogous to thebarren doctrine of the Mussulman fakir, to that empty sciencediscussed round about the mosques, and which is a great expenditure oftime and useless argumentation, by no means calculated to advance theright discipline of the mind. The theological education of the modernclergy, although very dry, gives us no idea of this, for theRenaissance has introduced into all our teachings, even the mostirregular, a share of _belles lettres_ and of method, which hasinfused more or less of the _humanities_ into scholasticism. Thescience of the Jewish doctor, of the _sofer_ or scribe, was purelybarbarous, unmitigatedly absurd, and denuded of all moral element. [1]To crown the evil, it filled with ridiculous pride those who hadwearied themselves in acquiring it. The Jewish scribe, proud of thepretended knowledge which had cost him so much trouble, had the samecontempt for Greek culture which the learned Mussulman of our time hasfor European civilization, and which the old catholic theologian hadfor the knowledge of men of the world. The tendency of thisscholastic culture was to close the mind to all that was refined, tocreate esteem only for those difficult triflings on which they hadwasted their lives, and which were regarded as the natural occupationof persons professing a degree of seriousness. [2]

[Footnote 1: We may judge of it by the Talmud, the echo of the Jewishscholasticism of that time. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Xi. 2. ]

This odious society could not fail to weigh heavily on the tender andsusceptible minds of the north. The contempt of the Hierosolymites forthe Galileans rendered the separation still more complete. In thebeautiful temple which was the object of all their desires, they oftenonly met with insult. A verse of the pilgrim's psalm, [1] "I had ratherbe a doorkeeper in the house of my God, " seemed made expressly forthem. A contemptuous priesthood laughed at their simple devotion, asformerly in Italy the clergy, familiarized with the sanctuaries, witnessed coldly and almost jestingly the fervor of the pilgrim comefrom afar. The Galileans spoke a rather corrupt dialect; theirpronunciation was vicious; they confounded the different aspirationsof letters, which led to mistakes which were much laughed at. [2] Inreligion, they were considered as ignorant and somewhat heterodox;[3]the expression, "foolish Galileans, " had become proverbial. [4] It wasbelieved (not without reason) that they were not of pure Jewish blood, and no one expected Galilee to produce a prophet. [5] Placed thus onthe confines of Judaism, and almost outside of it, the poor Galileanshad only one badly interpreted passage in Isaiah to build their hopesupon. [6] "Land of Zebulon, and land of Naphtali, way of the sea, Galilee of the nations! The people that walked in darkness have seen agreat light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, uponthem hath the light shined. " The reputation of the native city ofJesus was particularly bad. It was a popular proverb, "Can there anygood thing come out of Nazareth?"[7]

[Footnote 1: Ps. Lxxxiv. (Vulg. Lxxxiii. ) 11. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvi. 73; Mark xiv. 70; _Acts_ ii. 7; Talm. OfBab. , _Erubin_, 53 _a_, and following; Bereschith Rabba, 26 _c_. ]

[Footnote 3: Passage from the treatise _Erubin_, _loc. Cit. _]

[Footnote 4: _Erubin_, _loc. Cit. _, 53 _b_. ]

[Footnote 5: John vii. 52. ]

[Footnote 6: Isa. Ix. 1, 2; Matt. Iv. 13, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: John i. 46. ]

The parched appearance of Nature in the neighborhood of Jerusalem musthave added to the dislike Jesus had for the place. The valleys arewithout water; the soil arid and stony. Looking into the valley of theDead Sea, the view is somewhat striking; elsewhere it is monotonous. The hill of Mizpeh, around which cluster the most ancient historicalremembrances of Israel, alone relieves the eye. The city presented, atthe time of Jesus, nearly the same form that it does now. It hadscarcely any ancient monuments, for, until the time of the Asmoneans, the Jews had remained strangers to all the arts. John Hyrcanus hadbegun to embellish it, and Herod the Great had made it one of the mostmagnificent cities of the East. The Herodian constructions, by theirgrand character, perfection of execution, and beauty of material, maydispute superiority with the most finished works of antiquity. [1] Agreat number of superb tombs, of original taste, were raised at thesame time in the neighborhood of Jerusalem. [2] The style of thesemonuments was Grecian, but appropriate to the customs of the Jews, andconsiderably modified in accordance with their principles. Theornamental sculptures of the human figure which the Herods hadsanctioned, to the great discontent of the purists, were banished, andreplaced by floral decorations. The taste of the ancient inhabitantsof Phoenicia and Palestine for monoliths in solid stone seemed to berevived in these singular tombs cut in the rock, and in which Grecianorders are so strangely applied to an architecture of troglodytes. Jesus, who regarded works of art as a pompous display of vanity, viewed these monuments with displeasure. [3] His absolute spiritualism, and his settled conviction that the form of the old world was about topass away, left him no taste except for things of the heart. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Viii. -xi. ; _B. J. _, V. V. 6; Mark xiii. 1, 2. ]

[Footnote 2: Tombs, namely, of the Judges, Kings, Absalom, Zechariah, Jehoshaphat, and of St. James. Compare the description of the tomb ofthe Maccabees at Modin (1 Macc. Xiii. 27, and following). ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxiii. 27, 29, xxiv. 1, and following; Mark xiii. 1, and following; Luke xix. 44, xxi. 5, and following. Compare _Bookof Enoch_, xcvii. 13, 14; Talmud of Babylon, _Shabbath_, 33 _b_. ]

The temple, at the time of Jesus, was quite new, and the exteriorworks of it were not completed. Herod had begun its reconstruction inthe year 20 or 21 before the Christian era, in order to make ituniform with his other edifices. The body of the temple was finishedin eighteen months; the porticos took eight years;[1] and theaccessory portions were continued slowly, and were only finished ashort time before the taking of Jerusalem. [2] Jesus probably saw thework progressing, not without a degree of secret vexation. These hopesof a long future were like an insult to his approaching advent. Clearer-sighted than the unbelievers and the fanatics, he foresaw thatthese superb edifices were destined to endure but for a short time. [3]

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Xi. 5, 6. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 7; John ii. 20. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxiv. 2, xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40; Mark xiii. 2, xiv. 58, xv. 29; Luke xxi. 6; John ii. 19, 20. ]

The temple formed a marvelously imposing whole, of which the present_haram_, [1] notwithstanding its beauty, scarcely gives us any idea. The courts and the surrounding porticos served as the daily rendezvousfor a considerable number of persons--so much so, that this greatspace was at once temple, forum, tribunal, and university. All thereligious discussions of the Jewish schools, all the canonicalinstruction, even the legal processes and civil causes--in a word, allthe activity of the nation was concentrated there. [2] It was an arenawhere arguments were perpetually clashing, a battlefield of disputes, resounding with sophisms and subtle questions. The temple had thusmuch analogy with a Mahometan mosque. The Romans at this periodtreated all strange religions with respect, when kept within properlimits, [3] and carefully refrained from entering the sanctuary; Greekand Latin inscriptions marked the point up to which those who were notJews were permitted to advance. [4] But the tower of Antonia, theheadquarters of the Roman forces, commanded the whole enclosure, andallowed all that passed therein to be seen. [5] The guarding of thetemple belonged to the Jews; the entire superintendence was committedto a captain, who caused the gates to be opened and shut, andprevented any one from crossing the enclosure with a stick in hishand, or with dusty shoes, or when carrying parcels, or to shorten hispath. [6] They were especially scrupulous in watching that no oneentered within the inner gates in a state of legal impurity. Thewomen had an entirely separate court. 

[Footnote 1: The temple and its enclosure doubtless occupied the siteof the mosque of Omar and the _haram_, or Sacred Court, whichsurrounds the mosque. The foundation of the haram is, in some parts, especially at the place where the Jews go to weep, the exact base ofthe temple of Herod. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke ii. 46, and following; Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, x. 2. ]

[Footnote 3: Suet. , _Aug. _ 93. ]

[Footnote 4: Philo, _Legatio ad Caium_, § 31; Jos. , _B. J. _, V. V. 2, VI. Ii. 4; _Acts_ xxi. 28. ]

[Footnote 5: Considerable traces of this tower are still seen in thenorthern part of the haram. ]

[Footnote 6: Mishnah, _Berakoth_, ix. 5; Talm. Of Babyl. , _Jebamoth_, 6 _b_; Mark xi. 16. ]

It was in the temple that Jesus passed his days, whilst he remained atJerusalem. The period of the feasts brought an extraordinary concourseof people into the city. Associated in parties of ten to twentypersons, the pilgrims invaded everywhere, and lived in that disorderedstate in which Orientals delight. [1] Jesus was lost in the crowd, andhis poor Galileans grouped around him were of small account. Heprobably felt that he was in a hostile world which would receive himonly with disdain. Everything he saw set him against it. The temple, like much-frequented places of devotion in general, offered a not veryedifying spectacle. The accessories of worship entailed a number ofrepulsive details, especially of mercantile operations, in consequenceof which real shops were established within the sacred enclosure. There were sold beasts for the sacrifices; there were tables for theexchange of money; at times it seemed like a bazaar. The inferiorofficers of the temple fulfilled their functions doubtless with theirreligious vulgarity of the sacristans of all ages. This profane andheedless air in the handling of holy things wounded the religioussentiment of Jesus, which was at times carried even to a scrupulousexcess. [2] He said that they had made the house of prayer into a denof thieves. One day, it is even said, that, carried away by his anger, he scourged the vendors with a "scourge of small cords, " andoverturned their tables. [3] In general, he had little love for thetemple. The worship which he had conceived for his Father had nothingin common with scenes of butchery. All these old Jewish institutionsdispleased him, and he suffered in being obliged to conform to them. Except among the Judaizing Christians, neither the temple nor its siteinspired pious sentiments. The true disciples of the new faith heldthis ancient sanctuary in aversion. Constantine and the firstChristian emperors left the pagan construction of Adrian existingthere, [4] and only the enemies of Christianity, such as Julian, remembered the temple. [5] When Omar entered into Jerusalem, he foundthe site designedly polluted in hatred of the Jews. [6] It wasIslamism, that is to say, a sort of resurrection of Judaism in itsexclusively Semitic form, which restored its glory. The place hasalways been anti-Christian. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Xiv. 3, VI. Ix. 3. Comp. Ps. Cxxxiii. (Vulg. Cxxxii. )]

[Footnote 2: Mark xi. 16. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxi. 12, and following; Mark xi. 15, and following;Luke xix. 45, and following; John ii. 14, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: _Itin. A Burdig. Hierus. _, p. 152 (edit. Schott); S. Jerome, in _Is. _ i. 8, and in Matt. Xxiv. 15. ]

[Footnote 5: Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 1. ]

[Footnote 6: Eutychius, _Ann. _, II. 286, and following (Oxford 1659). ]

The pride of the Jews completed the discontent of Jesus, and renderedhis stay in Jerusalem painful. In the degree that the great ideas ofIsrael ripened, the priesthood lost its power. The institution ofsynagogues had given to the interpreter of the Law, to the doctor, agreat superiority over the priest. There were no priests except atJerusalem, and even there, reduced to functions entirely ritual, almost, like our parish priests, excluded from preaching, they weresurpassed by the orator of the synagogue, the casuist, and the _sofer_or scribe, although the latter was only a layman. The celebrated menof the Talmud were not priests; they were learned men according to theideas of the time. The high priesthood of Jerusalem held, it is true, a very elevated rank in the nation; but it was by no means at thehead of the religious movement. The sovereign pontiff, whose dignityhad already been degraded by Herod, [1] became more and more a Romanfunctionary, [2] who was frequently removed in order to divide theprofits of the office. Opposed to the Pharisees, who were very warmlay zealots, the priests were almost all Sadducees, that is to say, members of that unbelieving aristocracy which had been formed aroundthe temple, and which lived by the altar, while they saw the vanity ofit. [3] The sacerdotal caste was separated to such a degree from thenational sentiment and from the great religious movement which draggedthe people along, that the name of "Sadducee" (_sadoki_), which atfirst simply designated a member of the sacerdotal family of Sadok, had become synonymous with "Materialist" and with "Epicurean. "

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Iii. 1, 3. ]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. , XVIII. Ii. ]

[Footnote 3: _Acts_ iv. 1, and following, v. 17; Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1; _Pirké Aboth_, i. 10. ]

A still worse element had begun, since the reign of Herod the Great, to corrupt the high-priesthood. Herod having fallen in love withMariamne, daughter of a certain Simon, son of Boëthus of Alexandria, and having wished to marry her (about the year 28 B. C. ), saw no othermeans of ennobling his father-in-law and raising him to his own rankthan by making him high-priest. This intriguing family remainedmaster, almost without interruption, of the sovereign pontificate forthirty-five years. [1] Closely allied to the reigning family, it didnot lose the office until after the deposition of Archelaus, andrecovered it (the year 42 of our era) after Herod Agrippa had for sometime re-enacted the work of Herod the Great. Under the name of_Boëthusim_, [2] a new sacerdotal nobility was formed, very worldly, and little devotional, and closely allied to the Sadokites. The_Boëthusim_, in the Talmud and the rabbinical writings, are depictedas a kind of unbelievers, and always reproached as Sadducees. [3] Fromall this there resulted a miniature court of Rome around the temple, living on politics, little inclined to excesses of zeal, even ratherfearing them, not wishing to hear of holy personages or of innovators, for it profited from the established routine. These epicurean priestshad not the violence of the Pharisees; they only wished for quietness;it was their moral indifference, their cold irreligion, which revoltedJesus. Although very different, the priests and the Pharisees werethus confounded in his antipathies. But a stranger, and withoutinfluence, he was long compelled to restrain his discontent withinhimself, and only to communicate his sentiments to the intimatefriends who accompanied him. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _ XV. Ix. 3, XVII. Vi. 4, xiii. 1, XVIII. I. 1, ii. 1, XIX. Vi. 2, viii. 1. ]

[Footnote 2: This name is only found in the Jewish documents. I thinkthat the "Herodians" of the gospel are the _Boëthusim_. ]

[Footnote 3: The treatise of _Aboth Nathan_, 5; _Soferim_, iii. , hal. 5; Mishnah, _Menachoth_, x. 3; Talmud of Babylon, _Shabbath_, 118 _a_. The name of _Boëthusim_ is often changed in the Talmudic books withthat of the Sadducees, or with the word _Minim_ (heretics). CompareThosiphta, _Joma_, i. , with the Talm. Of Jerus. , the same treatise, i. 5, and Talm. Of Bab. , same treatise, 19 _b_; Thos. _Sukka_, iii. Withthe Talm. Of Bab. , same treatise, 43 _b_; Thos. Ibid. , further on, with the Talm. Of Bab. , same treatise, 48 _b_; Thos. _Rosh hasshana_, i. With Mishnah, same treatise ii. 1; Talm. Of Jerus. , same treatise, ii. 1; and Talm. Of Bab. , same treatise, 22 _b_; Thos. _Menachoth_, x. With Mishnah, same treatise, x. 3; Talm. Of Bab. , same treatise, 65_a_; Mishnah, _Chagigah_, ii. 4; and Megillath Taanith, i. ; Thos. _Iadaim_, ii. With Talm. Of Jerus. ; _Baba Bathra_, viii. 1; Talm. OfBab. , same treatise, 115 _b_; and Megillath Taanith, v. ]

Before his last stay, which was by far the longest of all that he madeat Jerusalem, and which was terminated by his death, Jesus endeavored, however, to obtain a hearing. He preached; people spoke of him; andthey conversed respecting certain deeds of his which were looked uponas miraculous. But from all that, there resulted neither anestablished church at Jerusalem nor a group of Hierosolymitedisciples. The charming teacher, who forgave every one provided theyloved him, could not find much sympathy in this sanctuary of vaindisputes and obsolete sacrifices. The only result was that he formedsome valuable friendships, the advantage of which he reaped afterward. He does not appear at that time to have made the acquaintance of thefamily of Bethany, which, amidst the trials of the latter months ofhis life, brought him so much consolation. But very early he attractedthe attention of a certain Nicodemus, a rich Pharisee, a member of theSanhedrim, and a man occupying a high position in Jerusalem. [1] Thisman, who appears to have been upright and sincere, felt himselfattracted toward the young Galilean. Not wishing to compromisehimself, he came to see Jesus by night, and had a long conversationwith him. [2] He doubtless preserved a favorable impression of him, forafterward he defended Jesus against the prejudices of hiscolleagues, [3] and, at the death of Jesus, we shall find him tendingwith pious care the corpse of the master. [4] Nicodemus did not becomea Christian; he had too much regard for his position to take part in arevolutionary movement which as yet counted no men of note amongst itsadherents. But he evidently felt great friendship for Jesus, andrendered him service, though unable to rescue him from a death whicheven at this period was all but decreed. 

[Footnote 1: It seems that he is referred to in the Talmud. Talm. OfBab. , _Taanith_, 20 _a_; _Gittin_, 56 _a_; _Ketuboth_, 66 _b_;treatise _Aboth Nathan_, vii. ; Midrash Rabba, _Eka_, 64 _a_. Thepassage _Taanith_ identifies him with Bounaï, who, according to_Sanhedrim_ (see ante, p. 212, note 2), was a disciple of Jesus. Butif Bounaï is the Banou of Josephus, this identification will not holdgood. ]

[Footnote 2: John iii. 1, and following, vii. 50. We are certainlyfree to believe that the exact text of the conversation is but acreation of John's. ]

[Footnote 3: John vii. 50, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: John xix. 39. ]

As to the celebrated doctors of the time, Jesus does not appear tohave had any connection with them. Hillel and Shammai were dead; thegreatest authority of the time was Gamaliel, grandson of Hillel. Hewas of a liberal spirit, and a man of the world, not opposed tosecular studies, and inclined to tolerance by his intercourse withgood society. [1] Unlike the very strict Pharisees, who walked veiledor with closed eyes, he did not scruple to gaze even upon Paganwomen. [2] This, as well as his knowledge of Greek, was toleratedbecause he had access to the court. [3] After the death of Jesus, heexpressed very moderate views respecting the new sect. [4] St. Paul satat his feet, [5] but it is not probable that Jesus ever entered hisschool. 

[Footnote 1: Mishnah, _Baba Metsia_, v. 8; Talm. Of Bab. , _Sota_, 49_b_. ]

[Footnote 2: Talm. Of Jerus. , _Berakoth_, ix. 2. ]

[Footnote 3: Passage _Sota_, before cited, and _Baba Kama_, 83 _a_. ]

[Footnote 4: _Acts_ v. 34, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: _Acts_ xxii. 3. ]

One idea, at least, which Jesus brought from Jerusalem, and whichhenceforth appears rooted in his mind, was that there was no unionpossible between him and the ancient Jewish religion. The abolition ofthe sacrifices which had caused him so much disgust, the suppressionof an impious and haughty priesthood, and, in a general sense, theabrogation of the law, appeared to him absolutely necessary. From thistime he appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer ofJudaism. Certain advocates of the Messianic ideas had already admittedthat the Messiah would bring a new law, which should be common to allthe earth. [1] The Essenes, who were scarcely Jews, also appear to havebeen indifferent to the temple and to the Mosaic observances. Butthese were only isolated or unavowed instances of boldness. Jesus wasthe first who dared to say that from his time, or rather from that ofJohn, [2] the Law was abolished. If sometimes he used more measuredterms, [3] it was in order not to offend existing prejudices tooviolently. When he was driven to extremities, he lifted the veilentirely, and declared that the Law had no longer any force. On thissubject he used striking comparisons. "No man putteth a piece of newcloth into an old garment, neither do men put new wine into oldbottles. "[4] This was really his chief characteristic as teacher andcreator. The temple excluded all except Jews from its enclosure byscornful announcements. Jesus had no sympathy with this. The narrow, hard, and uncharitable Law was only made for the children of Abraham. Jesus maintained that every well-disposed man, every man who receivedand loved him, was a son of Abraham. [5] The pride of blood appeared tohim the great enemy which was to be combated. In other words, Jesuswas no longer a Jew. He was in the highest degree revolutionary; hecalled all men to a worship founded solely on the fact of their beingchildren of God. He proclaimed the rights of man, not the rights ofthe Jew; the religion of man, not the religion of the Jew; thedeliverance of man, not the deliverance of the Jew. [6] How far removedwas this from a Gaulonite Judas or a Matthias Margaloth, preachingrevolution in the name of the Law! The religion of humanity, established, not upon blood, but upon the heart, was founded. Moseswas superseded, the temple was rendered useless, and was irrevocablycondemned. 

[Footnote 1: _Orac. Sib. _, book iii. 573, and following, 715, andfollowing, 756-58. Compare the Targum of Jonathan, Isa. Xii. 3. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xvi. 16. The passage in Matt. Xi. 12, 13, is lessclear, but can have no other meaning. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. V. 17, 18 (Cf. Talm. Of Bab. , _Shabbath_, 116 _b_). This passage is not in contradiction with those in which the abolitionof the Law is implied. It only signifies that in Jesus all the typesof the Old Testament are realized. Cf. Luke xvi. 17. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Ix. 16, 17; Luke v. 36, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 9. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19; Mark xiii. 10, xvi. 15; Lukexxiv. 47. ]

CHAPTER XIV. 

INTERCOURSE OF JESUS WITH THE PAGANS AND THE SAMARITANS. 

Following out these principles, Jesus despised all religion which wasnot of the heart. The vain practices of the devotees, [1] the exteriorstrictness, which trusted to formality for salvation, had in him amortal enemy. He cared little for fasting. [2] He preferred forgivenessto sacrifice. [3] The love of God, charity and mutual forgiveness, werehis whole law. [4] Nothing could be less priestly. The priest, by hisoffice, ever advocates public sacrifice, of which he is the appointedminister; he discourages private prayer, which has a tendency todispense with his office. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xv. 9. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Ix. 14, xi. 19. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. V. 23, and following, ix. 13, xii. 7. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxii. 37, and following; Mark xii. 28, andfollowing; Luke x. 25, and following. ]

We should seek in vain in the Gospel for one religious riterecommended by Jesus. Baptism to him was only of secondaryimportance;[1] and with respect to prayer, he prescribes nothing, except that it should proceed from the heart. As is always the case, many thought to substitute mere good-will for genuine love ofgoodness, and imagined they could win the kingdom of heaven by sayingto him, "Rabbi, Rabbi. " He rebuked them, and proclaimed that hisreligion consisted in doing good. [2] He often quoted the passage inIsaiah, which says: "This people honor me with their lips, but theirheart is far from me. "[3]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Iii. 15; 1 _Cor. _ i. 17. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Vii. 21; Luke vi. 46. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xv. 8; Mark vii. 6. Cf. Isaiah xxix. 13. ]

The observance of the Sabbath was the principal point upon which wasraised the whole edifice of Pharisaic scruples and subtleties. Thisancient and excellent institution had become a pretext for themiserable disputes of casuists, and a source of superstitiousbeliefs. [1] It was believed that Nature observed it; all intermittentsprings were accounted "Sabbatical. "[2] This was the point upon whichJesus loved best to defy his adversaries. [3] He openly violated theSabbath, and only replied by subtle raillery to the reproaches thatwere heaped upon him. He despised still more a multitude of modernobservances, which tradition had added to the Law, and which weredearer than any other to the devotees on that very account. Ablutions, and the too subtle distinctions between pure and impure things, foundin him a pitiless opponent: "There is nothing from without a man, "said he, "that entering into him can defile him: but the things whichcome out of him, those are they that defile the man. " The Pharisees, who were the propagators of these mummeries, were unceasinglydenounced by him. He accused them of exceeding the Law, of inventingimpossible precepts, in order to create occasions of sin: "Blindleaders of the blind, " said he, "take care lest ye also fall into theditch. " "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak goodthings? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. "[4]

[Footnote 1: See especially the treatise _Shabbath_ of the Mishnah andthe _Livre des Jubilés_ (translated from the Ethiopian in the_Jahrbücher_ of Ewald, years 2 and 3), chap. I. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _B. J. _, VII. V. 1; Pliny, _H. N. _, xxxi. 18. Cf. Thomson, _The Land and the Book_, i. 406, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xii. 1-14; Mark ii. 23-28; Luke vi. 1-5, xiii. 14, and following, xiv. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xii. 34, xv. 1, and following, 12, and following, xxiii. Entirely; Mark vii. 1, and following, 15, and following; Lukevi. 45, xi. 39, and following. ]

He did not know the Gentiles sufficiently to think of foundinganything lasting upon their conversion. Galilee contained a greatnumber of pagans, but, as it appears, no public and organized worshipof false gods. [1] Jesus could see this worship displayed in all itssplendor in the country of Tyre and Sidon, at Cæsarea Philippi and inthe Decapolis, but he paid little attention to it. We never find inhim the wearisome pedantry of the Jews of his time, those declamationsagainst idolatry, so familiar to his co-religionists from the time ofAlexander, and which fill, for instance, the book of "Wisdom. "[2] Thatwhich struck him in the pagans was not their idolatry, but theirservility. [3] The young Jewish democrat agreeing on this point withJudas the Gaulonite, and admitting no master but God, was hurt at thehonors with which they surrounded the persons of sovereigns, and thefrequently mendacious titles given to them. With this exception, inthe greater number of instances in which he comes in contact withpagans, he shows great indulgence to them; sometimes he professes toconceive more hope of them than of the Jews. [4] The kingdom of Godwould be transferred to them. "When the lord, therefore, of thevineyard cometh, what will he do unto these husbandmen? He willmiserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyardunto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in theirseasons. "[5] Jesus adhered so much the more to this idea, as theconversion of the Gentiles was, according to Jewish ideas, one of thesurest signs of the advent of the Messiah. [6] In his kingdom of God herepresents, as seated at a feast, by the side of Abraham, Isaac, andJacob, men come from the four winds of heaven, whilst the lawful heirsof the kingdom are rejected. [7] Sometimes, it is true, there seems tobe an entirely contrary tendency in the commands he gives to hisdisciples: he seems to recommend them only to preach salvation to theorthodox Jews, [8] he speaks of pagans in a manner conformable to theprejudices of the Jews. [9] But we must remember that the disciples, whose narrow minds did not share in this supreme indifference for theprivileges of the sons of Abraham, may have given the instruction oftheir master the bent of their own ideas. Besides, it is very possiblethat Jesus may have varied on this point, just as Mahomet speaks ofthe Jews in the Koran, sometimes in the most honorable manner, sometimes with extreme harshness, as he had hope of winning theirfavor or otherwise. Tradition, in fact, attributes to Jesus twoentirely opposite rules of proselytism, which he may have practised inturn: "He that is not against us is on our part. " "He that is not withme, is against me. "[10] Impassioned conflict involves almostnecessarily this kind of contradictions. 

[Footnote 1: I believe the pagans of Galilee were found especially onthe frontiers--at Kedes, for example; but that the very heart of thecountry, the city of Tiberias excepted, was entirely Jewish. The linewhere the ruins of temples end, and those of synagogues begin, isto-day plainly marked as far north as Lake Huleh (Samachonites). Thetraces of pagan sculpture, which were thought to have been found atTell-Houm, are doubtful. The coast--the town of Acre, inparticular--did not form part of Galilee. ]

[Footnote 2: Chap. XIII. And following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xx. 25; Mark x. 42; Luke xxii. 25. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Viii. 5, and following, xv. 22, and following; Markvii. 25, and following; Luke iv. 25, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xxi. 41; Mark xii. 9; Luke xx. 16. ]

[Footnote 6: Isa. Ii. 2, and following, lx. ; Amos ix. 11, andfollowing; Jer. Iii. 17; Mal. I. 11; _Tobit_, xiii. 13, and following;_Orac. Sibyll. _, iii. 715, and following. Comp. Matt. Xxiv. 14; _Acts_xv. 15, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Viii. 11, 12, xxi. 33, and following, xxii. 1, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Vii. 6, x. 5, 6, xv. 24, xxi. 43. ]

[Footnote 9: Matt. V. 46, and following, vi. 7, 32, xviii. 17; Lukevi. 32, and following, xii. 30. ]

[Footnote 10: Matt. Xii. 30; Mark ix. 39; Luke ix. 50, xi. 23. ]

It is certain that he counted among his disciples many men whom theJews called "Hellenes. "[1] This word had in Palestine divers meanings. Sometimes it designated the pagans; sometimes the Jews, speakingGreek, and dwelling among the pagans;[2] sometimes men of pagan originconverted to Judaism. [3] It was probably in the last-named category ofHellenes that Jesus found sympathy. [4] The affiliation with Judaismhad many degrees; but the proselytes always remained in a state ofinferiority in regard to the Jew by birth. Those in question werecalled "proselytes of the gate, " or "men fearing God, " and weresubject to the precepts of Noah, and not to those of Moses. [5] Thisvery inferiority was doubtless the cause which drew them to Jesus, andgained them his favor. 

[Footnote 1: Josephus confirms this (_Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 3). Comp. John vii. 35, xii. 20, 21. ]

[Footnote 2: Talm. Of Jerus. , _Sota_, vii. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: See in particular, John vii. 35, xii. 20; _Acts_ xiv. 1, xvii. 4, xviii. 4, xxi. 28. ]

[Footnote 4: John xii. 20; _Acts_ viii. 27. ]

[Footnote 5: Mishnah, _Baba Metsia_, ix. 12; Talm. Of Bab. , _Sanh. _, 56_b_; _Acts_ viii. 27, x. 2, 22, 35, xiii. 16, 26, 43, 50, xvi. 14, xvii. 4, 17, xviii. 7; Gal. Ii. 3; Jos. , _Ant. _, XIV. Vii. 2. ]

He treated the Samaritans in the same manner. Shut in, like a smallisland, between the two great provinces of Judaism (Judea andGalilee), Samaria formed in Palestine a kind of enclosure in which waspreserved the ancient worship of Gerizim, closely resembling andrivalling that of Jerusalem. This poor sect, which had neither thegenius nor the learned organization of Judaism, properly so called, was treated by the Hierosolymites with extreme harshness. [1] Theyplaced them in the same rank as pagans, but hated them more. [2] Jesus, from a feeling of opposition, was well disposed toward Samaria, andoften preferred the Samaritans to the orthodox Jews. If, at othertimes, he seems to forbid his disciples preaching to them, confininghis gospel to the Israelites proper, [3] this was no doubt a preceptarising from special circumstances, to which the apostles have giventoo absolute a meaning. Sometimes, in fact, the Samaritans receivedhim badly, because they thought him imbued with the prejudices of hisco-religionists;[4]--in the same manner as in our days the Europeanfree-thinker is regarded as an enemy by the Mussulman, who alwaysbelieves him to be a fanatical Christian. Jesus raised himself abovethese misunderstandings. [5] He had many disciples at Shechem, and hepassed at least two days there. [6] On one occasion he meets withgratitude and true piety from a Samaritan only. [7] One of his mostbeautiful parables is that of the man wounded on the way to Jericho. Apriest passes by and sees him, but goes on his way; a Levite alsopasses, but does not stop; a Samaritan takes pity on him, approacheshim, and pours oil into his wounds, and bandages them. [8] Jesus arguesfrom this that true brotherhood is established among men by charity, and not by creeds. The "neighbor" who in Judaism was specially theco-religionist, was in his estimation the man who has pity on his kindwithout distinction of sect. Human brotherhood in its widest senseoverflows in all his teaching. 

[Footnote 1: _Ecclesiasticus_ l. 27, 28; John viii. 48; Jos. , _Ant. _, IX. Xiv. 3, XI. Viii. 6, XII. V. 5; Talm. Of Jerus. , _Aboda zara_, v. 4; _Pesachim_, i. 1. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. X. 5; Luke xvii. 18. Comp. Talm. Of Bab. , _Cholin_, 6 _a_. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. X. 5, 6. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke ix. 53. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke ix. 56. ]

[Footnote 6: John iv. 39-43. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke xvii. 16. ]

[Footnote 8: Luke x. 30, and following. ]

These thoughts, which beset Jesus on his leaving Jerusalem, foundtheir vivid expression in an anecdote which has been preservedrespecting his return. The road from Jerusalem into Galilee passes atthe distance of half an hour's journey from Shechem, [1] in front ofthe opening of the valley commanded by mounts Ebal and Gerizim. Thisroute was in general avoided by the Jewish pilgrims, who preferredmaking in their journeys the long detour through Perea, rather thanexpose themselves to the insults of the Samaritans, or ask anything ofthem. It was forbidden to eat and drink with them. [2] It was an axiomof certain casuists, that "a piece of Samaritan bread is the flesh ofswine. "[3] When they followed this route, provisions were always laidup beforehand; yet they rarely avoided conflict and ill-treatment. [4]Jesus shared neither these scruples nor these fears. Having come tothe point where the valley of Shechem opens on the left, he feltfatigued, and stopped near a well. The Samaritans were then as nowaccustomed to give to all the localities of their valley names drawnfrom patriarchal reminiscences. They regarded this well as having beengiven by Jacob to Joseph; it was probably the same which is now called_Bir-Iakoub_. The disciples entered the valley and went to the city tobuy provisions. Jesus seated himself at the side of the well, havingGerizim before him. 

[Footnote 1: Now Nablous. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke ix. 53; John iv. 9. ]

[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Shebiit_, viii. 10. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. V. 1; _B. J. _, II. Xii. 3; _Vita_, 52. ]

It was about noon. A woman of Shechem came to draw water. Jesus askedher to let him drink, which excited great astonishment in the woman, the Jews generally forbidding all intercourse with the Samaritans. Wonby the conversation of Jesus, the woman recognized in him a prophet, and expecting some reproaches about her worship, she anticipated him:"Sir, " said she, "our fathers worshipped in this mountain, and ye saythat in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. Jesus saithunto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither inthis mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. But the hourcometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Fatherin spirit and in truth. "[1]

[Footnote 1: John iv. 21-23. Verse 22, at least the latter clause ofit, which expresses an idea opposed to that of verses 21 and 23, appears to have been interpolated. We must not insist too much on thehistorical reality of such a conversation, since Jesus, or hisinterlocutor, alone would have been able to relate it. But theanecdote in chapter iv. Of John, certainly represents one of the mostintimate thoughts of Jesus, and the greater part of the circumstanceshave a striking appearance of truth. ]

The day on which he uttered this saying, he was truly Son of God. Hepronounced for the first time the sentence upon which will repose theedifice of eternal religion. He founded the pure worship, of all ages, of all lands, that which all elevated souls will practice until theend of time. Not only was his religion on this day the best religionof humanity, it was the absolute religion; and if other planets haveinhabitants gifted with reason and morality, their religion cannot bedifferent from that which Jesus proclaimed near the well of Jacob. Manhas not been able to maintain this position: for the ideal is realizedbut transitorily. This sentence of Jesus has been a brilliant lightamidst gross darkness; it has required eighteen hundred years for theeyes of mankind (what do I say! for an infinitely small portion ofmankind) to become accustomed to it. But the light will become thefull day, and, after having run through all the cycles of error, mankind will return to this sentence, as the immortal expression ofits faith and its hope. 

CHAPTER XV. 

COMMENCEMENT OF THE LEGENDS CONCERNING JESUS--HIS OWN IDEA OF HISSUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 

Jesus returned to Galilee, having completely lost his Jewish faith, and filled with revolutionary ardor. His ideas are now expressed withperfect clearness. The innocent aphorisms of the first part of hisprophetic career, in part borrowed from the Jewish rabbis anterior tohim, and the beautiful moral precepts of his second period, areexchanged for a decided policy. The Law would be abolished; and it wasto be abolished by him. [1] The Messiah had come, and he was theMessiah. The kingdom of God was about to be revealed; and it was hewho would reveal it. He knew well that he would be the victim of hisboldness; but the kingdom of God could not be conquered withoutviolence; it was by crises and commotions that it was to beestablished. [2] The Son of man would reappear in glory, accompanied bylegions of angels, and those who had rejected him would be confounded. 

[Footnote 1: The hesitancy of the immediate disciples of Jesus, ofwhom a considerable portion remained attached to Judaism, might causeobjections to be raised to this. But the trial of Jesus leaves no roomfor doubt. We shall see that he was there treated as a "corrupter. "The Talmud gives the procedure adopted against him as an example ofthat which ought to be followed against "corrupters, " who seek tooverturn the Law of Moses. (Talm. Of Jerus. , _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16;Talm. Of Bab. , _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_, 67 _a_. )]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xi. 12; Luke xvi. 16. ]

The boldness of such a conception ought not to surprise us. Longbefore this, Jesus had regarded his relation to God as that of a sonto his father. That which in others would be an insupportable pride, ought not in him to be regarded as presumption. 

The title of "Son of David" was the first which he accepted, probablywithout being concerned in the innocent frauds by which it was soughtto secure it to him. The family of David had, as it seems, been longextinct;[1] the Asmoneans being of priestly origin, could not pretendto claim such a descent for themselves; neither Herod nor the Romansdreamt for a moment that any representative whatever of the ancientdynasty existed in their midst. But from the close of the Asmoneandynasty the dream of an unknown descendant of the ancient kings, whoshould avenge the nation of its enemies, filled every mind. Theuniversal belief was, that the Messiah would be son of David, and likehim would be born at Bethlehem. [2] The first idea of Jesus was notprecisely this. The remembrance of David, which was uppermost in theminds of the Jews, had nothing in common with his heavenly reign. Hebelieved himself the Son of God, and not the son of David. Hiskingdom, and the deliverance which he meditated, were of quite anotherorder. But public opinion on this point made him do violence tohimself. The immediate consequence of the proposition, "Jesus is theMessiah, " was this other proposition, "Jesus is the son of David. " Heallowed a title to be given him, without which he could not hope forsuccess. He ended, it seems, by taking pleasure therein, for heperformed most willingly the miracles which were asked of him bythose who used this title in addressing him. [3] In this, as in manyother circumstances of his life, Jesus yielded to the ideas which werecurrent in his time, although they were not precisely his own. Heassociated with his doctrine of the "kingdom of God" all that couldwarm the heart and the imagination. It was thus that we have seen himadopt the baptism of John, although it could not have been of muchimportance to him. 

[Footnote 1: It is true that certain doctors--such as Hillel, Gamaliel--are mentioned as being of the race of David. But these arevery doubtful allegations. If the family of David still formed adistinct and prominent group, how is it that we never see it figure, by the side of the Sadokites, Boëthusians, the Asmoneans, and Herods, in the great struggles of the time?]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Ii. 5, 6, xxii. 42; Luke i. 32; John vii. 41, 42;_Acts_ ii. 30. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Ix. 27, xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31; Mark x. 47, 52; Luke xviii. 38. ]

One great difficulty presented itself--his birth at Nazareth, whichwas of public notoriety. We do not know whether Jesus strove againstthis objection. Perhaps it did not present itself in Galilee, wherethe idea that the son of David should be a Bethlehemite was lessspread. To the Galilean idealist, moreover, the title of "son ofDavid" was sufficiently justified, if he to whom it was given revivedthe glory of his race, and brought back the great days of Israel. DidJesus authorize by his silence the fictitious genealogies which hispartisans invented in order to prove his royal descent?[1] Did he knowanything of the legends invented to prove that he was born atBethlehem; and particularly of the attempt to connect his Bethlehemiteorigin with the census which had taken place by order of the imperiallegate, Quirinus?[2] We know not. The inexactitude and thecontradictions of the genealogies[3] lead to the belief that theywere the result of popular ideas operating at various points, and thatnone of them were sanctioned by Jesus. [4] Never does he designatehimself as son of David. His disciples, much less enlightened than he, frequently magnified that which he said of himself; but, as a rule, hehad no knowledge of these exaggerations. Let us add, that during thefirst three centuries, considerable portions of Christendom[5]obstinately denied the royal descent of Jesus and the authenticity ofthe genealogies. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. I. 1, and following; Luke iii. 23, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Ii. 1, and following; Luke ii. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: The two genealogies are quite contradictory, and do notagree with the lists of the Old Testament. The narrative of Luke onthe census of Quirinus implies an anachronism. See ante, p. 81, note4. It is natural to suppose, besides, that the legend may have laidhold of this circumstance. The census made a great impression on theJews, overturned their narrow ideas, and was remembered by them for along period. Cf. _Acts_ v. 37. ]

[Footnote 4: Julius Africanus (in Eusebius, _H. E. _, i. 7) supposesthat it was the relations of Jesus, who, having taken refuge inBatanea, attempted to recompose the genealogies. ]

[Footnote 5: The _Ebionites_, the "Hebrews, " the "Nazarenes, " Tatian, Marcion. Cf. Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xxix. 9, xxx. 3, 14, xlvi. 1;Theodoret, _Hæret. Fab. _, i. 20; Isidore of Pelusium, Epist. I. 371, ad Pansophium. ]

The legends about him were thus the fruit of a great and entirelyspontaneous conspiracy, and were developed around him during hislifetime. No great event in history has happened without having givenrise to a cycle of fables; and Jesus could not have put a stop tothese popular creations, even if he had wished to do so. Perhaps asagacious observer would have recognized from this point the germ ofthe narratives which were to attribute to him a supernatural birth, and which arose, it may be, from the idea, very prevalent inantiquity, that the incomparable man could not be born of the ordinaryrelations of the two sexes; or, it may be, in order to respond to animperfectly understood chapter of Isaiah, [1] which was thought toforetell that the Messiah should be born of a virgin; or, lastly, itmay be in consequence of the idea that the "breath of God, " alreadyregarded as a divine hypostasis, was a principle of fecundity. [2]Already, perhaps, there was current more than one anecdote about hisinfancy, conceived with the intention of showing in his biography theaccomplishment of the Messianic ideal;[3] or, rather, of theprophecies which the allegorical exegesis of the time referred to theMessiah. At other times they connected him from his birth withcelebrated men, such as John the Baptist, Herod the Great, Chaldeanastrologers, who, it was said, visited Jerusalem about this time, [4]and two aged persons, Simeon and Anna, who had left memories of greatsanctity. [5] A rather loose chronology characterized thesecombinations, which for the most part were founded upon real factstravestied. [6] But a singular spirit of gentleness and goodness, aprofoundly popular sentiment, permeated all these fables, and madethem a supplement to his preaching. [7] It was especially after thedeath of Jesus that such narratives became greatly developed; we may, however, believe that they circulated even during his life, excitingonly a pious credulity and simple admiration. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. I. 22, 23. ]

[Footnote 2: Gen. I. 2. For the analogous idea among the Egyptians, see Herodotus, iii. 28; Pomp. Mela, i. 9: Plutarch, _Quæst. Symp. _, VIII. I. 3; _De Isid. Et Osir. _, 43. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. I. 15, 23; Isa. Vii. 14, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Ii. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke ii. 25, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Thus the legend of the massacre of the Innocents probablyrefers to some cruelty exercised by Herod near Bethlehem. Comp. Jos. , _Ant. _, XIV. Ix. 4. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. I. , ii. ; Luke i. , ii. ; S. Justin, _Dial. CumTryph. _, 78, 106; _Protoevang. Of James_ (Apoca. ), 18 and following. ]

That Jesus never dreamt of making himself pass for an incarnation ofGod, is a matter about which there can be no doubt. Such an idea wasentirely foreign to the Jewish mind; and there is no trace of it inthe synoptical gospels, [1] we only find it indicated in portions ofthe Gospel of John, which cannot be accepted as expressing thethoughts of Jesus. Sometimes Jesus even seems to take precautions toput down such a doctrine. [2] The accusation that he made himself God, or the equal of God, is presented, even in the Gospel of John, as acalumny of the Jews. [3] In this last Gospel he declares himself lessthan his Father. [4] Elsewhere he avows that the Father has notrevealed everything to him. [5] He believes himself to be more than anordinary man, but separated from God by an infinite distance. He isSon of God, but all men are, or may become so, in divers degrees. [6]Every one ought daily to call God his father; all who are raised againwill be sons of God. [7] The divine son-ship was attributed in the OldTestament to beings whom it was by no means pretended were equal withGod. [8] The word "son" has the widest meanings in the Semiticlanguage, and in that of the New Testament. [9] Besides, the idea Jesushad of man was not that low idea which a cold Deism has introduced. Inhis poetic conception of Nature, one breath alone penetrates theuniverse; the breath of man is that of God; God dwells in man, andlives by man, the same as man dwells in God, and lives by God. [10]The transcendent idealism of Jesus never permitted him to have a veryclear notion of his own personality. He is his Father, his Father ishe. He lives in his disciples; he is everywhere with them;[11] hisdisciples are one, as he and his Father are one. [12] The idea to himis everything; the body, which makes the distinction of persons, isnothing. 

[Footnote 1: Certain passages, such as _Acts_ ii. 22, expresslyexclude this idea. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19. ]

[Footnote 3: John v. 18, and following, x. 33, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: John xiv. 28. ]

[Footnote 5: Mark xiii. 35. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. V. 9, 45; Luke iii. 38, vi. 35, xx. 36; John i. 12, 13, x. 34, 35. Comp. _Acts_ xvii. 28, 29; Rom. Viii. 14, 19, 21, ix. 26; 2 Cor. Vi. 18; Gal. Iii. 26; and in the Old Testament, _Deut. _xiv. 1; and especially _Wisdom_, ii. 13, 18. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke xx. 36. ]

[Footnote 8: Gen. Vi. 2; Job i. 6, ii. 1, xxviii. 7; Ps. Ii. 7, lxxxii. 6; 2 Sam. Vii. 14. ]

[Footnote 9: The child of the devil (Matt. Xiii. 38; _Acts_ xiii. 10);the children of this world (Mark iii. 17; Luke xvi. 8, xx. 34); thechildren of light (Luke xvi. 8; John xii. 36); the children of theresurrection (Luke xx. 36); the children of the kingdom (Matt. Viii. 12, xiii. 38); the children of the bride-chamber (Matt. Ix. 15; Markii. 19; Luke v. 34); the children of hell (Matt. Xxiii. 15); thechildren of peace (Luke x. 6), &c. Let us remember that the Jupiter ofpaganism is [Greek: patêr andrôn te theôn te]. ]

[Footnote 10: Comp. _Acts_ xvii. 28. ]

[Footnote 11: Matt. Xviii. 20, xxviii. 20. ]

[Footnote 12: John x. 30, xvii. 21. See in general the laterdiscourses of John, especially chap. Xvii. , which express one side ofthe psychological state of Jesus, though we cannot regard them as truehistorical documents. ]

The title "Son of God, " or simply "Son, "[1] thus became for Jesus atitle analogous to "Son of man, " and, like that, synonymous with the"Messiah, " with the sole difference that he called himself "Son ofman, " and does not seem to have made the same use of the phrase, "Sonof God. "[2] The title, Son of man, expressed his character as judge;that of Son of God his power and his participation in the supremedesigns. This power had no limits. His Father had given him all power. He had the power to alter even the Sabbath. [3] No one could know theFather except through him. [4] The Father had delegated to himexclusively the right of judging. [5] Nature obeyed him; but she obeysalso all who believe and pray, for faith can do everything. [6] We mustremember that no idea of the laws of Nature marked the limit of theimpossible, either in his own mind, or in that of his hearers. Thewitnesses of his miracles thanked God "for having given such powerunto men. "[7] He pardoned sins;[8] he was superior to David, toAbraham, to Solomon, and to the prophets. [9] We do not know in whatform, nor to what extent, these affirmations of himself were made. Jesus ought not to be judged by the law of our pettyconventionalities. The admiration of his disciples overwhelmed him andcarried him away. It is evident that the title of _Rabbi_, with whichhe was at first contented, no longer sufficed him; even the title ofprophet or messenger of God responded no longer to his ideas. Theposition which he attributed to himself was that of a superhumanbeing, and he wished to be regarded as sustaining a higherrelationship to God than other men. But it must be remarked that thesewords, "superhuman" and "supernatural, " borrowed from our pettytheology, had no meaning in the exalted religious consciousness ofJesus. To him Nature and the development of humanity were not limitedkingdoms apart from God--paltry realities subjected to the laws of ahopeless empiricism. There was no supernatural for him, because therewas no Nature. Intoxicated with infinite love, he forgot the heavychain which holds the spirit captive; he cleared at one bound theabyss, impossible to most, which the weakness of the human facultieshas created between God and man. 

[Footnote 1: The passages in support of this are too numerous to bereferred to here. ]

[Footnote 2: It is only in the Gospel of John that Jesus uses theexpression "Son of God, " or "Son, " in speaking of himself. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xii. 8; Luke vi. 5. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xi. 27. ]

[Footnote 5: John v. 22. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xvii. 18, 19; Luke xvii. 6. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Ix. 8. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Ix. 2, and following; Mark ii. 5, and following;Luke v. 20, vii. 47, 48. ]

[Footnote 9: Matt. Xii. 41, 42; xxii. 43, and following; John viii. 52, and following. ]

We cannot mistake in these affirmations of Jesus the germ of thedoctrine which was afterward to make of him a divine hypostasis, [1] inidentifying him with the Word, or "second God, "[2] or eldest Son ofGod, [3] or _Angel Metathronos_, [4] which Jewish theology created apartfrom him. [5] A kind of necessity caused this theology, in order tocorrect the extreme rigor of the old Monotheism, to place near God anassessor, to whom the eternal Father is supposed to delegate thegovernment of the universe. The belief that certain men areincarnations of divine faculties or "powers, " was widespread; theSamaritans possessed about the same time a thaumaturgus named Simon, whom they identified with the "great power of God. "[6] For nearly twocenturies, the speculative minds of Judaism had yielded to thetendency to personify the divine attributes, and certain expressionswhich were connected with the Divinity. Thus, the "breath of God, "which is often referred to in the Old Testament, is considered as aseparate being, the "Holy Spirit. " In the same manner the "Wisdom ofGod" and the "Word of God" became distinct personages. This was thegerm of the process which has engendered the _Sephiroth_ of theCabbala, the _Æons_ of Gnosticism, the hypostasis of Christianity, andall that dry mythology, consisting of personified abstractions, towhich Monotheism is obliged to resort when it wishes to pluralize theDeity. 

[Footnote 1: See especially John xiv. , and following. But it isdoubtful whether we have here the authentic teaching of Jesus. ]

[Footnote 2: Philo, cited in Eusebius, _Præp. Evang. _, vii. 13. ]

[Footnote 3: Philo, _De migr. Abraham_, § 1; _Quod Deus immut. _, § 6;_De confus. Ling. _, § 9, 14 and 28; De profugis, § 20; _De Somniis_, i. § 37; _De Agric. Noë_, § 12; _Quis rerum divin. Hæres_, § 25, andfollowing, 48, and following, &c. ]

[Footnote 4: [Greek: Metathronos], that is, sharing the throne of God;a kind of divine secretary, keeping the register of merits anddemerits; _Bereshith Rabba_, v. 6 _c_; Talm. Of Bab. , _Sanhedr. _, 38_b_; _Chagigah_, 15 _a_; Targum of Jonathan, _Gen. _, v. 24. ]

[Footnote 5: This theory of the [Greek: Logos] contains no Greekelements. The comparisons which have been made between it and the_Honover_ of the Parsees are also without foundation. The _Minokhired_or "Divine Intelligence, " has much analogy with the Jewish [Greek:Logos]. (See the fragments of the book entitled _Minokhired_ inSpiegel, _Parsi-Grammatik_, pp. 161, 162. ) But the development whichthe doctrine of the _Minokhired_ has taken among the Parsees ismodern, and may imply a foreign influence. The "Divine Intelligence"(_Maiyu-Khratû_) appears in the Zend books; but it does not thereserve as basis to a theory; it only enters into some invocations. Thecomparisons which have been attempted between the Alexandrian theoryof the Word and certain points of Egyptian theology may not beentirely without value. But nothing indicates that, in the centurieswhich preceded the Christian era, Palestinian Judaism had borrowedanything from Egypt. ]

[Footnote 6: _Acts_ viii. 10. ]

Jesus appears to have remained a stranger to these refinements oftheology, which were soon to fill the world with barren disputes. Themetaphysical theory of the Word, such as we find it in the writings ofhis contemporary Philo, in the Chaldean Targums, and even in the bookof "Wisdom, "[1] is neither seen in the _Logia_ of Matthew, nor ingeneral in the synoptics, the most authentic interpreters of the wordsof Jesus. The doctrine of the Word, in fact, had nothing in commonwith Messianism. The "Word" of Philo, and of the Targums, is in nosense the Messiah. It was John the Evangelist, or his school, whoafterward endeavored to prove that Jesus was the Word, and whocreated, in this sense, quite a new theology, very different from thatof the "kingdom of God. "[2] The essential character of the Word wasthat of Creator and of Providence. Now, Jesus never pretended to havecreated the world, nor to govern it. His office was to judge it, torenovate it. The position of president at the final judgment ofhumanity was the essential attribute which Jesus attached to himself, and the character which all the first Christians attributed tohim. [3] Until the great day, he will sit at the right hand of God, ashis Metathronos, his first minister, and his future avenger. [4] Thesuperhuman Christ of the Byzantine apsides, seated as judge of theworld, in the midst of the apostles in the same rank with him, andsuperior to the angels who only assist and serve, is the exactrepresentation of that conception of the "Son of man, " of which wefind the first features so strongly indicated in the book of Daniel. 

[Footnote 1: ix. 1, 2, xvi. 12. Comp. Vii. 12, viii. 5, and following, ix. , and in general ix. -xi. These prosopopoeia of Wisdom personifiedare found in much older books. Prov. Viii. , ix. ; Job xxviii. ; _Rev. _xix. 13. ]

[Footnote 2: John, Gospel, i. 1-14; 1 Epistle v. 7; moreover, it willbe remarked, that, in the Gospel of John, the expression of "the Word"does not occur except in the prologue, and that the narrator neverputs it into the mouth of Jesus. ]

[Footnote 3: _Acts_ x. 42. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvi. 64; Mark xvi. 19; Luke xxii. 69; _Acts_ vii. 55; Rom. Viii. 34; Ephes. I. 20; Coloss. Iii. 1; Heb. I. 3, 13, viii. 1, x. 12, xii. 2; 1 Peter iii. 22. See the passages previously citedon the character of the Jewish Metathronos. ]

At all events, the strictness of a studied theology by no meansexisted in such a state of society. All the ideas we have just statedformed in the mind of the disciples a theological system so littlesettled, that the Son of God, this species of divine duplicate, ismade to act purely as man. He is tempted--he is ignorant of manythings--he corrects himself[1]--he is cast down, discouraged--he askshis Father to spare him trials--he is submissive to God as a son. [2]He who is to judge the world does not know the day of judgment. [3] Hetakes precautions for his safety. [4] Soon after his birth, he isobliged to be concealed to avoid powerful men who wish to kill him. [5]In exorcisms, the devil cheats him, and does not come out at the firstcommand. [6] In his miracles we are sensible of painful effort--anexhaustion, as if something went out of him. [7] All these are simplythe acts of a messenger of God, of a man protected and favored byGod. [8] We must not look here for either logic or sequence. The needJesus had of obtaining credence, and the enthusiasm of his disciples, heaped up contradictory notions. To the Messianic believers of themillenarian school, and to the enthusiastic readers of the books ofDaniel and of Enoch, he was the Son of man--to the Jews holding theordinary faith, and to the readers of Isaiah and Micah, he was the Sonof David--to the disciples he was the Son of God, or simply the Son. Others, without being blamed by the disciples, took him for John theBaptist risen from the dead, for Elias, for Jeremiah, conformable tothe popular belief that the ancient prophets were about to reappear, in order to prepare the time of the Messiah. [9]

[Footnote 1: Matt. X. 5, compared with xxviii. 19. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvi. 39; John xii. 27. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark xiii. 32. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xii. 14-16, xiv. 13; Mark iii. 6, 7, ix. 29, 30;John vii. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Ii. 20. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xvii. 20; Mark ix. 25. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke viii. 45, 46; John xi. 33, 38. ]

[Footnote 8: _Acts_ ii. 22. ]

[Footnote 9: Matt. Xiv. 2, xvi. 14, xvii. 3, and following; Mark vi. 14, 15, viii. 28; Luke ix. 8, and following, 19. ]

An absolute conviction, or rather the enthusiasm, which freed him fromeven the possibility of doubt, shrouded all these boldnesses. Welittle understand, with our cold and scrupulous natures, how any onecan be so entirely possessed by the idea of which he has made himselfthe apostle. To the deeply earnest races of the West, conviction meanssincerity to one's self. But sincerity to one's self has not muchmeaning to Oriental peoples, little accustomed to the subtleties of acritical spirit. Honesty and imposture are words which, in our rigidconsciences, are opposed as two irreconcilable terms. In the East, they are connected by numberless subtle links and windings. Theauthors of the Apocryphal books (of "Daniel" and of "Enoch, " forinstance), men highly exalted, in order to aid their cause, committed, without a shadow of scruple, an act which we should term afraud. The literal truth has little value to the Oriental; he seeseverything through the medium of his ideas, his interests, and hispassions. 

History is impossible, if we do not fully admit that there are manystandards of sincerity. All great things are done through the people;now we can only lead the people by adapting ourselves to its ideas. The philosopher who, knowing this, isolates and fortifies himself inhis integrity, is highly praiseworthy. But he who takes humanity withits illusions, and seeks to act with it and upon it, cannot be blamed. Cæsar knew well that he was not the son of Venus; France would not bewhat it is, if it had not for a thousand years believed in the HolyAmpulla of Rheims. It is easy for us, who are so powerless, to callthis falsehood, and, proud of our timid honesty, to treat withcontempt the heroes who have accepted the battle of life under otherconditions. When we have effected by our scruples what theyaccomplished by their falsehoods, we shall have the right to be severeupon them. At least, we must make a marked distinction betweensocieties like our own, where everything takes place in the full lightof reflection, and simple and credulous communities, in which thebeliefs that have governed ages have been born. Nothing great has beenestablished which does not rest on a legend. The only culprit in suchcases is the humanity which is willing to be deceived. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

MIRACLES. 

Two means of proof--miracles and the accomplishment ofprophecies--could alone, in the opinion of the contemporaries ofJesus, establish a supernatural mission. Jesus, and especially hisdisciples, employed these two processes of demonstration in perfectgood faith. For a long time, Jesus had been convinced that theprophets had written only in reference to him. He recognized himselfin their sacred oracles; he regarded himself as the mirror in whichall the prophetic spirit of Israel had read the future. The Christianschool, perhaps even in the lifetime of its founder, endeavored toprove that Jesus responded perfectly to all that the prophets hadpredicted of the Messiah. [1] In many cases, these comparisons werequite superficial, and are scarcely appreciable by us. They were mostfrequently fortuitous or insignificant circumstances in the life ofthe master which recalled to the disciples certain passages of thePsalms and the Prophets, in which, in consequence of their constantpreoccupation, they saw images of him. [2] The exegesis of the timeconsisted thus almost entirely in a play upon words, and in quotationsmade in an artificial and arbitrary manner. The synagogue had noofficially settled list of the passages which related to the futurereign. The Messianic references were very liberally created, andconstituted artifices of style rather than serious reasoning. 

[Footnote 1: For example, Matt. I. 22, ii. 5, 6, 15, 18, iv. 15. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. I. 23, iv. 6, 14, xxvi. 31, 54, 56, xxvii. 9, 35;Mark xiv. 27, xv. 28; John xii. 14. 15, xviii. 9, xix. 19, 24, 28, 36. ]

As to miracles, they were regarded at this period as the indispensablemark of the divine, and as the sign of the prophetic vocation. Thelegends of Elijah and Elisha were full of them. It was commonlybelieved that the Messiah would perform many. [1] In Samaria, a fewleagues from where Jesus was, a magician, named Simon, acquired analmost divine character by his illusions. [2] Afterward, when it wassought to establish the reputation of Apollonius of Tyana, and toprove that his life had been the sojourn of a god upon the earth, itwas not thought possible to succeed therein except by inventing a vastcycle of miracles. [3] The Alexandrian philosophers themselves, Plotinus and others, are reported to have performed several. [4] Jesuswas, therefore, obliged to choose between these twoalternatives--either to renounce his mission, or to become athaumaturgus. It must be remembered that all antiquity, with theexception of the great scientific schools of Greece and their Romandisciples, accepted miracles; and that Jesus not only believedtherein, but had not the least idea of an order of Nature regulated byfixed laws. His knowledge on this point was in no way superior to thatof his contemporaries. Nay, more, one of his most deeply rootedopinions was, that by faith and prayer man has entire power overNature. [5] The faculty of performing miracles was regarded as aprivilege frequently conferred by God upon men, [6] and it had nothingsurprising in it. 

[Footnote 1: John vii. 34; _IV. Esdras_, xiii. 50. ]

[Footnote 2: _Acts_ viii. 9, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: See his biography by Philostratus. ]

[Footnote 4: See the Lives of the Sophists, by Eunapius; the Life ofPlotinus, by Porphyry; that of Proclus, by Marinus; and that ofIsidorus, attributed to Damascius. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xvii. 19, xxi. 21, 22; Mark xi. 23, 24. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Ix. 8. ]

The lapse of time has changed that which constituted the power of thegreat founder of Christianity into something offensive to our ideas, and if ever the worship of Jesus loses its hold upon mankind, it willbe precisely on account of those acts which originally inspired beliefin him. Criticism experiences no embarrassment in presence of thiskind of historical phenomenon. A thaumaturgus of our days, unless ofan extreme simplicity, like that manifested by certain stigmatists ofGermany, is odious; for he performs miracles without believing inthem; and is a mere charlatan. But, if we take a Francis d'Assisi, thequestion becomes altogether different; the series of miraclesattending the origin of the order of St. Francis, far from offendingus, affords us real pleasure. The founder of Christianity lived in ascomplete a state of poetic ignorance as did St. Clair and the _tressocii_. The disciples deemed it quite natural that their master shouldhave interviews with Moses and Elias, that he should command theelements, and that he should heal the sick. We must remember, besides, that every idea loses something of its purity, as soon as it aspiresto realize itself. Success is never attained without some injury beingdone to the sensibility of the soul. Such is the feebleness of thehuman mind that the best causes are ofttimes gained only by badarguments. The demonstrations of the primitive apologists ofChristianity are supported by very poor reasonings. Moses, ChristopherColumbus, Mahomet, have only triumphed over obstacles by constantlymaking allowance for the weakness of men, and by not always giving thetrue reasons for the truth. It is probable that the hearers of Jesuswere more struck by his miracles than by his eminently divinediscourses. Let us add, that doubtless popular rumor, both before andafter the death of Jesus, exaggerated enormously the number ofoccurrences of this kind. The types of the gospel miracles, in fact, do not present much variety; they are repetitions of each other andseem fashioned from a very small number of models, accommodated to thetaste of the country. 

It is impossible, amongst the miraculous narratives so tediouslyenumerated in the Gospels, to distinguish the miracles attributed toJesus by public opinion from those in which he consented to play anactive part. It is especially impossible to ascertain whether theoffensive circumstances attending them, the groanings, thestrugglings, and other features savoring of jugglery, [1] are reallyhistorical, or whether they are the fruit of the belief of thecompilers, strongly imbued with theurgy, and living, in this respect, in a world analogous to that of the "spiritualists" of our times. [2]Almost all the miracles which Jesus thought he performed, appear tohave been miracles of healing. Medicine was at this period in Judea, what it still is in the East, that is to say, in no respectscientific, but absolutely surrendered to individual inspiration. Scientific medicine, founded by Greece five centuries before, was atthe time of Jesus unknown to the Jews of Palestine. In such a state ofknowledge, the presence of a superior man, treating the diseased withgentleness, and giving him by some sensible signs the assurance of hisrecovery, is often a decisive remedy. Who would dare to say that inmany cases, always excepting certain peculiar injuries, the touch ofa superior being is not equal to all the resources of pharmacy? Themere pleasure of seeing him cures. He gives only a smile, or a hope, but these are not in vain. 

[Footnote 1: Luke viii. 45, 46; John xi. 33 and 38. ]

[Footnote 2: _Acts_ ii. 2, and following, iv. 31, viii. 15, andfollowing, x. 44 and following. For nearly a century, the apostles andtheir disciples dreamed only of miracles. See the _Acts_, the writingsof St. Paul, the extracts from Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 39, &c. Comp. Mark iii. 15, xvi. 17, 18, 20. ]

Jesus had no more idea than his countrymen of a rational medicalscience; he believed, like every one else, that healing was to beeffected by religious practices, and such a belief was perfectlyconsistent. From the moment that disease was regarded as thepunishment of sin, [1] or as the act of a demon, [2] and by no means asthe result of physical causes, the best physician was the holy man whohad power in the supernatural world. Healing was considered a moralact; Jesus, who felt his moral power, would believe himself speciallygifted to heal. Convinced that the touching of his robe, [3] theimposition of his hands, [4] did good to the sick, he would have beenunfeeling, if he had refused to those who suffered, a solace which itwas in his power to bestow. The healing of the sick was considered asone of the signs of the kingdom of God, and was always associated withthe emancipation of the poor. [5] Both were the signs of the greatrevolution which was to end in the redress of all infirmities. 

[Footnote 1: John v. 14, ix. 1, and following, 34. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Ix. 32, 33, xii. 22; Luke xiii. 11, 16. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke viii. 45, 46. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke iv. 40. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xi. 5, xv. 30, 31; Luke ix. 1, 2, 6. ]

One of the species of cure which Jesus most frequently performed, wasexorcism, or the expulsion of demons. A strange disposition to believein demons pervaded all minds. It was a universal opinion, not only inJudea, but in the whole world, that demons seized hold of the bodiesof certain persons and made them act contrary to their will. A Persian_div_, often named in the Avesta, [1] _Aeschma-daëva_, the "div ofconcupiscence, " adopted by the Jews under the name of Asmodeus, [2]became the cause of all the hysterical afflictions of women. [3]Epilepsy, mental and nervous maladies, [4] in which the patient seemsno longer to belong to himself, and infirmities, the cause of which isnot apparent, as deafness, dumbness, [5] were explained in the samemanner. The admirable treatise, "On Sacred Disease, " by Hippocrates, which set forth the true principles of medicine on this subject, fourcenturies and a half before Jesus, had not banished from the world sogreat an error. It was supposed that there were processes more or lessefficacious for driving away the demons; and the occupation ofexorcist was a regular profession like that of physician. [6] There isno doubt that Jesus had in his lifetime the reputation of possessingthe greatest secrets of this art. [7] There were at that time manylunatics in Judea, doubtless in consequence of the great mentalexcitement. These mad persons, who were permitted to go at large, asthey still are in the same districts, inhabited the abandonedsepulchral caves, which were the ordinary retreat of vagrants. Jesushad great influence over these unfortunates. [8] A thousand singularincidents were related in connection with his cures, in which thecredulity of the time gave itself full scope. But still thesedifficulties must not be exaggerated. The disorders which wereexplained by "possessions" were often very slight. In our times, inSyria, they regard as mad or possessed by a demon (these two ideaswere expressed by the same word, _medjnoun_[9]) people who are onlysomewhat eccentric. A gentle word often suffices in such cases todrive away the demon. Such were doubtless the means employed by Jesus. Who knows if his celebrity as exorcist was not spread almost withouthis own knowledge? Persons who reside in the East are occasionallysurprised to find themselves, after some time, in possession of agreat reputation, as doctors, sorcerers, or discoverers of treasures, without being able to account to themselves for the facts which havegiven rise to these strange fancies. 

[Footnote 1: _Vendidad_, xi. 26; _Yaçna_, x. 18. ]

[Footnote 2: _Tobit_, iii. 8, vi. 14; Talm. Of Bab. , _Gittin_, 68_a_. ]

[Footnote 3: Comp. Mark xvi. 9; Luke viii. 2; _Gospel of the Infancy_, 16, 33; Syrian Code, published in the _Anecdota Syriaca_ of M. Land, i. , p. 152. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Bell. Jud. _, VII. Vi. 3; Lucian, _Philopseud. _, 16; Philostratus, _Life of Apoll. _, iii. 38, iv. 20; Aretus, _Decausis morb. Chron. _, i. 4. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Ix. 33, xii. 22; Mark ix. 16, 24; Luke xi. 14. ]

[Footnote 6: _Tobit_, viii. 2, 3; Matt. Xii. 27; Mark ix. 38; _Acts_xix. 13; Josephus, _Ant. _, VIII. Ii. 5; Justin, _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 85; Lucian, Epigr. , xxiii. (xvii. Dindorf). ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xvii. 20; Mark ix. 24, and following. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Viii. 28, ix. 34, xii. 43, and following, xvii. 14, and following, 20; Mark v. 1, and following; Luke viii. 27, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 9: The phrase, _Dæmonium habes_ (Matt. Xi. 18: Luke vii. 33;John vii. 20, viii. 48, and following, x. 20, and following) should betranslated by: "Thou art mad, " as we should say in Arabic: _Medjnounenté_. The verb [Greek: daimonan] has also, in all classicalantiquity, the meaning of "to be mad. "]

Many circumstances, moreover, seem to indicate that Jesus only becamea thaumaturgus late in life and against his inclination. He oftenperforms his miracles only after he has been besought to do so, andwith a degree of reluctance, reproaching those who asked them for thegrossness of their minds. [1] One singularity, apparently inexplicable, is the care he takes to perform his miracles in secret, and therequest he addresses to those whom he heals to tell no one. [2] Whenthe demons wish to proclaim him the Son of God, he forbids them toopen their mouths; but they recognize him in spite of himself. [3]These traits are especially characteristic in Mark, who ispre-eminently the evangelist of miracles and exorcisms. It seems thatthe disciple, who has furnished the fundamental teachings of thisGospel, importuned Jesus with his admiration of the wonderful, andthat the master, wearied of a reputation which weighed upon him, hadoften said to him, "See thou say nothing to any man. " Once thisdiscordance evoked a singular outburst, [4] a fit of impatience, inwhich the annoyance these perpetual demands of weak minds causedJesus, breaks forth. One would say, at times, that the character ofthaumaturgus was disagreeable to him, and that he sought to give aslittle publicity as possible to the marvels which, in a manner, grewunder his feet. When his enemies asked a miracle of him, especially acelestial miracle, a "sign from heaven, " he obstinately refused. [5] Wemay therefore conclude that his reputation of thaumaturgus was imposedupon him, that he did not resist it much, but also that he did nothingto aid it, and that, at all events, he felt the vanity of popularopinion on this point. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xii. 39, xvi. 4, xvii. 16; Mark viii. 17, andfollowing, ix. 18; Luke ix. 41. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Viii. 4, ix. 30, 31, xii. 16, and following; Marki. 44, vii. 24, and following, viii. 26. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark i. 24, 25, 34, iii. 12; Luke iv. 41. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xvii. 16; Mark ix. 18; Luke ix. 41. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xii. 38, and following, xvi. 1, and following; Markviii. 11. ]

We should neglect to recognize the first principles of history if weattached too much importance to our repugnances on this matter, andif, in order to avoid the objections which might be raised against thecharacter of Jesus, we attempted to suppress facts which, in the eyesof his contemporaries, were considered of the greatest importance. [1]It would be convenient to say that these are the additions ofdisciples much inferior to their Master who, not being able toconceive his true grandeur, have sought to magnify him by illusionsunworthy of him. But the four narrators of the life of Jesus areunanimous in extolling his miracles; one of them, Mark, interpreter ofthe apostle Peter, [2] insists so much on this point, that, if we tracethe character of Christ only according to this Gospel, we shouldrepresent him as an exorcist in possession of charms of rare efficacy, as a very potent sorcerer, who inspired fear, and whom the peoplewished to get rid of. [3] We will admit, then, without hesitation, thatacts which would now be considered as acts of illusion or folly, helda large place in the life of Jesus. Must we sacrifice to theseuninviting features the sublimer aspect of such a life? God forbid. Amere sorcerer, after the manner of Simon the magician, would not havebrought about a moral revolution like that effected by Jesus. If thethaumaturgus had effaced in Jesus the moralist and the religiousreformer, there would have proceeded from him a school of theurgy, andnot Christianity. 

[Footnote 1: Josephus, _Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 3. ]

[Footnote 2: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 39. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark iv. 40, v. 15, 17, 33, 36, vi. 50, x. 32; cf. Matt. Viii. 27, 34, ix. 8, xiv. 27, xvii. 6, 7, xxviii. 5, 10; Luke iv. 36, v. 17, viii. 25, 35, 37, ix. 34. The Apocryphal Gospel, said to be byThomas the Israelite, carries this feature to the most offensiveabsurdity. Compare the _Miracles of the Infancy_, in Philo, _Cod. Apocr. N. T. _, p. Cx. , note. ]

The problem, moreover, presents itself in the same manner with respectto all saints and religious founders. Things now considered morbid, such as epilepsy and seeing of visions, were formerly principles ofpower and greatness. Physicians can designate the disease which madethe fortune of Mahomet. [1] Almost in our own day, the men who havedone the most for their kind (the excellent Vincent de Paul himself!)were, whether they wished it or not, thaumaturgi. If we set out withthe principle that every historical personage to whom acts have beenattributed, which we in the nineteenth century hold to be irrationalor savoring of quackery, was either a madman or a charlatan, allcriticism is nullified. The school of Alexandria was a noble school, but, nevertheless, it gave itself up to the practices of anextravagant theurgy. Socrates and Pascal were not exempt fromhallucinations. Facts ought to explain themselves by proportionatecauses. The weaknesses of the human mind only engender weakness; greatthings have always great causes in the nature of man, although theyare often developed amidst a crowd of littlenesses which, tosuperficial minds, eclipse their grandeur. 

[Footnote 1: _Hysteria Muscularis_ of Shoenlein. ]

In a general sense, it is therefore true to say that Jesus was onlythaumaturgus and exorcist in spite of himself. Miracles are ordinarilythe work of the public much more than of him to whom they areattributed. Jesus persistently shunned the performance of the wonderswhich the multitude would have created for him; the greatest miraclewould have been his refusal to perform any; never would the laws ofhistory and popular psychology have suffered so great a derogation. The miracles of Jesus were a violence done to him by his age, aconcession forced from him by a passing necessity. The exorcist andthe thaumaturgus have alike passed away; but the religious reformerwill live eternally. 

Even those who did not believe in him were struck with these acts, andsought to be witnesses of them. [1] The pagans, and personsunacquainted with him, experienced a sentiment of fear, and sought toremove him from their district. [2] Many thought perhaps to abuse hisname by connecting it with seditious movements. [3] But the purelymoral and in no respect political tendency of the character of Jesussaved him from these entanglements. His kingdom was in the circle ofdisciples, whom a like freshness of imagination and the same foretasteof heaven had grouped and retained around him. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 1, and following; Mark vi. 14; Luke ix. 7, xxiii. 8. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Viii. 34; Mark v. 17, viii. 37. ]

[Footnote 3: John vi. 14, 15. ]

CHAPTER XVII. 

DEFINITIVE FORM OF THE IDEAS OF JESUS RESPECTING THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 

We suppose that this last phase of the activity of Jesus continuedabout eighteen months from the time of his return from the Passover ofthe year 31, until his journey to the feast of tabernacles of the year32. [1] During this time, the mind of Jesus does not appear to havebeen enriched by the addition of any new element; but all his oldideas grew and developed with an ever-increasing degree of power andboldness. 

[Footnote 1: John v. 1, vii. 2. We follow the system of John, according to whom the public life of Jesus lasted three years. Thesynoptics, on the contrary, group all the facts within the space ofone year. ]

The fundamental idea of Jesus from the beginning, was theestablishment of the kingdom of God. But this kingdom of God, as wehave already said, appears to have been understood by Jesus in verydifferent senses. At times, we should take him for a democratic leaderdesiring only the triumph of the poor and the disinherited. At othertimes, the kingdom of God is the literal accomplishment of theapocalyptic visions of Daniel and Enoch. Lastly, the kingdom of God isoften a spiritual kingdom, and the approaching deliverance is adeliverance of the spirit. In this last sense the revolution desiredby Jesus was the one which has really taken place; the establishmentof a new worship, purer than that of Moses. All these thoughts appearto have existed at the same time in the mind of Jesus. The first one, however--that of a temporal revolution--does not appear to haveimpressed him much; he never regarded the earth or the riches of theearth, or material power, as worth caring for. He had no worldlyambition. Sometimes by a natural consequence, his great religiousimportance was in danger of being converted into mere socialimportance. Men came requesting him to judge and arbitrate onquestions affecting their material interests. Jesus rejected theseproposals with haughtiness, treating them as insults. [1] Full of hisheavenly ideal, he never abandoned his disdainful poverty. As to theother two conceptions of the kingdom of God, Jesus appears always tohave held them simultaneously. If he had been only an enthusiast, ledaway by the apocalypses on which the popular imagination fed, he wouldhave remained an obscure sectary, inferior to those whose ideas hefollowed. If he had been only a puritan, a sort of Channing or"Savoyard vicar, " he would undoubtedly have been unsuccessful. The twoparts of his system, or, rather, his two conceptions of the kingdom ofGod, rest one on the other, and this mutual support has been the causeof his incomparable success. The first Christians were dreamers, living in a circle of ideas which we should term visionary; but, atthe same time, they were the heroes of that social war which hasresulted in the enfranchisement of the conscience, and in theestablishment of a religion from which the pure worship, proclaimed bythe founder, will eventually proceed. 

[Footnote 1: Luke xii. 13, 14. ]

The apocalyptic ideas of Jesus, in their most complete form, may thusbe summed up. The existing condition of humanity is approaching itstermination. This termination will be an immense revolution, "ananguish" similar to the pains of child-birth; a _palingenesis_, or, in the words of Jesus himself, a "new birth, "[1] preceded by darkcalamities and heralded by strange phenomena. [2] In the great day, there will appear in the heavens the sign of the Son of man; it willbe a startling and luminous vision like that of Sinai, a great stormrending the clouds, a fiery meteor flashing rapidly from east to west. The Messiah will appear in the clouds, clothed in glory and majesty, to the sound of trumpets and surrounded by angels. His disciples willsit by his side upon thrones. The dead will then arise, and theMessiah will proceed to judgment. [3]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xix. 28. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxiv. 3, and following; Mark xiii. 4, andfollowing; Luke xvii. 22, and following, xxi. 7, and following. Itmust be remarked that the picture of the end of time attributed toJesus by the synoptics, contains many features which relate to thesiege of Jerusalem. Luke wrote some time after the siege (xxi. 9, 20, 24). The compilation of Matthew, on the contrary (xxvi. 15, 16, 22, 29), carries us back exactly to this precise period, or very shortlyafterward. There is no doubt, however, that Jesus predicted that greatterrors would precede his reappearance. These terrors were an integralpart of all the Jewish apocalypses. _Enoch_, xcix. , c. , cii. , ciii. (division of Dillman); _Carm. Sibyll. _, iii. 334, and following, 633, and following, iv. 168, and following, v. 511, and following. According to Daniel also, the reign of the saints will only come afterthe desolation shall have reached its height. Chap. Vii. 25, andfollowing, viii. 23, and following, ix. 26, 27, xii. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xvi. 27, xix. 28, xx. 21, xxiv. 30, and following, xxv. 31, and following, xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 30; 1_Cor. _ xv. 52; 1 Thess. Iv. 15, and following. ]

At this judgment men will be divided into two classes according totheir deeds. [1] The angels will be the executors of the sentences. [2]The elect will enter into delightful mansions, which have beenprepared for them from the foundation of the world;[3] there they willbe seated, clothed with light, at a feast presided over by Abraham, [4]the patriarchs and the prophets. They will be the smaller number. [5]The rest will depart into _Gehenna_. Gehenna was the western valley ofJerusalem. There the worship of fire had been practised at varioustimes, and the place had become a kind of sewer. Gehenna was, therefore, in the mind of Jesus, a gloomy, filthy valley, full offire. Those excluded from the kingdom will there be burnt and eaten bythe never-dying worm, in company with Satan and his rebel angels. [6]There, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. [7] The kingdom ofheaven will be as a closed room, lighted from within, in the midst ofa world of darkness and torments. [8]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiii. 38, and following, xxv. 33. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiii. 39, 41, 49. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxv. 34. Comp. John xiv. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Viii. 11, xiii. 43, xxvi. 29; Luke xiii. 28, xvi. 22, xxii. 30. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xiii. 23, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xxv. 41. The idea of the fall of the angels, detailed in the Book of Enoch, was universally admitted in the circleof Jesus. Epistle of Jude 6, and following; 2d Epistle attributed toSaint Peter, ii. 4. 11; _Revelation_ xii. 9; Gospel of John viii. 44. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. V. 22, viii. 12, x. 28, xiii. 40, 42, 50, xviii. 8, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30; Mark ix. 43, &c. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Viii. 12, xxii. 13, xxv. 30. Comp. Jos. , _B. J. _, III. Viii. 5. ]

This new order of things will be eternal. Paradise and Gehenna willhave no end. An impassable abyss separates the one from the other. [1]The Son of man, seated on the right hand of God, will preside overthis final condition of the world and of humanity. [2]

[Footnote 1: Luke xvi. 28. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark iii. 29; Luke xxii. 69; _Acts_ vii. 55. ]

That all this was taken literally by the disciples and by the masterhimself at certain moments, appears clearly evident from the writingsof the time. If the first Christian generation had one profound andconstant belief, it was that the world was near its end, [1] and thatthe great "revelation"[2] of Christ was about to take place. Thestartling proclamation, "The time is at hand, "[3] which commences andcloses the Apocalypse; the incessantly reiterated appeal, "He thathath ears to hear let him hear!"[4] were the cries of hope andencouragement for the whole apostolic age. A Syrian expression, _Maranatha_, "Our Lord cometh!"[5] became a sort of password, which thebelievers used amongst themselves to strengthen their faith and theirhope. The Apocalypse, written in the year 68 of our era, [6] declaresthat the end will come in three years and a half. [7] The "Ascension ofIsaiah"[8] adopts a calculation very similar to this. 

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ ii. 17, iii. 19, and following; 1 _Cor. _ xv. 23, 24, 52; 1 Thess. Iii. 13, iv. 14, and following, v. 23; 2 Thess. Ii. 8; 1 Tim. Vi. 14; 2 Tim. Iv. 1; Tit. Ii. 13; Epistle of James v. 3, 8;Epistle of Jude 18; 2d Epistle of Peter, iii. Entirely; _Revelations_entirely, and in particular, i. 1, ii. 5, 16, iii. 11, xi. 14, xxii. 6, 7, 12, 20. Comp. 4th Book of Esdras, iv. 26. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xvii. 30; 1 _Cor. _ i. 7, 8; 2 Thess. I. 7; 1 Peteri. 7, 13; _Revelations_ i. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: _Revelations_ i. 3, xxii. 10. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xi. 15, xiii. 9, 43; Mark iv. 9, 23, vii. 16; Lukeviii. 8, xiv. 35; _Revelations_ ii. 7, 11, 27, 29, iii. 6, 13, 22, xiii. 9. ]

[Footnote 5: 1 _Cor. _ xvi. 22. ]

[Footnote 6: _Revelations_ xvii. 9, and following. The sixth emperor, whom the author represents as reigning, is Galba. The dead emperor, who was to return, is Nero, whose name is given in figures (xiii. 18). ]

[Footnote 7: _Revelations_ xi. 2, 3, xii. 14. Comp. Daniel vii. 25, xii. 7. ]

[Footnote 8: Chap. Iv. , v. 12 and 14. Comp. Cedrenus, p. 68 (Paris, 1647). ]

Jesus never indulged in such precise details. When he was interrogatedas to the time of his advent, he always refused to reply; once even hedeclared that the date of this great day was known only by the Father, who had revealed it neither to the angels nor to the Son. [1] He saidthat the time when the kingdom of God was most anxiously expected, wasjust that in which it would not appear. [2] He constantly repeated thatit would be a surprise, as in the times of Noah and of Lot; that wemust be on our guard, always ready to depart; that each one must watchand keep his lamp trimmed as for a wedding procession, which arrivesunforeseen;[3] that the Son of man would come like a thief, at anhour when he would not be expected;[4] that he would appear as a flashof lightning, running from one end of the heavens to the other. [5] Buthis declarations on the nearness of the catastrophe leave no room forany equivocations. [6] "This generation, " said he, "shall not pass tillall these things be fulfilled. There be some standing here, whichshall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in hiskingdom. "[7] He reproaches those who do not believe in him, for notbeing able to read the signs of the future kingdom. "When it isevening, ye say, It will be fair weather; for the sky is red. And inthe morning, It will be foul weather to-day; for the sky is red andlowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but canye not discern the signs of the times?"[8] By an illusion common toall great reformers, Jesus imagined the end to be much nearer than itreally was; he did not take into account the slowness of the movementsof humanity; he thought to realize in one day that which, eighteencenturies later, has still to be accomplished. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxiv. 36; Mark xiii. 32. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xvii. 20. Comp. Talmud of Babyl. , _Sanhedrim_, 97_a_. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxiv. 36, and following; Mark xiii. 32, andfollowing; Luke xii. 35, and following, xvii. 20, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke xii. 40; 2 Peter iii. 10. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xvii. 24. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. X. 23, xxiv. , xxv. Entirely, and especially xxiv. 29, 34; Mark xiii. 30; Luke xiii. 35, xxi. 28, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xvi. 28, xxiii. 36, 39, xxiv. 34; Mark viii. 39;Luke ix. 27, xxi. 32. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Xvi. 2-4; Luke xii. 54-56. ]

These formal declarations preoccupied the Christian family for nearlyseventy years. It was believed that some of the disciples would seethe day of the final revelation before dying. John, in particular, wasconsidered as being of this number;[1] many believed that he wouldnever die. Perhaps this was a later opinion suggested toward the endof the first century, by the advanced age which John seems to havereached; this age having given rise to the belief that God wished toprolong his life indefinitely until the great day, in order to realizethe words of Jesus. However this may be, at his death the faith ofmany was shaken, and his disciples attached to the prediction ofChrist a more subdued meaning. [2]

[Footnote 1: John xxi. 22, 23. ]

[Footnote 2: John xxi. 22, 23. Chapter xxi. Of the fourth Gospel is anaddition, as is proved by the final clause of the primitivecompilation, which concludes at verse 31 of chapter xx. But theaddition is almost contemporaneous with the publication of the Gospelitself. ]

At the same time that Jesus fully admitted the Apocalyptic beliefs, such as we find them in the apocryphal Jewish books, he admitted thedoctrine, which is the complement, or rather the condition of themall, namely, the resurrection of the dead. This doctrine, as we havealready said, was still somewhat new in Israel; a number of peopleeither did not know it, or did not believe it. [1] It was the faith ofthe Pharisees, and of the fervent adherents of the Messianicbeliefs. [2] Jesus accepted it unreservedly, but always in the mostidealistic sense. Many imagined that in the resuscitated world theywould eat, drink, and marry. Jesus, indeed, admits into his kingdom anew passover, a table, and a new wine;[3] but he expressly excludesmarriage from it. The Sadducees had on this subject an apparentlycoarse argument, but one which was really in conformity with the oldtheology. It will be remembered that according to the ancient sages, man survived only in his children. The Mosaic code had consecratedthis patriarchal theory by a strange institution, the levirate law. The Sadducees drew from thence subtle deductions against theresurrection. Jesus escaped them by formally declaring that in thelife eternal there would no longer exist differences of sex, and thatmen would be like the angels. [4] Sometimes he seems to promiseresurrection only to the righteous, [5] the punishment of the wickedconsisting in complete annihilation. [6] Oftener, however, Jesusdeclares that the resurrection shall bring eternal confusion to thewicked. [7]

[Footnote 1: Mark ix. 9; Luke xx. 27, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Dan. Xii. 2, and following; 2 Macc. Vii. Entirely, xii. 45, 46, xiv. 46; _Acts_ xxiii. 6, 8; Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. I. 3;_B. J. _, II. Viii. 14, III. Viii. 5. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvi. 29; Luke xxii. 30. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxii. 24, and following; Luke xx. 34-38; EbioniteGospel, entitled, "Of the Egyptians, " in Clem. Of Alex. , _Strom. _ ii. 9, 13; Clem. Rom. , Epist. Ii. 12. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xiv. 14, xx. 35, 36. This is also the opinion of St. Paul: 1 _Cor. _ xv. 23, and following; 1 Thess. Iv. 12, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Comp. 4th book of Esdras, ix. 22. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xxv. 32, and following. ]

It will be seen that nothing in all these theories was absolutely new. The Gospels and the writings of the apostles scarcely contain anythingas regards apocalyptic doctrines but what might be found already in"Daniel, "[1] "Enoch, "[2] and the "Sibylline Oracles, "[3] of Jewishorigin. Jesus accepted the ideas, which were generally received amonghis contemporaries. He made them his basis of action, or rather one ofhis bases; for he had too profound an idea of his true work toestablish it solely upon such fragile principles--principles so liableto be decisively refuted by facts. 

[Footnote 1: See especially chaps. Ii. , vi. -viii. , x. -xiii. ]

[Footnote 2: Chaps. I. , xiv. , lii. , lxii. , xciii. 9, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Book iii. 573, and following; 652, and following; 766, and following; 795, and following. ]

It is evident, indeed, that such a doctrine, taken by itself in aliteral manner, had no future. The world, in continuing to exist, caused it to crumble. One generation of man at the most was the limitof its endurance. The faith of the first Christian generation isintelligible, but the faith of the second generation is no longer so. After the death of John, or of the last survivor, whoever he might be, of the group which had seen the master, the word of Jesus wasconvicted of falsehood. [1] If the doctrine of Jesus had been simplybelief in an approaching end of the world, it would certainly now besleeping in oblivion. What is it, then, which has saved it? The greatbreadth of the Gospel conceptions, which has permitted doctrinessuited to very different intellectual conditions to be found under thesame creed. The world has not ended, as Jesus announced, and as hisdisciples believed. But it has been renewed, and in one sense renewedas Jesus desired. It is because his thought was two-sided that it hasbeen fruitful. His chimera has not had the fate of so many otherswhich have crossed the human mind, because it concealed a germ of lifewhich having been introduced, thanks to a covering of fable, into thebosom of humanity, has thus brought forth eternal fruits. 

[Footnote 1: These pangs of Christian conscience are rendered withsimplicity in the second epistle attributed to St. Peter, iii. 8, andfollowing. ]

And let us not say that this is a benevolent interpretation, imaginedin order to clear the honor of our great master from the cruelcontradiction inflicted on his dreams by reality. No, no: this truekingdom of God, this kingdom of the spirit, which makes each one kingand priest; this kingdom which, like the grain of mustard-seed, hasbecome a tree which overshadows the world, and amidst whose branchesthe birds have their nests, was understood, wished for, and founded byJesus. By the side of the false, cold, and impossible idea of anostentatious advent, he conceived the real city of God, the true"palingenesis, " the Sermon on the Mount, the apotheosis of the weak, the love of the people, regard for the poor, and the re-establishmentof all that is humble, true, and simple. This re-establishment he hasdepicted as an incomparable artist, by features which will lasteternally. Each of us owes that which is best in himself to him. Letus pardon him his hope of a vain apocalypse, and of a second coming ingreat triumph upon the clouds of heaven. Perhaps these were the errorsof others rather than his own; and if it be true that he himselfshared the general illusion, what matters it, since his dream renderedhim strong against death, and sustained him in a struggle, to which hemight otherwise have been unequal?

We must, then, attach several meanings to the divine city conceived byJesus. If his only thought had been that the end of time was near, andthat we must prepare for it, he would not have surpassed John theBaptist. To renounce a world ready to crumble, to detach one's selflittle by little from the present life, and to aspire to the kingdomabout to come, would have formed the gist of his preaching. Theteaching of Jesus had always a much larger scope. He proposed tohimself to create a new state of humanity, and not merely to preparethe end of that which was in existence. Elias or Jeremiah, reappearingin order to prepare men for the supreme crisis, would not havepreached as he did. This is so true that this morality, attributed tothe latter days, is found to be the eternal morality, that which hassaved humanity. Jesus himself in many cases makes use of modes ofspeech which do not accord with the apocalyptic theory. He oftendeclares that the kingdom of God has already commenced; that everyman bears it within himself; and can, if he be worthy, partake of it;that each one silently creates this kingdom by the true conversion ofthe heart. [1] The kingdom of God at such times is only the highestform of good. [2] A better order of things than that which exists, thereign of justice, which the faithful, according to their ability, ought to help in establishing; or, again, the liberty of the soul, something analogous to the Buddhist "deliverance, " the fruit of thesoul's separation from matter and absorption in the divine essence. These truths, which are purely abstract to us, were living realitiesto Jesus. Everything in his mind was concrete and substantial. Jesus, of all men, believed most thoroughly in the reality of the ideal. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Vi. 10, 33; Mark xii. 34; Luke xi. 2, xii. 31, xvii. 20, 21, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: See especially Mark xii. 34. ]

In accepting the Utopias of his time and his race, Jesus thus was ableto make high truths of them, thanks to the fruitful misconceptions oftheir import. His kingdom of God was no doubt the approachingapocalypse, which was about to be unfolded in the heavens. But it wasstill, and probably above all the kingdom of the soul, founded onliberty and on the filial sentiment which the virtuous man feels whenresting on the bosom of his Father. It was a pure religion, withoutforms, without temple, and without priest; it was the moral judgmentof the world, delegated to the conscience of the just man, and to thearm of the people. This is what was destined to live; this is what haslived. When, at the end of a century of vain expectation, thematerialistic hope of a near end of the world was exhausted, the truekingdom of God became apparent. Accommodating explanations threw aveil over the material kingdom, which was then seen to be incapable ofrealization. The Apocalypse of John, the chief canonical book of theNew Testament, [1] being too formally tied to the idea of an immediatecatastrophe, became of secondary importance, was held to beunintelligible, tortured in a thousand ways and almost rejected. Atleast, its accomplishment was adjourned to an indefinite future. Somepoor benighted ones who, in a fully enlightened age, still preservedthe hopes of the first disciples, became heretics (Ebionites, Millenarians), lost in the shallows of Christianity. Mankind hadpassed to another kingdom of God. The degree of truth contained in thethought of Jesus had prevailed over the chimera which obscured it. 

[Footnote 1: Justin, _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 81. ]

Let us not, however, despise this chimera, which has been the thickrind of the sacred fruit on which we live. This fantastic kingdom ofheaven, this endless pursuit after a city of God, which has constantlypreoccupied Christianity during its long career, has been theprinciple of that great instinct of futurity which has animated allreformers, persistent believers in the Apocalypse, from Joachim ofFlora down to the Protestant sectary of our days. This impotent effortto establish a perfect society has been the source of theextraordinary tension which has always made the true Christian anathlete struggling against the existing order of things. The idea ofthe "kingdom of God, " and the Apocalypse, which is the complete imageof it, are thus, in a sense, the highest and most poetic expressionsof human progress. But they have necessarily given rise to greaterrors. The end of the world, suspended as a perpetual menace overmankind, was, by the periodical panics which it caused duringcenturies, a great hindrance to all secular development. Societybeing no longer certain of its existence, contracted therefrom adegree of trepidation, and those habits of servile humility, whichrendered the Middle Ages so inferior to ancient and modern times. [1] Aprofound change had also taken place in the mode of regarding thecoming of Christ. When it was first announced to mankind that the endof the world was about to come, like the infant which receives deathwith a smile, it experienced the greatest access of joy that it hasever felt. But in growing old, the world became attached to life. Theday of grace, so long expected by the simple souls of Galilee, becameto these iron ages a day of wrath: _Dies iræ, dies illa!_ But, even inthe midst of barbarism, the idea of the kingdom of God continuedfruitful. In spite of the feudal church, of sects, and of religiousorders, holy persons continued to protest, in the name of the Gospel, against the iniquity of the world. Even in our days, troubled days, inwhich Jesus has no more authentic followers than those who seem todeny him, the dreams of an ideal organization of society, which haveso much analogy with the aspirations of the primitive Christian sects, are only in one sense the blossoming of the same idea. They are one ofthe branches of that immense tree in which germinates all thought of afuture, and of which the "kingdom of God" will be eternally the rootand stem. All the social revolutions of humanity will be grafted onthis phrase. But, tainted by a coarse materialism, and aspiring to theimpossible, that is to say, to found universal happiness uponpolitical and economical measures, the "socialist" attempts of ourtime will remain unfruitful until they take as their rule the truespirit of Jesus, I mean absolute idealism--the principle that, inorder to possess the world, we must renounce it. 

[Footnote 1: See, for example, the prologue of Gregory of Tours to his_Histoire Ecclesiastique des Francs_, and the numerous documents ofthe first half of the Middle Ages, beginning by the formula, "On theapproach of the night of the world. .. . "]

The phrase, "kingdom of God, " expresses also, very happily, the wantwhich the soul experiences of a supplementary destiny, of acompensation for the present life. Those who do not accept thedefinition of man as a compound of two substances, and who regard theDeistical dogma of the immortality of the soul as in contradictionwith physiology, love to fall back upon the hope of a finalreparation, which under an unknown form shall satisfy the wants of theheart of man. Who knows if the highest term of progress after millionsof ages may not evoke the absolute conscience of the universe, and inthis conscience the awakening of all that has lived? A sleep of amillion of years is not longer than the sleep of an hour. St. Paul, onthis hypothesis, was right in saying, _In ictu oculi!_[1] It iscertain that moral and virtuous humanity will have its reward, thatone day the ideas of the poor but honest man will judge the world, andthat on that day the ideal figure of Jesus will be the confusion ofthe frivolous who have not believed in virtue, and of the selfish whohave not been able to attain to it. The favorite phrase of Jesuscontinues, therefore, full of an eternal beauty. A kind of exalteddivination seems to have maintained it in a vague sublimity, embracingat the same time various orders of truths. 

[Footnote 1: 1 _Cor. _ xv. 52. ]

CHAPTER XVIII. 

INSTITUTIONS OF JESUS. 

That Jesus was never entirely absorbed in his apocalyptic ideas isproved, moreover, by the fact that at the very time he was mostpreoccupied with them, he laid with rare forethought the foundation ofa church destined to endure. It is scarcely possible to doubt that hehimself chose from among his disciples those who were pre-eminentlycalled the "apostles, " or the "twelve, " since on the day after hisdeath we find them forming a distinct body, and filling up by electionthe vacancies that had arisen in their midst. [1] They were the twosons of Jonas; the two sons of Zebedee; James, son of Cleophas;Philip; Nathaniel bar-Tolmai; Thomas; Levi, or Matthew, the son ofAlphæus; Simon Zelotes; Thaddeus or Lebbæus; and Judas of Kerioth. [2]It is probable that the idea of the twelve tribes of Israel had hadsome share in the choice of this number. [3]

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ i. 15, and following; 1 _Cor. _ xv. 5; Gal. I. 10. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. X. 2 and following; Mark iii. 16, and following;Luke vi. 14, and following; _Acts_ i. 13; Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 39. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30. ]

The "twelve, " at all events, formed a group of privileged disciples, among whom Peter maintained a fraternal priority, [1] and to them Jesusconfided the propagation of his work. There was nothing, however, which presented the appearance of a regularly organized sacerdotalschool. The lists of the "twelve, " which have been preserved, containmany uncertainties and contradictions; two or three of those whofigure in them have remained completely obscure. Two, at least, Peterand Philip, [2] were married and had children. 

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ i. 15, ii. 14, v. 2, 3, 29, viii. 19, xv. 7; Gal. I. 18. ]

[Footnote 2: For Peter, see ante, p. 174; for Philip, see Papias, Polycrates, and Clement of Alexandria, quoted by Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 30, 31, 39, v. 24. ]

Jesus evidently confided secrets to the twelve, which he forbade themto communicate to the world. [1] It seems as if his plan at times wasto surround himself with a degree of mystery, to postpone the mostimportant testimony respecting himself till after his death, and toreveal himself completely only to his disciples, confiding to them thecare of demonstrating him afterward to the world. [2] "What I tell youin darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, thatpreach ye upon the housetops. " This spared him the necessity of tooprecise declarations, and created a kind of medium between the publicand himself. It is clear that there were certain teachings confined tothe apostles, and that he explained many parables to them, the meaningof which was ambiguous to the multitude. [3] An enigmatical form and adegree of oddness in connecting ideas were customary in the teachingsof the doctors, as may be seen in the sentences of the _Pirké Aboth_. Jesus explained to his intimate friends whatever was peculiar in hisapothegms or in his apologues, and showed them his meaning stripped ofthe wealth of illustration which sometimes obscured it. [4] Many ofthese explanations appear to have been carefully preserved. [5]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xvi. 20, xvii. 9; Mark viii. 30, ix. 8. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. X. 26, 27; Mark iv. 21, and following; Luke viii. 17, xii. 2, and following; John xiv. 22. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xiii. 10, and following, 34 and following; Mark iv. 10, and following, 33, and following; Luke viii. 9, and following;xii. 41. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xvi. 6, and following; Mark vii. 17-23. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xiii. 18, and following; Mark vii. 18, andfollowing. ]

During the lifetime of Jesus, the apostles preached, [1] but withoutever departing far from him. Their preaching, moreover, was limited tothe announcement of the speedy coming of the kingdom of God. [2] Theywent from town to town, receiving hospitality, or rather taking itthemselves, according to the custom of the country. The guest in theEast has much authority; he is superior to the master of the house, who has the greatest confidence in him. This fireside preaching isadmirably adapted to the propagation of new doctrines. The hiddentreasure is communicated, and payment is thus made for what isreceived; politeness and good feeling lend their aid; the household istouched and converted. Remove Oriental hospitality, and it would beimpossible to explain the propagation of Christianity. Jesus, whoadhered greatly to good old customs, encouraged his disciples to makeno scruple of profiting by this ancient public right, probably alreadyabolished in the great towns where there were hostelries. [3] "Thelaborer, " said he, "is worthy of his hire!" Once installed in anyhouse, they were to remain there, eating and drinking what was offeredthem, as long as their mission lasted. 

[Footnote 1: Luke ix. 6. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke x. 11. ]

[Footnote 3: The Greek word [Greek: pandokeion], in all the languagesof the Semitic East, designates an hostelry. ]

Jesus desired that, in imitation of his example, the messengers of theglad tidings should render their preaching agreeable by kindly andpolished manners. He directed that, on entering into a house, theyshould give the salaam or greeting. Some hesitated; the salaam beingthen, as now, in the East, a sign of religious communion, which is notrisked with persons of a doubtful faith. "Fear nothing, " said Jesus;"if no one in the house is worthy of your salute, it will return untoyou. "[1] Sometimes, in fact, the apostles of the kingdom of God werebadly received, and came to complain to Jesus, who generally sought tosoothe them. Some of them, persuaded of the omnipotence of theirmaster, were hurt at this forbearance. The sons of Zebedee wanted himto call down fire from heaven upon the inhospitable towns. [2] Jesusreceived these outbursts with a subtle irony, and stopped them bysaying: "The Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but tosave them. "

[Footnote 1: Matt. X. 11, and following; Mark vi. 10, and following;Luke x. 5, and following. Comp. 2 Epistle of John, 10, 11. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke ix. 52, and following. ]

He sought in every way to establish as a principle that his apostleswere as himself. [1] It was believed that he had communicated hismarvellous virtues to them. They cast out demons, prophesied, andformed a school of renowned exorcists, [2] although certain cases werebeyond their power. [3] They also wrought cures, either by theimposition of hands, or by the anointing with oil, [4] one of thefundamental processes of Oriental medicine. Lastly, like the Psylli, they could handle serpents and could drink deadly potions withimpunity. [5] The further we get from Jesus--the more offensive doesthis theurgy become. But there is no doubt that it was generallyreceived by the primitive Church, and that it held an important placein the estimation of the world around. [6] Charlatans, as generallyhappens, took advantage of this movement of popular credulity. Evenin the lifetime of Jesus, many, without being his disciples, cast outdemons in his name. The true disciples were much displeased at this, and sought to prevent them. Jesus, who saw that this was really anhomage paid to his renown, was not very severe toward them. [7] It mustbe observed, moreover, that the exercise of these gifts had to somedegree become a trade. Carrying the logic of absurdity to the extreme, certain men cast out demons by Beelzebub, [8] the prince of demons. They imagined that this sovereign of the infernal regions must haveentire authority over his subordinates, and that in acting through himthey were certain to make the intruding spirit depart. [9] Some evensought to buy from the disciples of Jesus the secret of the miraculouspowers which had been conferred upon them. [10] The germ of a churchfrom this time began to appear. This fertile idea of the power of menin association (_ecclesia_) was doubtless derived from Jesus. Full ofthe purely idealistic doctrine that it is the union of love whichbrings souls together, he declared that whenever men assembled in hisname, he would be in their midst. He confided to the Church the rightto bind and to unbind (that is to say, to render certain things lawfulor unlawful), to remit sins, to reprimand, to warn with authority, andto pray with the certainty of being heard favorably. [11] It ispossible that many of these words may have been attributed to themaster, in order to give a warrant to the collective authority whichwas afterward sought to be substituted for that of Jesus. At allevents, it was only after his death that particular churches wereestablished, and even this first constitution was made purely andsimply on the model of the synagogue. Many personages who had lovedJesus much, and had founded great hopes upon him, as Joseph ofArimathea, Lazarus, Mary Magdalen, and Nicodemus, did not, it seems, join these churches, but clung to the tender or respectful memorywhich they had preserved of him. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. X. 40, 42, xxv. 35, and following; Mark ix. 40;Luke x. 16; John xiii. 20. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Vii. 22, x. 1; Mark iii. 15, vi. 13; Luke x. 17. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xvii. 18, 19. ]

[Footnote 4: Mark vi. 13, xvi. 18; Epist. Jas. V. 14. ]

[Footnote 5: Mark xvi. 18; Luke x. 19. ]

[Footnote 6: Mark xvi. 20. ]

[Footnote 7: Mark ix. 37, 38; Luke ix. 49, 50. ]

[Footnote 8: An ancient god of the Philistines, transformed by theJews into a demon. ]

[Footnote 9: Matt. Xii. 24, and following. ]

[Footnote 10: _Acts_ viii. 18, and following. ]

[Footnote 11: Matt. Xviii. 17, and following; John xx. 23. ]

Moreover, there is no trace, in the teaching of Jesus, of an appliedmorality or of a canonical law, ever so slightly defined. Once only, respecting marriage, he spoke decidedly, and forbade divorce. [1]Neither was there any theology or creed. There were indefinite viewsrespecting the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, [2] from which, afterward, were drawn the Trinity and the Incarnation, but they werethen only in a state of indeterminate imagery. The later books of theJewish canon recognized the Holy Spirit, a sort of divine hypostasis, sometimes identified with Wisdom or the Word. [3] Jesus insisted uponthis point, [4] and announced to his disciples a baptism by fire and bythe spirit, [5] as much preferable to that of John, a baptism whichthey believed they had received, after the death of Jesus, in the formof a great wind and tongues of fire. [6] The Holy Spirit thus sent bythe Father was to teach them all truth, and testify to that whichJesus himself had promulgated. [7] In order to designate this Spirit, Jesus made use of the word _Peraklit_, which the Syro-Chaldaic hadborrowed from the Greek ([Greek: paraklêtos]), and which appears tohave had in his mind the meaning of "advocate, "[8] "counsellor, "[9]and sometimes that of "interpreter of celestial truths, " and of"teacher charged to reveal to men the hitherto hidden mysteries. "[10]He regarded himself as a _Peraklit_ to his disciples, [11] and theSpirit which was to come after his death would only take his place. This was an application of the process which the Jewish and Christiantheologies would follow during centuries, and which was to produce awhole series of divine assessors, the _Metathronos_, the _Synadelphe_or _Sandalphon_, and all the personifications of the Cabbala. But inJudaism, these creations were to remain free and individualspeculations, whilst in Christianity, commencing with the fourthcentury, they were to form the very essence of orthodoxy and of theuniversal doctrine. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xix. 3, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxviii. 19. Comp. Matt. Iii. 16, 17; John xv. 26. ]

[Footnote 3: _Sap. _ i. 7, vii. 7, ix. 17, xii. 1; _Eccles. _ i. 9, xv. 5, xxiv. 27; xxxix. 8; _Judith_ xvi. 17. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. X. 20; Luke xii. 12, xxiv. 49; John xiv. 26, xv. 26. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 26, iii. 5; _Acts_ i. 5, 8, x. 47. ]

[Footnote 6: _Acts_ ii. 1-4, xi. 15, xix. 6. Cf. John vii. 39. ]

[Footnote 7: John xv. 26, xvi. 13. ]

[Footnote 8: To _Peraklit_ was opposed _Katigor_, ([Greek:katêgoros]), the "accuser. "]

[Footnote 9: John xiv. 16; 1st Epistle of John ii. 1. ]

[Footnote 10: John xiv. 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, and following. Comp. Philo, _De Mundi opificio_, § 6. ]

[Footnote 11: John xiv. 16. Comp. The epistle before cited, _l. C. _]

It is unnecessary to remark how remote from the thought of Jesus wasthe idea of a religious book, containing a code and articles of faith. Not only did he not write, but it was contrary to the spirit of theinfant sect to produce sacred books. They believed themselves on theeve of the great final catastrophe. The Messiah came to put the sealupon the Law and the Prophets, not to promulgate new Scriptures. Withthe exception of the Apocalypse, which was in one sense the onlyrevealed book of the infant Christianity, all the other writings ofthe apostolic age were works evoked by existing circumstances, makingno pretensions to furnish a completely dogmatic whole. The Gospelshad at first an entirely personal character, and much less authoritythan tradition. [1]

[Footnote 1: Papias, in Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 39. ]

Had the sect, however, no sacrament, no rite, no sign of union? It hadone which all tradition ascribes to Jesus. One of the favorite ideasof the master was that he was the new bread, bread very superior tomanna, and on which mankind was to live. This idea, the germ of theEucharist, was at times expressed by him in singularly concrete forms. On one occasion especially, in the synagogue of Capernaum, he took adecided step, which cost him several of his disciples. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; butmy Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. "[1] And he added, "Iam the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger, and hethat believeth on me shall never thirst. "[2] These words excited muchmurmuring. "The Jews then murmured at him because he said, I am thebread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesusthe son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it thenthat he saith, I came down from heaven?" But Jesus insisting withstill more force, said, "I am that bread of life; your fathers did eatmanna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread which comethdown from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am theliving bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of thisbread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is myflesh, which I will give for the life of the world. "[3] The offencewas now at its height: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"Jesus going still further, said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, yehave no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hatheternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh ismeat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh anddrinketh my blood dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Fatherhas sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even heshall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: notas your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of thisbread shall live for ever. " Several of his disciples were offended atsuch obstinacy in paradox, and ceased to follow him. Jesus did notretract; he only added: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the fleshprofiteth nothing. The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. " The twelve remained faithful, notwithstanding thisstrange preaching. It gave to Cephas, in particular, an opportunity ofshowing his absolute devotion, and of proclaiming once more, "Thou artthat Christ, the Son of the living God. "

[Footnote 1: John vi. 32, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: We find an analogous form of expression provoking asimilar misunderstanding, in John iv. 10, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: A11 these discourses bear too strongly the imprint of thestyle peculiar to John, for them to be regarded as exact. The anecdoterelated in chapter vi. Of the fourth Gospel cannot, however, beentirely stripped of historical reality. ]

It is probable that from that time, in the common repasts of the sect, there was established some custom which was derived from the discourseso badly received by the men of Capernaum. But the apostolictraditions on this subject are very diverse and probably intentionallyincomplete. The synoptical gospels suppose that a unique sacramentalact served as basis to the mysterious rite, and declare this to havebeen "the last supper. " John, who has preserved the incident at thesynagogue of Capernaum, does not speak of such an act, although hedescribes the last supper at great length. Elsewhere we see Jesusrecognized in the breaking of bread, [1] as if this act had been tothose who associated with him the most characteristic of his person. When he was dead, the form under which he appeared to the pious memoryof his disciples, was that of president of a mysterious banquet, taking the bread, blessing it, breaking and presenting it to thosepresent. [2] It is probable that this was one of his habits, and thatat such times he was particularly loving and tender. One materialcircumstance, the presence of fish upon the table (a strikingindication, which proves that the rite had its birth on the shore ofLake Tiberias[3]), was itself almost sacramental, and became anecessary part of the conceptions of the sacred feast. [4]

[Footnote 1: Luke xxiv. 30, 35. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke _l. C. _; John xxi. 13. ]

[Footnote 3: Comp. Matt. Vii. 10, xiv. 17, and following, xv. 34, andfollowing; Mark vi. 38, and following; Luke ix. 13, and following, xi. 11, xxiv. 42; John vi. 9, and following, xxi. 9, and following. Thedistrict round Lake Tiberias is the only place in Palestine where fishforms a considerable portion of the diet. ]

[Footnote 4: John xxi. 13; Luke xxiv. 42, 43. Compare the oldestrepresentations of the Lord's Supper, related or corrected by M. DeRossi, in his dissertation on the [Greek: ICHTHYS] (_SpicilegiumSolesmense_ de dom Pitra, v. Iii. , p. 568, and following). The meaningof the anagram which the word [Greek: ICHTHYS] contains, was probablycombined with a more ancient tradition on the place of fish in theGospel repasts. ]

Their repasts were among the sweetest moments of the infant community. At these times they all assembled; the master spoke to each one, andkept up a charming and lively conversation. Jesus loved these seasons, and was pleased to see his spiritual family thus grouped aroundhim. [1] The participation of the same bread was considered as a kindof communion, a reciprocal bond. The master used, in this respect, extremely strong terms, which were afterward taken in a very literalsense. Jesus was, at the same time, very idealistic in hisconceptions, and very materialistic in his expression of them. Wishingto express the thought that the believer only lives by him, thataltogether (body, blood, and soul) he was the life of the trulyfaithful, he said to his disciples, "I am your nourishment"--a phrasewhich, turned in figurative style, became, "My flesh is your bread, myblood your drink. " Added to this, the modes of speech employed byJesus, always strongly subjective, carried him still further. Attable, pointing to the food, he said, "I am here"--holding thebread--"this is my body;" and of the wine, "This is my blood"--allmodes of speech which were equivalent to, "I am your nourishment. "

[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 15. ]

This mysterious rite obtained great importance in the lifetime ofJesus. It was probably established some time before the last journeyto Jerusalem, and it was the result of a general doctrine much morethan a determinate act. After the death of Jesus, it became the greatsymbol of Christian communion, [1] and it is to the most solemn momentof the life of the Saviour that its establishment is referred. It waswished to see, in the consecration of bread and wine, a farewellmemorial which Jesus, at the moment of quitting life, had left to hisdisciples. [2] They recognized Jesus himself in this sacrament. Thewholly spiritual idea of the presence of souls, which was one of themost familiar to the Master, which made him say, for instance, that hewas personally with his disciples[3] when they were assembled in hisname, rendered this easily admissible. Jesus, we have already said, never had a very defined notion of that which constitutesindividuality. In the degree of exaltation to which he had attained, the ideal surpassed everything to such an extent that the body countedfor nothing. We are one when we love one another, when we live independence on each other; it was thus that he and his disciples wereone. [4] His disciples adopted the same language. Those who for yearshad lived with him, had seen him constantly take the bread and the cup"between his holy and venerable hands, "[5] and thus offer himself tothem. It was he whom they ate and drank; he became the true passover, the former one having been abrogated by his blood. It is impossible totranslate into our essentially determined idiom, in which a rigorousdistinction between the material and the metaphorical must always beobserved, habits of style the essential character of which is toattribute to metaphor, or rather to the idea it represents, a completereality. 

[Footnote 1: _Acts_ ii. 42, 46. ]

[Footnote 2: 1 _Cor. _ xi. 20, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xviii. 20. ]

[Footnote 4: John xii. Entirely. ]

[Footnote 5: Canon of the Greek Masses and the Latin Mass (veryancient). ]

CHAPTER XIX. 

INCREASING PROGRESSION OF ENTHUSIASM AND OF EXALTATION. 

It is clear that such a religious society, founded solely on theexpectation of the kingdom of God, must be in itself very incomplete. The first Christian generation lived almost entirely upon expectationsand dreams. On the eve of seeing the world come to an end, theyregarded as useless everything which only served to prolong it. Possession of property was interdicted. [1] Everything which attachesman to earth, everything which draws him aside from heaven, was to beavoided. Although several of the disciples were married, there was tobe no more marriage on becoming a member of the sect. [2] The celibatewas greatly preferred; even in marriage continence was recommended. [3]At one time the master seems to approve of those who should mutilatethemselves in prospect of the kingdom of God. [4] In this he wasconsistent with his principle--"If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee; it is better for thee to enterinto life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet tobe cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck itout, and cast it from thee; it is better for thee to enter into lifewith one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast intohell-fire. "[5] The cessation of generation was often considered asthe sign and condition of the kingdom of God. [6]

[Footnote 1: Luke xiv. 33; _Acts_ iv. 32, and following, v. 1-11. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xix. 10, and following; Luke xviii. 29, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 3: This is the constant doctrine of Paul. Comp. _Rev. _ xiv. 4. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xix. 12. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xviii. 8, 9. Cf. Talmud of Babylon, _Niddah_, 13_b_. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xxii. 30; Mark xii. 25; Luke xx. 35; EbioniteGospel, entitled "Of the Egyptians, " in Clem. Of Alex. , _Strom. _ iii. 9, 13, and Clem. Rom. , Epist. Ii. 12. ]

Never, we perceive, would this primitive Church have formed a lastingsociety but for the great variety of germs deposited by Jesus in histeaching. It required more than a century for the true ChristianChurch--that which has converted the world--to disengage itself fromthis little sect of "latter-day saints, " and to become a frameworkapplicable to the whole of human society. The same thing, indeed, tookplace in Buddhism, which at first was founded only for monks. The samething would have happened in the order of St. Francis, if that orderhad succeeded in its pretension of becoming the rule of the whole ofhuman society. Essentially Utopian in their origin, and succeeding bytheir very exaggeration, the great systems of which we have justspoken have only laid hold of the world by being profoundly modified, and by abandoning their excesses. Jesus did not advance beyond thisfirst and entirely monachal period, in which it was believed that theimpossible could be attempted with impunity. He made no concession tonecessity. He boldly preached war against nature, and total severancefrom ties of blood. "Verily I say unto you, " said he, "there is no manthat hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive manifold more inthis present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. "[1]

[Footnote 1: Luke xviii. 20, 30. ]

The teachings which Jesus is reputed to have given to his disciplesbreathe the same exaltation. [1] He who was so tolerant to the worldoutside, he who contented himself sometimes with half adhesions, [2]exercised toward his own an extreme rigor. He would have no "allbuts. " We should call it an "order, " constituted by the most austererules. Faithful to his idea that the cares of life trouble man, anddraw him downward, Jesus required from his associates a completedetachment from the earth, an absolute devotion to his work. They werenot to carry with them either money or provisions for the way, noteven a scrip, or change of raiment. They must practise absolutepoverty, live on alms and hospitality. "Freely ye have received, freely give, "[3] said he, in his beautiful language. Arrested andarraigned before the judges, they were not to prepare their defence;the _Peraklit_, the heavenly advocate, would inspire them with whatthey ought to say. The Father would send them his Spirit from on high, which would become the principle of all their acts, the director oftheir thoughts, and their guide through the world. [4] If driven fromany town, they were to shake the dust from their shoes, declaringalways the proximity of the kingdom of God, that none might pleadignorance. "Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, " addedhe, "till the Son of man be come. "

[Footnote 1: Matt. X. , entirely, xxiv. 9; Mark vi. 8, and following, ix. 40, xiii. 9-13; Luke x. 3, and following, x. 1, and following, xii. 4, and following, xxi. 17; John xv. 18, and following, xvii. 14. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark ix. 38, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. X. 8. Comp. Midrash Ialkout, _Deut. _, sect. 824. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. X. 20; John xiv. 16, and following, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7, 13. ]

A strange ardor animates all these discourses, which may in part bethe creation of the enthusiasm of his disciples, [1] but which even inthat case came indirectly from Jesus, for it was he who had inspiredthe enthusiasm. He predicted for his followers severe persecutions andthe hatred of mankind. He sent them forth as lambs in the midst ofwolves. They would be scourged in the synagogues, and dragged toprison. Brother should deliver up brother to death, and the father hisson. When they were persecuted in one country they were to flee toanother. "The disciple, " said he, "is not above his master, nor theservant above his lord. Fear not them which kill the body, but are notable to kill the soul. Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? andone of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father. But thevery hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear ye not, therefore, yeare of more value than many sparrows. "[2] "Whosoever, therefore, "continued he, "shall confess me before men, him will I confess alsobefore my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny mebefore men, him will I also deny before my Father which is inheaven. "[3]

[Footnote 1: The expressions in Matt. X. 38, xvi. 24; Mark viii. 34;Luke xiv. 27, can only have been conceived after the death of Jesus. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. X. 24-31; Luke xii. 4-7. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. X. 32, 33; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26, xii. 8, 9. ]

In these fits of severity he went so far as to abolish all naturalties. His requirements had no longer any bounds. Despising the healthylimits of man's nature, he demanded that he should exist only for him, that he should love him alone. "If any man come to me, " said he, "andhate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. "[1] "Solikewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple. "[2] There was, at such times, somethingstrange and more than human in his words; they were like a fireutterly consuming life, and reducing everything to a frightfulwilderness. The harsh and gloomy feeling of distaste for the world, and of excessive self-abnegation which characterizes Christianperfection, was originated, not by the refined and cheerful moralistof earlier days, but by the sombre giant whom a kind of grandpresentiment was withdrawing, more and more, out of the pale ofhumanity. We should almost say that, in these moments of conflict withthe most legitimate cravings of the heart, Jesus had forgotten thepleasure of living, of loving, of seeing, and of feeling. Employingstill more unmeasured language, he even said, "If any man will comeafter me, let him deny himself and follow me. He that loveth father ormother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son ordaughter more than me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his lifeshall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake and thegospel's, shall find it. What is a man profited if he shall gain thewhole world, and lose his own soul?"[3] Two anecdotes of the kind wecannot accept as historical, but which, although they wereexaggerations, were intended to represent a characteristic feature, clearly illustrate this defiance of nature. He said to one man, "Follow me!"--But he said, "Lord, suffer me first to go and bury myfather. " Jesus answered, "Let the dead bury their dead: but go thouand preach the kingdom of God. " Another said to him, "Lord, I willfollow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at homeat my house. " Jesus replied, "No man, having put his hand to theplough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God. "[4] Anextraordinary confidence, and at times accents of singular sweetness, reversing all our ideas of him, caused these exaggerations to beeasily received. "Come unto me, " cried he, "all ye that labor and areheavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, andlearn of me: for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find restunto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. "[5]

[Footnote 1: Luke xiv. 26. We must here take into account theexaggeration of Luke's style. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xiv. 33. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. X. 37-39, xvi. 24, 25; Luke ix. 23-25, xiv. 26, 27, xvii. 33; John xii. 25. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Viii. 21, 22; Luke ix. 59-62. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xi. 28-30. ]

A great danger threatened the future of this exalted morality, thusexpressed in hyperbolical language and with a terrible energy. Bydetaching man from earth the ties of life were severed. The Christianwould be praised for being a bad son, or a bad patriot, if it was forChrist that he resisted his father and fought against his country. Theancient city, the parent republic, the state, or the law common toall, were thus placed in hostility with the kingdom of God. A fatalgerm of theocracy was introduced into the world. 

From this point, another consequence may be perceived. This morality, created for a temporary crisis, when introduced into a peacefulcountry, and in the midst of a society assured of its own duration, must seem impossible. The Gospel was thus destined to become a Utopiafor Christians, which few would care to realize. These terrible maximswould, for the greater number, remain in profound oblivion, anoblivion encouraged by the clergy itself; the Gospel man would prove adangerous man. The most selfish, proud, hard and worldly of all humanbeings, a Louis XIV. For instance, would find priests to persuade him, in spite of the Gospel, that he was a Christian. But, on the otherhand, there would always be found holy men who would take the sublimeparadoxes of Jesus literally. Perfection being placed beyond theordinary conditions of society, and a complete Gospel life being onlypossible away from the world, the principle of asceticism and ofmonasticism was established. Christian societies would have two moralrules; the one moderately heroic for common men, the other exalted inthe extreme for the perfect man; and the perfect man would be themonk, subjected to rules which professed to realize the gospel ideal. It is certain that this ideal, if only on account of the celibacy andpoverty it imposed, could not become the common law. The monk would bethus, in one sense, the only true Christian. Common sense revolts atthese excesses; and if we are guided by it, to demand the impossible, is a mark of weakness and error. But common sense is a bad judge wheregreat matters are in question. To obtain little from humanity we mustask much. The immense moral progress which we owe to the Gospel is theresult of its exaggerations. It is thus that it has been, likestoicism, but with infinitely greater fulness, a living argument forthe divine powers in man, an exalted monument of the potency of thewill. 

We may easily imagine that to Jesus, at this period of his life, everything which was not the kingdom of God had absolutelydisappeared. He was, if we may say so, totally outside nature: family, friendship, country, had no longer any meaning for him. No doubt fromthis moment he had already sacrificed his life. Sometimes we aretempted to believe that, seeing in his own death a means of foundinghis kingdom, he deliberately determined to allow himself to bekilled. [1] At other times, although such a thought only afterwardbecame a doctrine, death presented itself to him as a sacrifice, destined to appease his Father and to save mankind. [2] A singulartaste for persecution and torments[3] possessed him. His bloodappeared to him as the water of a second baptism with which he oughtto be baptized, and he seemed possessed by a strange haste toanticipate this baptism, which alone could quench his thirst. [4]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xvi. 21-23, xvii. 12, 21, 22. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark x. 45. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke vi. 22, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke xii. 50. ]

The grandeur of his views upon the future was at times surprising. Hedid not conceal from himself the terrible storm he was about to causein the world. "Think not, " said he, with much boldness and beauty, "that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, buta sword. There shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. I am come to set a man at variance against hisfather, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-lawagainst her mother-in-law. And a man's foes shall be they of his ownhousehold. "[1] "I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?"[2] "They shall put you out of thesynagogues, " he continued; "yea, the time cometh, that whosoeverkilleth you, will think that he doeth God service. "[3] "If the worldhate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. Remember theword that I said unto you: The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you. "[4]

[Footnote 1: Matt. X. 34-36; Luke xii. 51-53. Compare Micah vii. 5, 6. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xii. 49. See the Greek text. ]

[Footnote 3: John xvi. 2. ]

[Footnote 4: John xv. 18-20. ]

Carried away by this fearful progression of enthusiasm, and governedby the necessities of a preaching becoming daily more exalted, Jesuswas no longer free; he belonged to his mission, and, in one sense, tomankind. Sometimes one would have said that his reason was disturbed. He suffered great mental anguish and agitation. [1] The great vision ofthe kingdom of God, glistening before his eyes, bewildered him. Hisdisciples at times thought him mad. [2] His enemies declared him to bepossessed. [3] His excessively impassioned temperament carried himincessantly beyond the bounds of human nature. He laughed at all humansystems, and his work not being a work of the reason, that which hemost imperiously required was "faith. "[4] This was the word mostfrequently repeated in the little guest-chamber. It is the watchwordof all popular movements. It is clear that none of these movementswould take place if it were necessary that their author should gainhis disciples one by one by force of logic. Reflection leads only todoubt. If the authors of the French Revolution, for instance, had hadto be previously convinced by lengthened meditations, they would allhave become old without accomplishing anything; Jesus, in like manner, aimed less at convincing his hearers than at exciting theirenthusiasm. Urgent and imperative, he suffered no opposition: men mustbe converted, nothing less would satisfy him. His natural gentlenessseemed to have abandoned him; he was sometimes harsh andcapricious. [5] His disciples at times did not understand him, andexperienced in his presence a feeling akin to fear. [6] Sometimes hisdispleasure at the slightest opposition led him to commitinexplicable and apparently absurd acts. [7]

[Footnote 1: John xii. 27. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark iii. 21, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark iii. 22; John vii. 20, viii. 48, and following, x. 20, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Viii. 10, ix. 2, 22, 28, 29, xvii. 19; John vi. 29, etc. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xvii. 16; Mark iii. 5, ix. 18; Luke viii. 45, ix. 41. ]

[Footnote 6: It is in Mark especially that this feature is visible;iv. 40, v. 15, ix. 31, x. 32. ]

[Footnote 7: Mark xi. 12-14, 20, and following. ]

It was not that his virtue deteriorated; but his struggle for theideal against the reality became insupportable. Contact with the worldpained and revolted him. Obstacles irritated him. His idea of the Sonof God became disturbed and exaggerated. The fatal law which condemnsan idea to decay as soon as it seeks to convert men applied to him. Contact with men degraded him to their level. The tone he had adoptedcould not be sustained more than a few months; it was time that deathcame to liberate him from an endurance strained to the utmost, toremove him from the impossibilities of an interminable path, and bydelivering him from a trial in danger of being too prolonged, introduce him henceforth sinless into celestial peace. 

CHAPTER XX. 

OPPOSITION TO JESUS. 

During the first period of his career, it does not appear that Jesusmet with any serious opposition. His preaching, thanks to the extremeliberty which was enjoyed in Galilee, and to the number of teacherswho arose on all hands, made no noise beyond a restricted circle. Butwhen Jesus entered upon a path brilliant with wonders and publicsuccesses, the storm began to gather. More than once he was obliged toconceal himself and fly. [1] Antipas, however, did not interfere withhim, although Jesus expressed himself sometimes very severelyrespecting him. [2] At Tiberias, his usual residence, the Tetrarch wasonly one or two leagues distant from the district chosen by Jesus forthe centre of his activity; he heard speak of his miracles, which hedoubtless took to be clever tricks, and desired to see them. [3] Theincredulous were at that time very curious about this class ofillusions. [4] With his ordinary tact, Jesus refused to gratify him. Hetook care not to prejudice his position by mingling with anirreligious world, which wished to draw from him an idle amusement; heaspired only to gain the people; he reserved for the simple, meanssuitable to them alone. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xii. 14-16; Mark iii. 7, ix. 29, 30. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark viii. 15; Luke xiii. 32. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke ix. 9, xxiii. 8. ]

[Footnote 4: _Lucius_; attributed to Lucian, 4. ]

On one occasion the report was spread that Jesus was no other thanJohn the Baptist risen from the dead. Antipas became anxious anduneasy;[1] and employed artifice to rid his dominions of the newprophet. Certain Pharisees, under the pretence of regard for Jesus, came to tell him that Antipas was seeking to kill him. Jesus, notwithstanding his great simplicity, saw the snare, and did notdepart. [2] His peaceful manners, and his remoteness from popularagitation, ultimately reassured the Tetrarch and dissipated thedanger. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xiv. 1, and following; Mark vi. 14, and following;Luke ix. 7, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xiii. 31, and following. ]

The new doctrine was by no means received with equal favor in all thetowns of Galilee. Not only did incredulous Nazareth continue to rejecthim who was to become her glory; not only did his brothers persist innot believing in him, [1] but the cities of the lake themselves, ingeneral well-disposed, were not all converted. Jesus often complainedof the incredulity and hardness of heart which he encountered, andalthough it is natural that in such reproaches we make allowance forthe exaggeration of the preacher, although we are sensible of thatkind of _convicium seculi_ which Jesus affected in imitation of Johnthe Baptist, [2] it is clear that the country was far from yieldingitself entirely a second time to the kingdom of God. "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida!" cried he; "for if the mightyworks which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, theywould have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say untoyou, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day ofjudgment than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted untoheaven, shalt be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works whichhave been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remaineduntil this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerablefor the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee. "[3] "Thequeen of the south, " added he, "shall rise up in the judgment of thisgeneration, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermostparts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, agreater than Solomon is here. The men of Nineveh shall rise injudgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because theyrepented at the preaching of Jonas; and behold, a greater than Jonasis here. "[4] His wandering life, at first so full of charm, now beganto weigh upon him. "The foxes, " said he, "have holes, and the birds ofthe air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay hishead. "[5] Bitterness and reproach took more and more hold upon him. Heaccused unbelievers of not yielding to evidence, and said that, evenat the moment in which the Son of man should appear in his celestialglory, there would still be men who would not believe in him. [6]

[Footnote 1: John vii. 5. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xii. 39, 45, xiii. 15, xvi. 4; Luke xi. 29. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xi. 21-24; Luke x. 12-15. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xii. 41, 42; Luke xi. 31, 32. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Viii. 20; Luke ix. 58. ]

[Footnote 6: Luke xviii. 8. ]

Jesus, in fact, was not able to receive opposition with the coolnessof the philosopher, who, understanding the reason of the variousopinions which divide the world, finds it quite natural that allshould not agree with him. One of the principal defects of the Jewishrace is its harshness in controversy, and the abusive tone which italmost always infuses into it. There never were in the world suchbitter quarrels as those of the Jews among themselves. It is thefaculty of nice discernment which makes the polished and moderate man. Now, the lack of this faculty is one of the most constant features ofthe Semitic mind. Subtle and refined works, the dialogues of Plato, for example, are altogether unknown to these nations. Jesus, who wasexempt from almost all the defects of his race, and whose leadingquality was precisely an infinite delicacy, was led in spite ofhimself to make use of the general style in polemics. [1] Like John theBaptist, [2] he employed very harsh terms against his adversaries. Ofan exquisite gentleness with the simple, he was irritated atincredulity, however little aggressive. [3] He was no longer the mildteacher who delivered the "Sermon on the Mount, " who had met withneither resistance nor difficulty. The passion that underlay hischaracter led him to make use of the keenest invectives. This singularmixture ought not to surprise us. M. De Lamennais, a man of our owntimes, has strikingly presented the same contrast. In his beautifulbook, the "Words of a Believer, " the most immoderate anger and thesweetest relentings alternate, as in a mirage. This man, who wasextremely kind in the intercourse of life, became madly intractabletoward those who did not agree with him. Jesus, in like manner, applied to himself, not without reason, the passage from Isaiah:[4]"He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice inthe streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shallhe not quench. "[5] And yet many of the recommendations which headdressed to his disciples contain the germs of a true fanaticism, [6]germs which the Middle Ages were to develop in a cruel manner. Must wereproach him for this? No revolution is effected without someharshness. If Luther, or the actors in the French Revolution, had beencompelled to observe the rules of politeness, neither the Reformationnor the Revolution would have taken place. Let us congratulateourselves in like manner that Jesus encountered no law which punishedthe invectives he uttered against one class of citizens. Had such alaw existed, the Pharisees would have been inviolate. All the greatthings of humanity have been accomplished in the name of absoluteprinciples. A critical philosopher would have said to his disciples:Respect the opinion of others; and believe that no one is socompletely right that his adversary is completely wrong. But theaction of Jesus has nothing in common with the disinterestedspeculation of the philosopher. To know that we have touched the idealfor a moment, and have been deterred by the wickedness of a few, is athought insupportable to an ardent soul. What must it have been forthe founder of a new world?

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xii. 34, xv. 14, xxiii. 33. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Iii. 7. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xii. 30; Luke xxi. 23. ]

[Footnote 4: Isa. Xlii. 2, 3. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xii. 19-20. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. X. 14, 15, 21, and following, 34, and following;Luke xix. 27. ]

The invincible obstacle to the ideas of Jesus came especially fromorthodox Judaism, represented by the Pharisees. Jesus became more andmore alienated from the ancient Law. Now, the Pharisees were the trueJews; the nerve and sinew of Judaism. Although this party had itscentre at Jerusalem, it had adherents either established in Galilee, or who often came there. [1] They were, in general, men of a narrowmind, caring much for externals; their devoutness was haughty, formal, and self-satisfied. [2] Their manners were ridiculous, and excited thesmiles of even those who respected them. The epithets which the peoplegave them, and which savor of caricature, prove this. There was the"bandy-legged Pharisee" (_Nikfi_), who walked in the streets dragginghis feet and knocking them against the stones; the "bloody-browedPharisee" (_Kizai_), who went with his eyes shut in order not to seethe women, and dashed his head so much against the walls that it wasalways bloody; the "pestle Pharisee" (_Medinkia_), who kept himselfbent double like the handle of a pestle; the "Pharisee of strongshoulders" (_Shikmi_), who walked with his back bent as if he carriedon his shoulders the whole burden of the Law; the"_What-is-there-to-do?-I-do-it Pharisee_, " always on the search for aprecept to fulfil; and, lastly, the "dyed Pharisee, " whose externalsof devotion were but a varnish of hypocrisy. [3] This strictness was, in fact, often only apparent, and concealed in reality great morallaxity. [4] The people, nevertheless, were duped by it. The people, whose instinct is always right, even when it is most astray respectingindividuals, is very easily deceived by false devotees. That which itloves in them is good and worthy of being loved; but it has notsufficient penetration to distinguish the appearance from the reality. 

[Footnote 1: Mark vii. 1; Luke v. 17, and following, vii. 36. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Vi. 2, 5, 16, ix. 11, 14, xii. 2, xxiii. 5, 15, 23;Luke v. 30, vi. 2, 7, xi. 39, and following, xviii. 12; John ix. 16;_Pirké Aboth_, i. 16; Jos. , _Ant. _, XVII. Ii. 4, XVIII. I. 3; _Vita_, 38; Talm. Of Bab. , _Sota_, 22 _b_. ]

[Footnote 3: Talmud of Jerusalem, _Berakoth_, ix. , sub fin. ; _Sota_, v. 7; Talmud of Babylon, _Sota_, 22 _b_. The two compilations of thiscurious passage present considerable differences. We have, in general, followed the Babylonian compilation, which seems most natural. Cf. Epiph. , _Adv. Hær. _, xvi. 1. The passages in Epiphanes, and several ofthose of the Talmud, may, besides, relate to an epoch posterior toJesus, an epoch in which "Pharisee" had become synonymous with"devotee. "]

[Footnote 4: Matt. V. 20, xv. 4, xxiii. 3, 16, and following; Johnviii. 7; Jos. , _Ant. _, XII. Ix. 1; XIII. X. 5. ]

It is easy to understand the antipathy which, in such an impassionedstate of society, must necessarily break out between Jesus and personsof this character. Jesus recognized only the religion of the heart, whilst that of the Pharisees consisted almost exclusively inobservances. Jesus sought the humble and outcasts of all kinds, andthe Pharisees saw in this an insult to their religion ofrespectability. The Pharisee was an infallible and faultless man, apedant always right in his own conceit, taking the first place in thesynagogue, praying in the street, giving alms to the sound of atrumpet, and caring greatly for salutations. Jesus maintained thateach one ought to await the kingdom of God with fear and trembling. The bad religious tendency represented by Pharisaism did not reignwithout opposition. Many men before or during the time of Jesus, suchas Jesus, son of Sirach (one of the true ancestors of Jesus ofNazareth), Gamaliel, Antigonus of Soco, and especially the gentle andnoble Hillel, had taught much more elevated, and almost Gospeldoctrines. But these good seeds had been choked. The beautiful maximsof Hillel, summing up the whole law as equity, [1] those of Jesus, sonof Sirach, making worship consist in doing good, [2] were forgotten oranathematized. [3] Shammai, with his narrow and exclusive spirit, hadprevailed. An enormous mass of "traditions" had stifled the Law, [4]under pretext of protecting and interpreting it. Doubtless theseconservative measures had their share of usefulness; it is well thatthe Jewish people loved its Law even to excess, since it is thisfrantic love which, in saving Mosaism under Antiochus Epiphanes andunder Herod, has preserved the leaven from which Christianity was toemanate. But taken in themselves, all these old precautions were onlypuerile. The synagogue, which was the depository of them, was no morethan a parent of error. Its reign was ended; and yet to require itsabdication was to require the impossible, that which an establishedpower has never done or been able to do. 

[Footnote 1: Talm. Of Bab. , _Shabbath_, 31 _a_; _Joma_, 35 _b_. ]

[Footnote 2: _Eccles. _ xvii. 21, and following, xxxv. 1, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 3: Talm. Of Jerus. , _Sanhedrim_, xi. 1; Talm. Of Bab. , _Sanhedrim_, 100 _b_. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xv. 2. ]

The conflicts of Jesus with official hypocrisy were continual. Theordinary tactics of the reformers who appeared in the religious statewhich we have just described, and which might be called "traditionalformalism, " were to oppose the "text" of the sacred books to"traditions. " Religious zeal is always an innovator, even when itpretends to be in the highest degree conservative. Just as theneo-Catholics of our days become more and more remote from the Gospel, so the Pharisees left the Bible at each step more and more. This iswhy the Puritan reformer is generally essentially "Biblical, " takingthe unchangeable text for his basis in criticising the currenttheology, which has changed with each generation. Thus acted later theKaraites and the Protestants. Jesus applied the axe to the root of thetree much more energetically. We see him sometimes, it is true, invokethe text against the false _Masores_ or traditions of thePharisees. [1] But in general he dwelt little on exegesis--it was theconscience to which he appealed. With one stroke he cut through bothtext and commentaries. He showed, indeed, to the Pharisees that theyseriously perverted Mosaism by their traditions, but he by no meanspretended himself to return to Mosaism. His mission was concerned withthe future, not with the past. Jesus was more than the reformer of anobsolete religion; he was the creator of the eternal religion ofhumanity. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xv. 2, and following; Mark vii. 2, and following. ]

Disputes broke out especially respecting a number of externalpractices introduced by tradition, which neither Jesus nor hisdisciples observed. [1] The Pharisees reproached him sharply for this. When he dined with them, he scandalized them much by not observing thecustomary ablutions. "Give alms, " said he, "of such things as ye have;and behold, all things are clean unto you. "[2] That which in thehighest degree hurt his refined feeling was the air of assurance whichthe Pharisees carried into religious matters; their paltry worship, which ended in a vain seeking after precedents and titles, to theutter neglect of the improvement of their hearts. An admirable parablerendered this thought with infinite charm and justice. "Two men, " saidhe, "went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee and the othera publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, Ithank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I givetithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon hisbreast, saying, God, be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this manwent down to his house justified rather than the other. "[3]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xv. 2, and following; Mark vii. 4, 8; Luke v. Subfin. And vi. Init. , xi. 38, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xi. 41. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke xviii. 9-14; comp. _ibid. _, xiv. 7-11. ]

A hate, which death alone could satisfy, was the consequence of thesestruggles. John the Baptist had already provoked enmities of the samekind. [1] But the aristocrats of Jerusalem, who despised him, hadallowed simple men to take him for a prophet. [2] In the case of Jesus, however, the war was to the death. A new spirit had appeared in theworld, causing all that preceded to pale before it. John the Baptistwas completely a Jew; Jesus was scarcely one at all. Jesus alwaysappealed to the delicacy of the moral sentiment. He was only adisputant when he argued against the Pharisees, his opponents forcinghim, as generally happens, to adopt their tone. [3] His exquisiteirony, his arch and provoking remarks, always struck home. They wereeverlasting stigmas, and have remained festering in the wound. ThisNessus-shirt of ridicule which the Jew, son of the Pharisees, hasdragged in tatters after him during eighteen centuries, was woven byJesus with a divine skill. Masterpieces of fine raillery, theirfeatures are written in lines of fire upon the flesh of the hypocriteand the false devotee. Incomparable traits, worthy of a son of God! Agod alone knows how to kill after this fashion. Socrates and Molièreonly touched the skin. He carried fire and rage to the very marrow. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Iii. 7, and following, xvii. 12, 13. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xiv. 5, xxi. 26; Mark xi. 32; Luke xx. 6. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xii. 3-8, xxiii. 16, and following. ]

But it was also just that this great master of irony should pay forhis triumph with his life. Even in Galilee, the Pharisees sought toruin him, and employed against him the manoeuvre which ultimatelysucceeded at Jerusalem. They endeavored to interest in their quarrelthe partisans of the new political faction which was established. [1]The facilities Jesus found for escape in Galilee, and the weakness ofthe government of Antipas, baffled these attempts. He ran into dangerof his own free will. He saw clearly that his action, if he remainedconfined to Galilee, was necessarily limited. Judea drew him as by acharm; he wished to try a last effort to gain the rebellious city; andseemed anxious to fulfill the proverb--that a prophet must not dieoutside Jerusalem. [2]

[Footnote 1: Mark iii. 6. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xiii. 33. ]

CHAPTER XXI. 

LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM. 

Jesus had for a long time been sensible of the dangers that surroundedhim. [1] During a period of time which we may estimate at eighteenmonths, he avoided going on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. [2] At the feastof Tabernacles of the year 32 (according to the hypothesis we haveadopted), his relations, always malevolent and incredulous, [3] pressedhim to go there. The evangelist John seems to insinuate that there wassome hidden project to ruin him in this invitation. "Depart hence, andgo into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thoudoest. For there is no man that doeth anything in secret, and hehimself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, showthyself to the world. " Jesus, suspecting some treachery, at firstrefused; but when the caravan of pilgrims had set out, he started onthe journey, unknown to every one, and almost alone. [4] It was thelast farewell which he bade to Galilee. The feast of Tabernacles fellat the autumnal equinox. Six months still had to elapse before thefatal denouement. But during this interval, Jesus saw no more hisbeloved provinces of the north. The pleasant days had passed away; hemust now traverse, step by step, the painful path that will terminateonly in the anguish of death. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xvi. 20, 21; Mark viii. 30, 31. ]

[Footnote 2: John vii. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: John vii. 5. ]

[Footnote 4: John vii. 10. ]

His disciples, and the pious women who tended him, met him again inJudea. [1] But how much everything was changed for him there! Jesuswas a stranger at Jerusalem. He felt that there was a wall ofresistance he could not penetrate. Surrounded by snares anddifficulties, he was unceasingly pursued by the ill-will of thePharisees. [2] Instead of that illimitable faculty of belief, happygift of youthful natures, which he found in Galilee--instead of thosegood and gentle people, amongst whom objections (always the fruit ofsome degree of ill-will and indocility) had no existence, he met thereat each step an obstinate incredulity, upon which the means of actionthat had so well succeeded in the north had little effect. Hisdisciples were despised as being Galileans. Nicodemus, who, on one ofhis former journeys, had had a conversation with him by night, almostcompromised himself with the Sanhedrim, by having wished to defendhim. "Art thou also of Galilee?" they said to him. "Search and look:for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet. "[3]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 55; Mark xv. 41; Luke xxiii. 49, 55. ]

[Footnote 2: John vii. 20, 25, 30, 32. ]

[Footnote 3: John vii. 50, and following. ]

The city, as we have already said, displeased Jesus. Until then he hadalways avoided great centres, preferring for his action the countryand the towns of small importance. Many of the precepts which he gaveto his apostles were absolutely inapplicable, except in a simplesociety of humble men. [1] Having no idea of the world, and accustomedto the kindly communism of Galilee, remarks continually escaped him, whose simplicity would at Jerusalem appear very singular. [2] Hisimagination and his love of Nature found themselves constrained withinthese walls. True religion does not proceed from the tumult of towns, but from the tranquil serenity of the fields. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. X. 11-13; Mark vi. 10; Luke x. 5-8. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxi. 3, xxvi. 18; Mark xi. 3, xiv. 13, 14; Lukexix. 31, xxii. 10-12. ]

The arrogance of the priests rendered the courts of the templedisagreeable to him. One day some of his disciples, who knew Jerusalembetter than he, wished him to notice the beauty of the buildings ofthe temple, the admirable choice of materials, and the richness of thevotive offerings that covered the walls. "Seest thou these buildings?"said he; "there shall not be left one stone upon another. "[1] Herefused to admire anything, except it was a poor widow who passed atthat moment, and threw a small coin into the box. "She has cast inmore than they all, " said he; "for all these have of their abundancecast in unto the offerings of God; but she of her penury hath cast inall the living that she had. "[2] This manner of criticising all heobserved at Jerusalem, of praising the poor who gave little, ofslighting the rich who gave much, [3] and of blaming the opulentpriesthood who did nothing for the good of the people, naturallyexasperated the sacerdotal caste. As the seat of a conservativearistocracy, the temple, like the Mussulman _haram_ which succeededit, was the last place in the world where revolution could prosper. Imagine an innovator going in our days to preach the overturning ofIslamism round the mosque of Omar! There, however, was the centre ofthe Jewish life, the point where it was necessary to conquer or die. On this Calvary, where certainly Jesus suffered more than at Golgotha, his days passed away in disputation and bitterness, in the midst oftedious controversies respecting canonical law and exegesis, for whichhis great moral elevation, instead of giving him the advantage, positively unfitted him. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxiv. 1, 2; Mark xiii. 1, 2; Luke xix. 44, xxi. 5, 6. Cf. Mark xi. 11. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark xii. 41, and following; Luke xxi. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Mark xii. 41. ]

In the midst of this troubled life, the sensitive and kindly heart ofJesus found a refuge, where he enjoyed moments of sweetness. Afterhaving passed the day disputing in the temple, toward evening Jesusdescended into the valley of Kedron, and rested a while in the orchardof a farming establishment (probably for the making of oil) namedGethsemane, [1] which served as a pleasure garden to the inhabitants. Thence he proceeded to pass the night upon the Mount of Olives, whichlimits the horizon of the city on the east. [2] This side is the onlyone, in the environs of Jerusalem, which offers an aspect in anydegree pleasing and verdant. The plantations of olives, figs, andpalms were numerous there, and gave their names to the villages, farms, or enclosures of Bethphage, Gethsemane, and Bethany. [3] Therewere upon the Mount of Olives two great cedars, the memory of whichwas long preserved amongst the dispersed Jews; their branches servedas an asylum to clouds of doves, and under their shade wereestablished small bazaars. [4] All this precinct was in a manner theabode of Jesus and his disciples; they knew it field by field andhouse by house. 

[Footnote 1: Mark xi. 19; Luke xxii. 39; John xviii. 1, 2. Thisorchard could not be very far from the place where the piety of theCatholics has surrounded some old olive-trees by a wall. The word_Gethsemane_ seems to signify "oil-press. "]

[Footnote 2: Luke xxi. 37, xxii. 39; John viii. 1, 2. ]

[Footnote 3: Talm. Of Bab. , _Pesachim_, 53 _a_. ]

[Footnote 4: Talm. Of Jerus. , _Taanith_, iv. 8. ]

The village of Bethany, in particular, [1] situated at the summit ofthe hill, upon the incline which commands the Dead Sea and the Jordan, at a journey of an hour and a half from Jerusalem, was the placeespecially beloved by Jesus. [2] He there made the acquaintance of afamily composed of three persons, two sisters and a brother, whosefriendship had a great charm for him. [3] Of the two sisters, the one, named Martha, was an obliging, kind, and assiduous person;[4] theother, named Mary, on the contrary, pleased Jesus by a sort oflanguor, [5] and by her strongly developed speculative instincts. Seated at the feet of Jesus, she often forgot, in listening to him, the duties of real life. Her sister, upon whom fell all the duty atsuch times, gently complained. "Martha, Martha, " said Jesus to her, "thou art troubled, and carest about many things; now, one thing onlyis needful. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be takenaway. "[6] Her brother, Eleazar, or Lazarus, was also much beloved byJesus. [7] Lastly, a certain Simon, the leper, who was the owner of thehouse, formed, it appears, part of the family. [8] It was there, in theenjoyment of a pious friendship, that Jesus forgot the vexations ofpublic life. In this tranquil home he consoled himself for thebickerings with which the scribes and the Pharisees unceasinglysurrounded him. He often sat on the Mount of Olives, facing MountMoriah, [9] having beneath his view the splendid perspective of theterraces of the temple, and its roofs covered with glittering platesof metal. This view struck strangers with admiration; at the rising ofthe sun, especially, the sacred mountain dazzled the eyes, andappeared like a mass of snow and of gold. [10] But a profound feelingof sadness poisoned for Jesus the spectacle that filled all otherIsraelites with joy and pride. He cried out, in his moments ofbitterness, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I havegathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickensunder her wings, and ye would not. "[11]

[Footnote 1: Now _El-Azerié_ (from _El-Azir_, the Arabic name ofLazarus); in the Christian texts of the Middle Ages, _Lazarium_. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxi. 17, 18; Mark xi. 11, 12. ]

[Footnote 3: John xi. 5. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke x. 38-42; John xii. 2. ]

[Footnote 5: John xi. 20. ]

[Footnote 6: Luke x. 38, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: John xi. 35, 36. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3; Luke vii. 40-43; John xii. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 9: Mark xiii. 3. ]

[Footnote 10: Josephus, _B. J. _, V. V. 6. ]

[Footnote 11: Matt. Xxiii. 37; Luke xiii. 34. ]

It was not that many good people here, as in Galilee, were nottouched; but such was the power of the dominant orthodoxy, that veryfew dared to confess it. They feared to discredit themselves in theeyes of the Hierosolymites by placing themselves in the school of aGalilean. They would have risked being driven from the synagogue, which, in a mean and bigoted society, was the greatest degradation. [1]Excommunication, besides, carried with it the confiscation of allpossessions. [2] By ceasing to be a Jew, a man did not become a Roman;but remained without protection, in the power of a theocraticlegislation of the most atrocious severity. One day, the inferiorofficers of the temple, who had been present at one of the discoursesof Jesus, and had been enchanted with it, came to confide their doubtsto the priests: "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believedon him?" was the reply to them; "but this people who knoweth not theLaw are cursed. "[3] Jesus remained thus at Jerusalem, a provincialadmired by provincials like himself, but rejected by all thearistocracy of the nation. The chiefs of schools and of sects were toonumerous for any one to be stirred by seeing one more appear. Hisvoice made little noise in Jerusalem. The prejudices of race and ofsect, the direct enemies of the spirit of the Gospel, were too deeplyrooted there. 

[Footnote 1: John vii. 13, xii. 42, 43, xix. 38. ]

[Footnote 2: 1 Esdr. X. 8; Epistle to Hebrews x. 34; Talmud of Jerus. , _Moëdkaton_, iii. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: John vii. 45, and following. ]

His teaching in this new world necessarily became much modified. Hisbeautiful discourses, the effect of which was always observable uponyouthful imaginations and consciences morally pure, here fell uponstone. He who was so much at his ease on the shores of his charminglittle lake, felt constrained and not at home in the company ofpedants. His perpetual self-assertion appeared somewhat fastidious. [1]He was obliged to become controversialist, jurist, exegetist, andtheologian. His conversations, generally so full of charm, became arolling fire of disputes, [2] an interminable train of scholasticbattles. His harmonious genius was wasted in insipid argumentationsupon the Law and the prophets, [3] in which we should have preferrednot seeing him sometimes play the part of aggressor. [4] He lenthimself with a condescension we cannot but regret to the captiouscriticisms to which the merciless cavillers subjected him. [5] Ingeneral, he extricated himself from difficulties with much skill. Hisreasonings, it is true, were often subtle (simplicity of mind andsubtlety touch each other; when simplicity reasons, it is often alittle sophistical); we find that sometimes he courted misconceptions, and prolonged them intentionally;[6] his reasoning, judged accordingto the rules of Aristotelian logic, was very weak. But when theunequaled charm of his mind could be displayed, he was triumphant. Oneday it was intended to embarrass him by presenting to him anadulteress and asking him what was to be done to her. We know theadmirable answer of Jesus. [7] The fine raillery of a man of theworld, tempered by a divine goodness, could not be expressed in a moreexquisite manner. But the wit which is allied to moral grandeur isthat which fools forgive the least. In pronouncing this sentence of sojust and pure a taste: "He that is without sin among you, let himfirst cast a stone at her, " Jesus pierced hypocrisy to the heart, andwith the same stroke sealed his own death-warrant. 

[Footnote 1: John viii. 13, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxi. 23-37. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxii. 23, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxii. 42, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xxii. 36, and following, 46. ]

[Footnote 6: See especially the discussions reported by John, chapterviii. , for example; it is true that the authenticity of such passagesis only relative. ]

[Footnote 7: John viii. 3, and following. This passage did not atfirst form part of the Gospel of St. John; it is wanting in the moreancient manuscripts, and the text is rather unsettled. Nevertheless, it is from the primitive Gospel traditions, as is proved by thesingular peculiarities of verses 6 and 8, which are not in the styleof Luke, and compilers at second hand, who admitted nothing that doesnot explain itself. This history is found, as it seems, in the Gospelaccording to the Hebrews. (Papias, quoted by Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, iii. 39. )]

It is probable, in fact, that but for the exasperation caused by somany bitter shafts, Jesus might long have remained unnoticed, and havebeen lost in the dreadful storm which was soon about to overwhelm thewhole Jewish nation. The high priesthood and the Sadducees had ratherdisdained than hated him. The great sacerdotal families, the_Boëthusim_, the family of Hanan, were only fanatical in theirconservatism. The Sadducees, like Jesus, rejected the "traditions" ofthe Pharisees. [1] By a very strange singularity, it was theseunbelievers who, denying the resurrection, the oral Law, and theexistence of angels, were the true Jews. Or rather, as the old Law inits simplicity no longer satisfied the religious wants of the time, those who strictly adhered to it, and rejected modern inventions, wereregarded by the devotees as impious, just as an evangelical Protestantof the present day is regarded as an unbeliever in Catholic countries. At all events, from such a party no very strong reaction against Jesuscould proceed. The official priesthood, with its attention turnedtoward political power, and intimately connected with it, did notcomprehend these enthusiastic movements. It was the middle-classPharisees, the innumerable _soferim_, or scribes, living on thescience of "traditions, " who took the alarm, and whose prejudices andinterests were in reality threatened by the doctrine of the newteacher. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XIII. X. 6, XVIII. I. 4. ]

One of the most constant efforts of the Pharisees was to involve Jesusin the discussion of political questions, and to compromise him asconnected with the party of Judas the Gaulonite. These tactics wereclever; for it required all the deep wisdom of Jesus to avoidcollision with the Roman authority, whilst proclaiming the kingdom ofGod. They wanted to break through this ambiguity, and compel him toexplain himself. One day, a group of Pharisees, and of thosepoliticians named "Herodians" (probably some of the _Boëthusim_), approached him, and, under pretense of pious zeal, said unto him, "Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God intruth, neither carest thou for any man. Tell us, therefore, whatthinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?" Theyhoped for an answer which would give them a pretext for delivering himup to Pilate. The reply of Jesus was admirable. He made them show himthe image on the coin: "Render, " said he, "unto Cæsar the things whichare Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's. "[1] Profoundwords, which have decided the future of Christianity! Words of aperfected spiritualism, and of marvellous justness, which haveestablished the separation between the spiritual and the temporal, andlaid the basis of true liberalism and civilization!

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxii. 15, and following; Mark xii. 13, andfollowing; Luke xx. 20, and following. Comp. Talm. Of Jerus. , _Sanhedrim_, ii. 3. ]

His gentle and penetrating genius inspired him when alone with hisdisciples, with accents full of tenderness. "Verily, verily, I sayunto you, he that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, butclimbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But hethat entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. The sheephear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth themout. He goeth before them, and the sheep follow him; for they know hisvoice. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and todestroy. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose ownthe sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, andfleeth. I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known ofmine; and I lay down my life for the sheep. "[1] The idea that thecrisis of humanity was close at hand frequently recurred to him. "Now, " said he, "learn a parable of the fig-tree: When his branch isyet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh. Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white alreadyto harvest. "[2]

[Footnote 1: John x. 1-16. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxiv. 32; Mark xiii. 28; Luke xxi. 30; John iv. 35. ]

His powerful eloquence always burst forth when contending withhypocrisy. "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; butdo not ye after their works: for they say and do not. For they bindheavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men'sshoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of theirfingers. 

"But all their works they do to be seen of men; they make broad theirphylacteries, [1] enlarge the borders of their garments, [2] and lovethe uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. Woe unto them!. .. 

[Footnote 1: _Totafôth_ or _tefillin_, plates of metal or strips ofparchment, containing passages of the Law; which the devout Jews woreattached to the forehead and left arm, in literal fulfilment of thepassages (_Ex. _ xiii. 9; _Deut. _ vi. 8, xi. 18. )]

[Footnote 2: _Zizith_, red borders or fringes which the Jews wore atthe corner of their cloaks to distinguish them from the pagans (_Num. _xv. 38, 39; _Deut. _ xxii. 12. )]

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye have takenaway the key of knowledge, shut up the kingdom of heaven againstmen![1] for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them thatare entering to go in. Woe unto you, for ye devour widows' houses, and, for a pretense, make long prayers: therefore ye shall receive thegreater damnation. Woe unto you, for ye compass sea and land to makeone proselyte; and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the childof hell than yourselves! Woe unto you, for ye are as graves whichappear not; and the men that walk over them are not aware of them. [2]

[Footnote 1: The Pharisees excluded men from the kingdom of God bytheir fastidious casuistry, which rendered entrance into it toodifficult, and discouraged the unlearned. ]

[Footnote 2: Contact with the tombs rendered any one impure. Greatcare was, therefore, taken to mark their extent on the ground. Talm. Of Bab. , _Baba Bathra_, 58 _a_; _Baba Metsia_, 45 _b_. Jesus herereproached the Pharisees for having invented a number of smallprecepts which might be violated unwittingly, and which only served tomultiply infringements of the law. ]

"Ye fools, and blind! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the otherundone. Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel. Woe unto you!

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make cleanthe outside of the cup and of the platter;[1] but within they arefull of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, [2] cleanse firstthat which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them maybe clean also. [3]

[Footnote 1: The purification of vessels was subjected, amongst thePharisees, to the most complicated laws (Mark vii. 4. )]

[Footnote 2: This epithet, often repeated (Matt. Xxiii. 16, 17, 19, 24, 26), perhaps contains an allusion to the custom which certainPharisees had of walking with closed eyes in affectation of sanctity. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke (xi. 37, and following) supposes, not withoutreason, that this verse was uttered during a repast, in answer to thevain scruples of the Pharisees. ]

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye are like untowhited sepulchres, [1] which indeed appear beautiful outward, but arewithin full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so yealso outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full ofhypocrisy and iniquity. 

[Footnote 1: The tombs being impure, it was customary to whiten themwith lime, to warn persons not to approach them. See p. 315, note 3, and Mishnah, _Maasar hensi_, v. 1; Talm. Of Jerus. , _Shekalim_, i. 1;_Maasar sheni_, v. 1; _Moëd katon_, i. 2; _Sota_, ix. 1; Talm. OfBab. , _Moëd katon_, 5 _a_. Perhaps there is an allusion to the "dyedPharisees" in this comparison which Jesus uses. ]

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build thetombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not havebeen partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. ' Wherefore, yebe witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them whichkilled the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 'Therefore, also, ' said the Wisdom of God, [1] 'I will send unto youprophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall killand crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, andpersecute them from city to city. That upon you may come all therighteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abelunto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, [2] whom ye slew betweenthe temple and the altar. ' Verily, I say unto you, all these thingsshall come upon this generation. "[3]

[Footnote 1: We are ignorant from what book this quotation is taken. ]

[Footnote 2: There is a slight confusion here, which is also found inthe Targum of Jonathan (_Lament. _ ii. 20), between Zacharias, son ofJehoiadas, and Zacharias, son of Barachias, the prophet. It is theformer that is spoken of (2 _Paral. _ xxiv. 21. ) The book of theParalipomenes, in which the assassination of Zacharias, son ofJehoiadas, is related, closes the Hebrew canon. This murder is thelast in the list of murders of righteous men, drawn up according tothe order in which they are presented in the Bible. That of Abel is, on the contrary, the first. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxiii. 2-36; Mark xii. 38-40; Luke xi. 39-52, xx. 46, 47. ]

His terrible doctrine of the substitution of the Gentiles--the ideathat the kingdom of God was about to be transferred to others, becausethose for whom it was destined would not receive it, [1] is used as afearful menace against the aristocracy. The title "Son of God, " whichhe openly assumed in striking parables, [2] wherein his enemiesappeared as murderers of the heavenly messengers, was an open defianceto the Judaism of the Law. The bold appeal he addressed to the poorwas still more seditious. He declared that he had "come that theywhich see not might see, and that they which see might be madeblind. "[3] One day, his dislike of the temple forced from him animprudent speech: "I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands. "[4] Hisdisciples found strained allegories in this sentence; but we do notknow what meaning Jesus attached to it. But as only a pretext waswanted, this sentence was quickly laid hold of. It reappeared in thepreamble of his death-warrant, and rang in his ears amidst the lastagonies of Golgotha. These irritating discussions always ended intumult. The Pharisees threw stones at him;[5] in doing which they onlyfulfilled an article of the Law, which commanded every prophet, even athaumaturgus, who should turn the people from the ancient worship, tobe stoned without a hearing. [6] At other times they called him mad, possessed, Samaritan, [7] and even sought to kill him. [8] These wordswere taken note of in order to invoke against him the laws of anintolerant theocracy, which the Roman government had not yetabrogated. [9]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Viii. 11, 12, xx. 1, and following, xxi. 28, andfollowing, 33, and following, 43, xxii. 1, and following; Mark xii. 1, and following; Luke xx. 9, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxi. 37, and following; John x. 36, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: John ix. 39. ]

[Footnote 4: The most authentic form of this sentence appears to be inMark xiv. 58, xv. 29. Cf. John ii. 19; Matt. Xxvi. 61, xxvii. 40. ]

[Footnote 5: John viii. 39, x. 31, xi. 8. ]

[Footnote 6: _Deuter. _ xiii. 1, and following. Comp. Luke xx. 6; Johnx. 33; 2 _Cor. _ xi. 25. ]

[Footnote 7: John x. 20. ]

[Footnote 8: John v. 18, vii. 1, 20, 25, 30, viii. 37, 40. ]

[Footnote 9: Luke xi. 53, 54. ]

CHAPTER XXII. 

MACHINATIONS OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS. 

Jesus passed the autumn and a part of the winter at Jerusalem. Thisseason is there rather cold. The portico of Solomon, with its coveredaisles, was the place where he habitually walked. [1] This porticoconsisted of two galleries, formed by three rows of columns, andcovered by a ceiling of carved wood. [2] It commanded the valley ofKedron, which was doubtless less covered with débris than it is at thepresent time. The depth of the ravine could not be measured, from theheight of the portico; and it seemed, in consequence of the angle ofthe slopes, as if an abyss opened immediately beneath the wall. [3] Theother side of the valley even at that time was adorned with sumptuoustombs. Some of the monuments, which may be seen at the present day, were perhaps those cenotaphs in honor of ancient prophets[4] whichJesus pointed out, when, seated under the portico, he denounced theofficial classes, who covered their hypocrisy or their vanity by thesecolossal piles. [5]

[Footnote 1: John x. 23. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _B. J. _, V. V. 2. Comp. _Ant. _, XV. Xi. 5, XX. Ix. 7. ]

[Footnote 3: Jos. , places cited. ]

[Footnote 4: See ante, p. 316. I am led to suppose that the tombscalled those of Zachariah and of Absalom were monuments of this kind. Cf. _Itin. A Burdig. Hierus. _, p. 153 (edit. Schott. )]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xxiii. 29; Luke xi. 47. ]

At the end of the month of December, he celebrated at Jerusalem thefeast established by Judas Maccabeus in memory of the purification ofthe temple after the sacrileges of Antiochus Epiphanes. [1] It wasalso called the "Feast of Lights, " because, during the eight days ofthe feast, lamps were kept lighted in the houses. [2] Jesus undertooksoon after a journey into Perea and to the banks of the Jordan--thatis to say, into the very country he had visited some years previously, when he followed the school of John, [3] and in which he had himselfadministered baptism. He seems to have reaped consolation from thisjourney, especially at Jericho. This city, as the terminus of severalimportant routes, or, it may be, on account of its gardens of spicesand its rich cultivation, [4] was a customs station of importance. Thechief receiver, Zaccheus, a rich man, desired to see Jesus. [5] As hewas of small stature, he climbed a sycamore tree near the road whichthe procession had to pass. Jesus was touched with this simplicity ina person of consideration, and at the risk of giving offense, hedetermined to stay with Zaccheus. There was much dissatisfaction athis honoring the house of a sinner by this visit. In parting, Jesusdeclared his host to be a good son of Abraham; and, as if to add tothe vexation of the orthodox, Zaccheus became a Christian; he gave, itis said, the half of his goods to the poor, and restored fourfold tothose whom he might have wronged. But this was not the only pleasurewhich Jesus experienced there. On leaving the town, the beggarBartimeus[6] pleased him much by persisting in calling him "son ofDavid, " although he was told to be silent. The cycle of Galileanmiracles appeared for a time to recommence in this country, which wasin many respects similar to the provinces of the north. The delightfuloasis of Jericho, at that time well watered, must have been one of themost beautiful places in Syria. Josephus speaks of it with the sameadmiration as of Galilee, and calls it, like the latter province, a"divine country. "[7]

[Footnote 1: John x. 22. Comp. 1 Macc. Iv. 52, and following; 2 Macc. X. 6, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XII. Vii. 7. ]

[Footnote 3: John x. 40. Cf. Matt. Xix. 1; Mark x. 1. This journey isknown to the synoptics. But they seem to think that Jesus made it bycoming from Galilee to Jerusalem through Perea. ]

[Footnote 4: _Eccles. _ xxiv. 18; Strabo, XVI. Ii. 41; Justin. , xxxvi. 3; Jos. , _Ant. _, IV. Vi. 1, XIV. Iv. 1, XV. Iv. 2. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xx. 29; Mark x. 46, and following; Luke xviii. 35. ]

[Footnote 7: _B. J. _, IV. Viii. 3. Comp. _ibid. _, I. Vi. 6, I. Xviii. 5, and _Antiq. _, XV. Iv. 2. ]

After Jesus had completed this kind of pilgrimage to the scenes of hisearliest prophetic activity, he returned to his beloved abode inBethany, where a singular event occurred, which seems to have had apowerful influence on the remaining days of his life. [1] Tired of thecold reception which the kingdom of God found in the capital, thefriends of Jesus wished for a great miracle which should strikepowerfully the incredulity of the Hierosolymites. The resurrection ofa man known at Jerusalem appeared to them most likely to carryconviction. We must bear in mind that the essential condition of truecriticism is to understand the diversity of times, and to ridourselves of the instinctive repugnances which are the fruit of apurely rational education. We must also remember that in this dull andimpure city of Jerusalem, Jesus was no longer himself. Not by anyfault of his own, but by that of others, his conscience had lostsomething of its original purity. Desperate, and driven to extremity, he was no longer his own master. His mission overwhelmed him, and heyielded to the torrent. As always happens in the lives of great andinspired men, he suffered the miracles opinion demanded of him ratherthan performed them. At this distance of time, and with only a singletext, bearing evident traces of artifices of composition, it isimpossible to decide whether in this instance the whole is fiction, orwhether a real fact which happened at Bethany has served as a basis tothe rumors which were spread about it. It must be acknowledged, however, that the way John narrates the incident differs widely fromthose descriptions of miracles, the offspring of the popularimagination, which fill the synoptics. Let us add, that John is theonly evangelist who has a precise knowledge of the relations of Jesuswith the family of Bethany, and that it is impossible to believe thata mere creation of the popular mind could exist in a collection ofremembrances so entirely personal. It is, then, probable that themiracle in question was not one of those purely legendary ones forwhich no one is responsible. In other words, we think that somethingreally happened at Bethany which was looked upon as a resurrection. 

[Footnote 1: John xi. 1, and following. ]

Fame already attributed to Jesus two or three works of this kind. [1]The family of Bethany might be led, almost without suspecting it, intotaking part in the important act which was desired. Jesus was adoredby them. It seems that Lazarus was sick, and that in consequence ofreceiving a message from the anxious sisters Jesus left Perea. [2] Theythought that the joy Lazarus would feel at his arrival might restorehim to life. Perhaps, also, the ardent desire of silencing those whoviolently denied the divine mission of Jesus, carried his enthusiasticfriends beyond all bounds. It may be that Lazarus, still pallid withdisease, caused himself to be wrapped in bandages as if dead, and shutup in the tomb of his family. These tombs were large vaults cut inthe rock, and were entered by a square opening, closed by an enormousstone. Martha and Mary went to meet Jesus, and without allowing him toenter Bethany, conducted him to the cave. The emotion which Jesusexperienced at the tomb of his friend, whom he believed to be dead, [3]might be taken by those present for the agitation and trembling[4]which accompanied miracles. Popular opinion required that the divinevirtue should manifest itself in man as an epileptic and convulsiveprinciple. Jesus (if we follow the above hypothesis) desired to seeonce more him whom he had loved; and, the stone being removed, Lazaruscame forth in his bandages, his head covered with a winding-sheet. This reappearance would naturally be regarded by every one as aresurrection. Faith knows no other law than the interest of that whichit believes to be true. Regarding the object which it pursues asabsolutely holy, it makes no scruple of invoking bad arguments insupport of its thesis when good ones do not succeed. If such and sucha proof be not sound many others are! If such and such a wonder be notreal, many others have been! Being intimately persuaded that Jesus wasa thaumaturgus, Lazarus and his two sisters may have aided in theexecution of one of his miracles, just as many pious men who, convinced of the truth of their religion, have sought to triumph overthe obstinacy of their opponents by means of whose weakness they werewell aware. The state of their conscience was that of the stigmatists, of the convulsionists, of the possessed ones in convents, drawn, bythe influence of the world in which they live, and by their ownbelief, into feigned acts. As to Jesus, he was no more able than St. Bernard or St. Francis d'Assisi to moderate the avidity for themarvellous, displayed by the multitude, and even by his own disciples. Death, moreover, in a few days would restore him his divine liberty, and release him from the fatal necessities of a position which eachday became more exacting, and more difficult to sustain. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Ix. 18, and following; Mark v. 22, and following;Luke vii. 11, and following, viii. 41, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: John xi. 3, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: John xi. 35, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: John xi. 33, 38. ]

Everything, in fact, seems to lead us to believe that the miracle ofBethany contributed sensibly to hasten the death of Jesus. [1] Thepersons who had been witnesses of it, were dispersed throughout thecity, and spoke much about it. The disciples related the fact, withdetails as to its performance, prepared in expectation of controversy. The other miracles of Jesus were transitory acts, spontaneouslyaccepted by faith, exaggerated by popular fame, and were not againreferred to after they had once taken place. This was a real event, held to be publicly notorious, and one by which it was hoped tosilence the Pharisees. [2] The enemies of Jesus were much irritated atall this fame. They endeavored, it is said, to kill Lazarus. [3] It iscertain, that from that time a Council of the chief priests[4] wasassembled, and that in this council the question was clearly put: "CanJesus and Judaism exist together?" To raise the question was toresolve it; and without being a prophet, as thought by the evangelist, the high priest could easily pronounce his cruel axiom: "It isexpedient that one man should die for the people. "

[Footnote 1: John xi. 40, and following, xii. 2, 9, and following, 17, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: John xii. 9, 10, 17, 18. ]

[Footnote 3: John xii. 10. ]

[Footnote 4: John xi. 47, and following. ]

"The high priest of that same year, " to use an expression of thefourth Gospel, which well expresses the state of abasement to whichthe sovereign pontificate was reduced, was Joseph Kaïapha, appointedby Valerius Gratus, and entirely devoted to the Romans. From the timethat Jerusalem had been under the government of procurators, theoffice of high priest had been a temporary one; changes in it tookplace nearly every year. [1] Kaïapha, however, held it longer than anyone else. He had assumed his office in the year 25, and he did notlose it till the year 36. His character is unknown to us, and manycircumstances lead to the belief that his power was only nominal. Infact, another personage is always seen in conjunction with, and evensuperior to him, who, at the decisive moment we have now reached, seems to have exercised a preponderating power. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Iii. 1, XVIII. Ii. 2, v. 3, XX. Ix. 1, 4. ]

This personage was Hanan or Annas, [1] son of Seth, and father-in-lawof Kaïapha. He was formerly the high priest, and had in realitypreserved amidst the numerous changes of the pontificate all theauthority of the office. He had received the high priesthood from thelegate Quirinius, in the year 7 of our era. He lost his office in theyear 14, on the accession of Tiberius; but he remained much respected. He was still called "high priest, " although he was out of office, [2]and he was consulted upon all important matters. During fifty yearsthe pontificate continued in his family almost uninterruptedly; fiveof his sons successively sustained this dignity, [3] besides Kaïapha, who was his son-in-law. His was called the "priestly family, " as ifthe priesthood had become hereditary in it. [4] The chief offices ofthe temple were almost all filled by them. [5] Another family, that ofBoëthus, alternated, it is true, with that of Hanan's in thepontificate. [6] But the _Boëthusim_, whose fortunes were of not veryhonorable origin, were much less esteemed by the pious middle class. Hanan was then in reality the chief of the priestly party. Kaïapha didnothing without him; it was customary to associate their names, andthat of Hanan was always put first. [7] It will be understood, in fact, that under this _régime_ of an annual pontificate, changed accordingto the caprice of the procurators, an old high priest, who hadpreserved the secret of the traditions, who had seen many younger thanhimself succeed each other, and who had retained sufficient influenceto get the office delegated to persons who were subordinate to him infamily rank, must have been a very important personage. Like all thearistocracy of the temple, [8] he was a Sadducee, "a sect, " saysJosephus, "particularly severe in its judgments. " All his sons alsowere violent persecutors. [9] One of them, named like his father, Hanan, caused James, the brother of the Lord, to be stoned, undercircumstances not unlike those which surrounded the death of Jesus. The spirit of the family was haughty, bold, and cruel;[10] it had thatparticular kind of proud and sullen wickedness which characterizesJewish politicians. Therefore, upon this Hanan and his family mustrest the responsibility of all the acts which followed. It was Hanan(or the party he represented) who killed Jesus. Hanan was theprincipal actor in the terrible drama, and far more than Kaïapha, farmore than Pilate, ought to bear the weight of the maledictions ofmankind. 

[Footnote 1: The _Ananus_ of Josephus. It is thus that the Hebrew name_Johanan_ became in Greek _Joannes_ or _Joannas_. ]

[Footnote 2: John xviii. 15-23; _Acts_ iv. 6. ]

[Footnote 3: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1. ]

[Footnote 4: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Iii. 1; _B. J. _, IV. V. 6 and 7; _Acts_iv. 6. ]

[Footnote 5: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 3. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Ix. 3, XIX. Vi. 2, viii. 1. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke iii. 2. ]

[Footnote 8: _Acts_ v. 17. ]

[Footnote 9: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1. ]

[Footnote 10: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1. ]

It is in the mouth of Kaïapha that the evangelist places the decisivewords which led to the death of Jesus. [1] It was supposed that thehigh priest possessed a certain gift of prophecy; his declaration thusbecame an oracle full of profound meaning to the Christian community. But such an expression, whoever he might be that pronounced it, wasthe feeling of the whole sacerdotal party. This party was much opposedto popular seditions. It sought to put down religious enthusiasts, rightly foreseeing that by their excited preachings they would lead tothe total ruin of the nation. Although the excitement created by Jesuswas in nowise temporal, the priests saw, as an ultimate consequence ofthis agitation, an aggravation of the Roman yoke and the overturningof the temple, the source of their riches and honors. [2] Certainly thecauses which, thirty-seven years after, were to effect the ruin ofJerusalem, did not arise from infant Christianity. They arose inJerusalem itself, and not in Galilee. We cannot, however, say that themotive alleged in this circumstance by the priests was so improbablethat we must necessarily regard it as insincere. In a general, sense, Jesus, if he had succeeded, would have really effected the ruin of theJewish nation. According to the principles universally admitted by allancient polity, Hanan and Kaïapha were right in saying: "Better thedeath of one man than the ruin of a people!" In our opinion thisreasoning is detestable. But it has been that of conservative partiesfrom the commencement of all human society. The "party of order" (Iuse this expression in its mean and narrow sense) has ever been thesame. Deeming the highest duty of government to be the prevention ofpopular disturbances, it believes it performs an act of patriotism inpreventing, by judicial murder, the tumultuous effusion of blood. Little thoughtful of the future, it does not dream that in declaringwar against all innovations, it incurs the risk of crushing ideasdestined one day to triumph. The death of Jesus was one of thethousand illustrations of this policy. The movement he directed wasentirely spiritual, but it was still a movement; hence the men oforder, persuaded that it was essential for humanity not to bedisturbed, felt themselves bound to prevent the new spirit fromextending itself. Never was seen a more striking example of how muchsuch a course of procedure defeats its own object. Left free, Jesuswould have exhausted himself in a desperate struggle with theimpossible. The unintelligent hate of his enemies decided the successof his work, and sealed his divinity. 

[Footnote 1: John xi. 49, 50. Cf. _ibid. _, xviii. 14. ]

[Footnote 2: John xi. 48. ]

The death of Jesus was thus resolved upon from the month of Februaryor the beginning of March. [1] But he still escaped for a short time. He withdrew to an obscure town called Ephraim or Ephron, in thedirection of Bethel, a short day's journey from Jerusalem. [2] He spenta few days there with his disciples, letting the storm pass over. Butthe order to arrest him the moment he appeared at Jerusalem was given. The feast of the Passover was drawing nigh, and it was thought thatJesus, according to his custom, would come to celebrate it atJerusalem. [3]

[Footnote 1: John xi. 53. ]

[Footnote 2: John xi. 54. Cf. 2 _Chron. _ xiii. 19; Jos. , _B. J. _, IV. Ix. 9; Eusebius and St. Jerome, _De situ et nom. Loc. Hebr. _, at thewords [Greek: Ephrôn] and [Greek: Ephraim]. ]

[Footnote 3: John xi. 55, 56. For the order of the events, in all thispart we follow the system of John. The synoptics appear to have littleinformation as to the period of the life of Jesus which precedes thePassion. ]

CHAPTER XXIII. 

LAST WEEK OF JESUS. 

Jesus did in fact set out with his disciples to see once more, and forthe last time, the unbelieving city. The hopes of his companions weremore and more exalted. All believed, in going up to Jerusalem, thatthe kingdom of God was about to be realized there. [1] The impiety ofmen being at its height, was regarded as a great sign that theconsummation was at hand. The persuasion in this respect was such, that they already disputed for precedence in the kingdom. [2] This was, it is said, the moment chosen by Salome to ask, on behalf of her sons, the two seats on the right and left of the Son of man. [3] The Master, on the other hand, was beset by grave thoughts. Sometimes he allowed agloomy resentment against his enemies to appear; he related theparable of a nobleman, who went to take possession of a kingdom in afar country; but no sooner had he gone than his fellow-citizens wishedto get rid of him. The king returned, and commanded those who hadconspired against him to be brought before him, and had them all putto death. [4] At other times he summarily destroyed the illusions ofthe disciples. As they marched along the stony roads to the north ofJerusalem, Jesus pensively preceded the group of his companions. Allregarded him in silence, experiencing a feeling of fear, and notdaring to interrogate him. Already, on various occasions, he hadspoken to them of his future sufferings, and they had listened to himreluctantly. [5] Jesus at last spoke to them, and no longer concealinghis presentiments, discoursed to them of his approaching end. [6] Therewas great sadness in the whole company. The disciples were expectingsoon to see the sign appear in the clouds. The inaugural cry of thekingdom of God: "Blessed is he that cometh in the name of theLord, "[7] resounded already in joyous accents in their ears. Thefearful prospect he foreshadowed, troubled them. At each step of thefatal road, the kingdom of God became nearer or more remote in themirage of their dreams. As to Jesus, he became confirmed in the ideathat he was about to die, but that his death would save the world. [8]The misunderstanding between him and his disciples became greater eachmoment. 

[Footnote 1: Luke xix. 11. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xxii. 24, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xx. 20, and following; Mark x. 35, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke xix. 12-27. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xvi. 21, and following; Mark viii. 31, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 6: Matt. Xx. 17, and following; Mark x. 31, and following;Luke xviii. 31, and following. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xxiii. 39; Luke xiii. 35. ]

[Footnote 8: Matt. Xx. 28. ]

The custom was to come to Jerusalem several days before the Passover, in order to prepare for it. Jesus arrived late, and at one time hisenemies thought they were frustrated in their hope of seizing him. [1]The sixth day before the feast (Saturday, 8th of Nisan, equal to the28th March[2]) he at last reached Bethany. He entered, according tohis custom, the house of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, or of Simon theleper. They gave him a great reception. There was a dinner at Simonthe leper's, [3] where many persons were assembled, drawn thither bythe desire of seeing him, and also of seeing Lazarus, of whom forsome time so many things had been related. Lazarus was seated at thetable, and attracted much attention. Martha served, according to hercustom. [4] It seems that they sought, by an increased show of respect, to overcome the coolness of the public, and to assert the high dignityof their guest. Mary, in order to give to the event a more festiveappearance, entered during dinner, bearing a vase of perfume which shepoured upon the feet of Jesus. She afterward broke the vase, accordingto an ancient custom by which the vessel that had been employed in theentertainment of a stranger of distinction was broken. [5] Then, totestify her worship in an extraordinary manner, she prostrated herselfat the feet of her Master and wiped them with her long hair. [6] Allthe house was filled with the odor of the perfume, to the greatdelight of every one except the avaricious Judas of Kerioth. Considering the economical habits of the community, this was certainlyprodigality. The greedy treasurer calculated immediately how much theperfume might have been sold for, and what it would have realized forthe poor. This not very affectionate feeling, which seemed to placesomething above Jesus, dissatisfied him. He liked to be honored, forhonors served his aim and established his title of Son of David. Therefore, when they spoke to him of the poor, he replied rathersharply: "Ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have notalways. " And, exalting himself, he promised immortality to the womanwho in this critical moment gave him a token of love. [7]

[Footnote 1: John xi. 56. ]

[Footnote 2: The Passover was celebrated on the 14th of Nisan. Now inthe year 33, the 1st of Nisan corresponded with Saturday, 21st ofMarch. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvi. 6; Mark xiv. 3. Cf. Luke vii. 40, 43, 44. ]

[Footnote 4: It is customary, in the East, for a person who isattached to any one by a tie of affection or of domesticity, to attendupon him when he goes to eat at the house of another. ]

[Footnote 5: I have seen this custom still practised at Sour (Zoar. )]

[Footnote 6: We must remember that the feet of the guests were not, asamongst us, concealed under the table, but extended on a level withthe body on the divan, or _triclinium_. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xxvi. 6, and following; Mark xiv. 3, and following;John xi. 2, xii. 2, and following. Compare Luke vii. 36, andfollowing. ]

The next day (Sunday, 9th of Nisan), Jesus descended from Bethany toJerusalem. [1] When, at a bend of the road, upon the summit of theMount of Olives, he saw the city spread before him, it is said he weptover it, and addressed to it a last appeal. [2] At the base of themountain, at some steps from the gate, on entering the neighboringportion of the eastern wall of the city, which was called _Bethphage_, no doubt on account of the fig-trees with which it was planted, [3] hehad experienced a momentary pleasure. [4] His arrival was noisedabroad. The Galileans who had come to the feast were highly elated, and prepared a little triumph for him. An ass was brought to him, followed, according to custom, by its colt. The Galileans spread theirfinest garments upon the back of this humble animal as saddle-cloths, and seated him thereon. Others, however, spread their garments uponthe road, and strewed it with green branches. The multitude whichpreceded and followed him, carrying palms, cried: "Hosanna to the sonof David! Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!" Somepersons even gave him the title of king of Israel. [5] "Master, rebukethy disciples, " said the Pharisees to him. "If these should holdtheir peace, the stones would immediately cry out, " replied Jesus, andhe entered into the city. The Hierosolymites, who scarcely knew him, asked who he was. "It is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth, in Galilee, "was the reply. Jerusalem was a city of about 50, 000 souls. [6] Atrifling event, such as the entrance of a stranger, however littlecelebrated, or the arrival of a band of provincials, or a movement ofpeople to the avenues of the city, could not fail, under ordinarycircumstances, to be quickly noised about. But at the time of thefeast, the confusion was extreme. [7] Jerusalem at these times wastaken possession of by strangers. It was amongst the latter that theexcitement appears to have been most lively. Some proselytes, speakingGreek, who had come to the feast, had their curiosity piqued, andwished to see Jesus. They addressed themselves to his disciples;[8]but we do not know the result of the interview. Jesus, according tohis custom, went to pass the night at his beloved village ofBethany. [9] The three following days (Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday)he descended regularly to Jerusalem; and, after the setting of thesun, he returned either to Bethany, or to the farms on the westernside of the Mount of Olives, where he had many friends. [10]

[Footnote 1: John xii. 12. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xix. 41, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Mishnah, _Menachoth_, xi. 2; Talm. Of Bab. , _Sanhedrim_, 14 _b_; _Pesachim_, 63 _b_, 91 _a_; _Sota_, 45 _a_; _Baba metsia_, 85_a_. It follows from these passages that Bethphage was a kind of_pomærium_, which extended to the foot of the eastern basement of thetemple, and which had itself its wall of inclosure. The passages Matt. Xxi. 1, Mark xi. 1, Luke xix. 29, do not plainly imply that Bethphagewas a village, as Eusebius and St. Jerome have supposed. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxi. 1, and following; Mark xi. 1, and following;Luke xix. 29, and following; John xii. 12, and following. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xix. 38; John xii. 13. ]

[Footnote 6: The number of 120, 000, given by Hecatæus (in Josephus, _Contra Apion_, I. Xxii. ), appears exaggerated. Cicero speaks ofJerusalem as of a paltry little town (_Ad Atticum_, II. Ix. ) Theancient boundaries, whichever calculation we adopt, do not allow of apopulation quadruple of that of the present time, which does not reach15, 000. See Robinson, _Bibl. Res. _, i. 421, 422 (2d edition);Fergusson, _Topogr. Of Jerus. _, p. 51; Forster, _Syria and Palestine_, p. 82. ]

[Footnote 7: Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Xiv. 3, VI. Ix. 3. ]

[Footnote 8: John xii. 20, and following. ]

[Footnote 9: Matt. Xxi. 17; Mark xi. 11. ]

[Footnote 10: Matt. Xxi. 17, 18; Mark xi. 11, 12, 19; Luke xxi. 37, 38. ]

A deep melancholy appears, during these last days, to have filled thesoul of Jesus, who was generally so joyous and serene. All thenarratives agree in relating that, before his arrest, he underwent ashort experience of doubt and trouble; a kind of anticipated agony. According to some, he suddenly exclaimed, "Now is my soul troubled. OFather, save me from this hour. "[1] It was believed that a voice fromheaven was heard at this moment: others said that an angel came toconsole him. [2] According to one widely spread version, the incidenttook place in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus, it was said, went abouta stone's throw from his sleeping disciples, taking with him onlyPeter and the two sons of Zebedee, and fell on his face and prayed. His soul was sad even unto death; a terrible anguish weighed upon him;but resignation to the divine will sustained him. [3] This scene, owingto the instinctive art which regulated the compilation of thesynoptics, and often led them in the arrangement of the narrative tostudy adaptability and effect, has been given as occurring on the lastnight of the life of Jesus, and at the precise moment of his arrest. If this version were the true one, we should scarcely understand whyJohn, who had been the intimate witness of so touching an episode, should not mention it in the very circumstantial narrative which hehas furnished of the evening of the Thursday. [4] All that we cansafely say is, that, during his last days, the enormous weight of themission he had accepted pressed cruelly upon Jesus. Human natureasserted itself for a time. Perhaps he began to hesitate about hiswork. Terror and doubt took possession of him, and threw him into astate of exhaustion worse than death. He who has sacrificed hisrepose, and the legitimate rewards of life, to a great idea, alwaysexperiences a feeling of revulsion when the image of death presentsitself to him for the first time, and seeks to persuade him that allhas been in vain. Perhaps some of those touching reminiscences whichthe strongest souls preserve, and which at times pierce like a sword, came upon him at this moment. Did he remember the clear fountains ofGalilee where he was wont to refresh himself; the vine and thefig-tree under which he had reposed, and the young maidens who, perhaps, would have consented to love him? Did he curse the harddestiny which had denied him the joys conceded to all others? Did heregret his too lofty nature, and, victim of his greatness, did hemourn that he had not remained a simple artisan of Nazareth? We knownot. For all these internal troubles evidently were a sealed letter tohis disciples. They understood nothing of them, and supplied by simpleconjectures that which in the great soul of their Master was obscureto them. It is certain, at least, that his divine nature soon regainedthe supremacy. He might still have avoided death; but he would not. Love for his work sustained him. He was willing to drink the cup tothe dregs. Henceforth we behold Jesus entirely himself; his characterunclouded. The subtleties of the polemic, the credulity of thethaumaturgus and of the exorcist, are forgotten. There remains onlythe incomparable hero of the Passion, the founder of the rights offree conscience, and the complete model which all suffering souls willcontemplate in order to fortify and console themselves. 

[Footnote 1: John xii. 27, and following. We can easily imagine thatthe exalted tone of John, and his exclusive preoccupation with thedivine character of Jesus, may have effaced from the narrative thecircumstances of natural weakness related by the synoptics. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke xxii. 43; John xii. 28, 29. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvi. 36, and following; Mark xiv. 32, andfollowing; Luke xxii. 39, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: This is the less to be understood, as John is affectedlyparticular in noticing the circumstances which were personal to him, or of which he had been the only witness (xiii. 23, and following, xviii. 15, and following, xix. 26, and following, 35, xx. 2, andfollowing, xxi. 20, and following. )]

The triumph of Bethphage--that bold act of the provincials incelebrating at the very gates of Jerusalem the advent of theirMessiah-King--completed the exasperation of the Pharisees and thearistocracy of the temple. A new council was held on the Wednesday(12th of Nisan) in the house of Joseph Kaïapha. [1] The immediatearrest of Jesus was resolved upon. A great idea of order and ofconservative policy governed all their plans. The desire was to avoida scene. As the feast of the Passover, which commenced that year onthe Friday evening, was a time of bustle and excitement, it wasresolved to anticipate it. Jesus being popular, [2] they feared anoutbreak; the arrest was therefore fixed for the next day, Thursday. It was resolved, also, not to seize him in the temple, where he cameevery day, [3] but to observe his habits, in order to seize him in someretired place. The agents of the priests sounded his disciples, hopingto obtain useful information from their weakness or their simplicity. They found what they sought in Judas of Kerioth. This wretch, actuatedby motives impossible to explain, betrayed his Master, gave all thenecessary information, and even undertook himself (although such anexcess of vileness is scarcely credible) to guide the troop which wasto effect his arrest. The remembrance of horror which the folly or thewickedness of this man has left in the Christian tradition hasdoubtless given rise to some exaggeration on this point. Judas, untilthen, had been a disciple like the others; he had even the title ofapostle; and he had performed miracles and driven out demons. Legend, which always uses strong and decisive language, describes theoccupants of the little supper-room as eleven saints and onereprobate. Reality does not proceed by such absolute categories. Avarice, which the synoptics give as the motive of the crime inquestion, does not suffice to explain it. It would be very singular ifa man who kept the purse, and who knew what he would lose by the deathof his chief, were to abandon the profits of his occupation[4] inexchange for a very small sum of money. [5] Had the self-love of Judasbeen wounded by the rebuff which he had received at the dinner atBethany? Even that would not explain his conduct. John would have usregard him as a thief, an unbeliever from the beginning, [6] for which, however, there is no probability. We would rather ascribe it to somefeeling of jealousy or to some dissension amongst the disciples. Thepeculiar hatred John manifests toward Judas[7] confirms thishypothesis. Less pure in heart than the others, Judas had, from thevery nature of his office, become unconsciously narrow-minded. By acaprice very common to men engaged in active duties, he had come toregard the interests of the treasury as superior even to those of thework for which it was intended. The treasurer had overcome theapostle. The murmurings which escaped him at Bethany seem to indicatethat sometimes he thought the Master cost his spiritual family toodear. No doubt this mean economy had caused many other collisions inthe little society. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvi. 1, 5; Mark xiv. 1, 2; Luke xxii. 1, 2. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxi. 46. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvi. 55. ]

[Footnote 4: John xii. 6. ]

[Footnote 5: John does not even speak of a payment in money. ]

[Footnote 6: John vi. 65, xii. 6. ]

[Footnote 7: John vi. 65, 71, 72, xii. 6; xiii. 2, 27, and following. ]

Without denying that Judas of Kerioth may have contributed to thearrest of his Master, we still believe that the curses with which heis loaded are somewhat unjust. There was, perhaps, in his deed moreawkwardness than perversity. The moral conscience of the man of thepeople is quick and correct, but unstable and inconsistent. It is atthe mercy of the impulse of the moment. The secret societies of therepublican party were characterized by much earnestness and sincerity, and yet their denouncers were very numerous. A trifling spite sufficedto convert a partisan into a traitor. But if the foolish desire for afew pieces of silver turned the head of poor Judas, he does not seemto have lost the moral sentiment completely, since when he had seenthe consequences of his fault he repented, [1] and, it is said, killedhimself. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 3, and following. ]

Each moment of this eventful period is solemn, and counts more thanwhole ages in the history of humanity. We have arrived at theThursday, 13th of Nisan (2d April). The evening of the next daycommenced the festival of the Passover, begun by the feast in whichthe Paschal lamb was eaten. The festival continued for seven days, during which unleavened bread was eaten. The first and the last ofthese seven days were peculiarly solemn. The disciples were alreadyoccupied with preparations for the feast. [1] As to Jesus, we are ledto believe that he knew of the treachery of Judas, and that hesuspected the fate that awaited him. In the evening he took his lastrepast with his disciples. It was not the ritual feast of thepassover, as was afterward supposed, owing to an error of a day inreckoning, [2] but for the primitive church this supper of theThursday was the true passover, the seal of the new covenant. Eachdisciple connected with it his most cherished remembrances, andnumerous touching traits of the Master which each one preserved wereassociated with this repast, which became the corner-stone ofChristian piety, and the starting-point of the most fruitfulinstitutions. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvi. 1, and following; Mark xiv. 12; Luke xxii. 7;John xiii. 29. ]

[Footnote 2: This is the system of the synoptics (Matt. Xxvi. 17, andfollowing; Mark xiv. 12, and following; Luke xxii. 7, and following, 15. ) But John, whose narrative of this portion has a greaterauthority, expressly states that Jesus died the same day on which thePaschal lamb was eaten (xiii. 1, 2, 29, xviii. 28, xix. 14, 31. ) TheTalmud also makes Jesus to die "on the eve of the Passover" (Talm. OfBab. , _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_, 67 _a_. )]

Doubtless the tender love which filled the heart of Jesus for thelittle church which surrounded him overflowed at this moment, [1] andhis strong and serene soul became buoyant, even under the weight ofthe gloomy preoccupations that beset him. He had a word for each ofhis friends; two among them especially, John and Peter, were theobjects of tender marks of attachment. John (at least according to hisown account) was reclining on the divan, by the side of Jesus, hishead resting upon the breast of the Master. Toward the end of therepast, the secret which weighed upon the heart of Jesus almostescaped him: he said, "Verily I say unto you, that one of you shallbetray me. "[2] To these simple men this was a moment of anguish; theylooked at each other, and each questioned himself. Judas was present;perhaps Jesus, who had for some time had reasons to suspect him, sought by this expression to draw from his looks or from hisembarrassed manner the confession of his fault. But the unfaithfuldisciple did not lose countenance; he even dared, it is said, to askwith the others: "Master, is it I?"

[Footnote 1: John xiii. 1, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvi. 21, and following; Mark xiv. 18, andfollowing; Luke xx. 21, and following; John xiii. 21, and following, xxi. 20. ]

Meanwhile, the good and upright soul of Peter was in torture. He madea sign to John to endeavor to ascertain of whom the Master spoke. John, who could converse with Jesus without being heard, asked him themeaning of this enigma. Jesus having only suspicions, did not wish topronounce any name; he only told John to observe to whom he was goingto offer a sop. At the same time he soaked the bread and offered it toJudas. John and Peter alone had cognizance of the fact. Jesusaddressed to Judas words which contained a bitter reproach, but whichwere not understood by those present; and he left the company. Theythought that Jesus was simply giving him orders for the morrow'sfeast. [1]

[Footnote 1: John xiii. 21, and following, which shows theimprobabilities of the narrative of the synoptics. ]

At the time, this repast struck no one; and apart from theapprehensions which the Master confided to his disciples, who onlyhalf understood them, nothing extraordinary took place. But after thedeath of Jesus, they attached to this evening a singularly solemnmeaning, and the imagination of believers spread a coloring of sweetmysticism over it. The last hours of a cherished friend are those webest remember. By an inevitable illusion, we attribute to theconversations we have then had with him a meaning which death alonegives to them; we concentrate into a few hours the memories of manyyears. The greater part of the disciples saw their Master no moreafter the supper of which we have just spoken. It was the farewellbanquet. In this repast, as in many others, Jesus practised hismysterious rite of the breaking of bread. As it was early believedthat the repast in question took place on the day of the Passover, andwas the Paschal feast, the idea naturally arose that the Eucharisticinstitution was established at this supreme moment. Starting from thehypothesis that Jesus knew beforehand the precise moment of his death, the disciples were led to suppose that he reserved a number ofimportant acts for his last hours. As, moreover, one of thefundamental ideas of the first Christians was that the death of Jesushad been a sacrifice, replacing all those of the ancient Law, the"Last Supper, " which was supposed to have taken place, once for all, on the eve of the Passion, became the supreme sacrifice--the act whichconstituted the new alliance--the sign of the blood shed for thesalvation of all. [1] The bread and wine, placed in connection withdeath itself, were thus the image of the new testament that Jesus hadsealed with his sufferings--the commemoration of the sacrifice ofChrist until his advent. [2]

[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 20. ]

[Footnote 2: 1 _Cor. _ xi. 26. ]

Very early this mystery was embodied in a small sacramental narrative, which we possess under four forms, [1] very similar to one another. John, preoccupied with the Eucharistic ideas, [2] and who relates theLast Supper with so much prolixity, connecting with it so manycircumstances and discourses[3]--and who was the only one of theevangelists whose testimony on this point has the value of aneye-witness--does not mention this narrative. This is a proof that hedid not regard the Eucharist as a peculiarity of the Lord's Supper. For him the special rite of the Last Supper was the washing of feet. It is probable that in certain primitive Christian families thislatter rite obtained an importance which it has since lost. [4] Nodoubt, Jesus, on some occasions, had practised it to give hisdisciples an example of brotherly humility. It was connected with theeve of his death, in consequence of the tendency to group around theLast Supper all the great moral and ritual recommendations of Jesus. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19-21; 1_Cor. _ xi. 23-25. ]

[Footnote 2: Chap. Vi. ]

[Footnote 3: Chaps. Xiii. -xvii. ]

[Footnote 4: John xiii. 14, 15. Cf. Matt. Xx. 26, and following; Lukexxii. 26, and following. ]

A high sentiment of love, of concord, of charity, and of mutualdeference, animated, moreover, the remembrances which were cherishedof the last hours of Jesus. [1] It is always the unity of his Church, constituted by him or by his Spirit, which is the soul of the symbolsand of the discourses which Christian tradition referred to thissacred moment: "A new commandment I give unto you, " said he, "that yelove one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have loveone to another. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servantknoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; forall things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. These things I command you, that ye love one another. "[2] At this lastmoment there were again evoked rivalries and struggles forprecedence. [3] Jesus remarked, that if he, the Master, had been in themidst of his disciples as their servant, how much more ought they tosubmit themselves to one another. According to some, in drinking thewine, he said, "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vineuntil that day when I drink it new with you in my Father'skingdom. "[4] According to others, he promised them soon a celestialfeast, where they would be seated on thrones at his side. [5]

[Footnote 1: John xiii. 1, and following. The discourses placed byJohn after the narrative of the Last Supper cannot be taken ashistorical. They are full of peculiarities and of expressions whichare not in the style of the discourses of Jesus; and which, on thecontrary, are very similar to the habitual language of John. Thus theexpression "little children" in the vocative (John xiii. 33) is veryfrequent in the First Epistle of John. It does not appear to have beenfamiliar to Jesus. ]

[Footnote 2: John xiii. 33-35, xv. 12-17. ]

[Footnote 3: Luke xxii. 24-27. Cf. John xiii. 4, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xxii. 29, 30. ]

It seems that, toward the end of the evening, the presentiments ofJesus took hold of the disciples. All felt that a very serious dangerthreatened the Master, and that they were approaching a crisis. At onetime Jesus thought of precautions, and spoke of swords. There were twoin the company. "It is enough, " said he. [1] He did not, however, follow out this idea; he saw clearly that timid provincials would notstand before the armed force of the great powers of Jerusalem. Peter, full of zeal, and feeling sure of himself, swore that he would go withhim to prison and to death. Jesus, with his usual acuteness, expresseddoubts about him. According to a tradition, which probably came fromPeter himself, Jesus declared that Peter would deny him before thecrowing of the cock. All, like Peter, swore that they would remainfaithful to him. [2]

[Footnote 1: Luke xxii. 36-38. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvi. 31, and following; Mark xiv. 29, andfollowing; Luke xxii. 33, and following; John xiii. 36, andfollowing. ]

CHAPTER XXIV. 

ARREST AND TRIAL OF JESUS. 

It was nightfall[1] when they left the room. [2] Jesus, according tohis custom, passed through the valley of Kedron; and, accompanied byhis disciples, went to the garden of Gethsemane, at the foot of theMount of Olives, [3] and sat down there. Overawing his friends by hisinherent greatness, he watched and prayed. They were sleeping nearhim, when all at once an armed troop appeared bearing lighted torches. It was the guards of the temple, armed with staves, a kind of policeunder the control of the priests. They were supported by a detachmentof Roman soldiers with their swords. The order for the arrest emanatedfrom the high priest and the Sanhedrim. [4] Judas, knowing the habitsof Jesus, had indicated this place as the one where he might mosteasily be surprised. Judas, according to the unanimous tradition ofthe earliest times, accompanied the detachment himself;[5] andaccording to some, [6] he carried his hateful conduct even to betrayinghim by a kiss. However this may be, it is certain that there was someshow of resistance on the part of the disciples. [7] One of them(Peter, according to eye-witnesses[8]) drew his sword, and wounded theear of one of the servants of the high priest, named Malchus. Jesusrestrained this opposition, and gave himself up to the soldiers. Weakand incapable of effectual resistance, especially against authoritieswho had so much prestige, the disciples took flight, and becamedispersed; Peter and John alone did not lose sight of their Master. Another unknown young man followed him, covered with a light garment. They sought to arrest him, but the young man fled, leaving his tunicin the hands of the guards. [9]

[Footnote 1: John xiii. 30. ]

[Footnote 2: The singing of a religious hymn, related by Matt. Xxvi. 30, and Mark xiv. 26, proceeds from the opinion entertained by thesetwo evangelists that the last repast of Jesus was the Paschal feast. Before and after the Paschal feast, psalms were sung. Talm. Of Bab. , _Pesachim_, cap. Ix. Hal. 3, and fol. 118 _a_, etc. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvi. 36; Mark xiv. 32; Luke xxii. 39; John xviii. 1, 2. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; John xviii. 3, 12. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xxvi. 47; Mark xiv. 43; Luke xxii. 47; John xviii. 3; _Acts_ i. 16. ]

[Footnote 6: This is the tradition of the synoptics. In the narrativeof John, Jesus declares himself. ]

[Footnote 7: The two traditions are agreed on this point. ]

[Footnote 8: John xviii. 10. ]

[Footnote 9: Mark xiv. 51, 52. ]

The course which the priests had resolved to take against Jesus wasquite in conformity with the established law. The procedure againstthe "corrupter" (_mésith_), who sought to injure the purity ofreligion, is explained in the Talmud, with details, the naïveimpudence of which provokes a smile. A judicial ambush is there madean essential part of the examination of criminals. When a man wasaccused of being a "corrupter, " two witnesses were suborned who wereconcealed behind a partition. It was arranged to bring the accusedinto a contiguous room, where he could be heard by these two withouthis perceiving them. Two candles were lighted near him, in order thatit might be satisfactorily proved that the witnesses "saw him. "[1] Hewas then made to repeat his blasphemy, and urged to retract it. If hepersisted, the witnesses who had heard him conducted him to thetribunal, and he was stoned to death. The Talmud adds, that this wasthe manner in which they treated Jesus; that he was condemned on thefaith of two witnesses who had been suborned, and that the crime of"corruption" is, moreover, the only one for which the witnesses arethus prepared. [2]

[Footnote 1: In criminal matters, eye-witnesses alone were admitted. Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, iv. 5. ]

[Footnote 2: Talm. Of Jerus. , _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16; Talm. Of Bab. , same treatise, 43 _a_, 67 _a_. Cf. _Shabbath_, 104 _b_. ]

We learn from the disciples of Jesus themselves that the crime withwhich their Master was charged was that of "corruption;"[1] and apartfrom some minutiæ, the fruit of the rabbinical imagination, thenarrative of the Gospels corresponds exactly with the proceduredescribed by the Talmud. The plan of the enemies of Jesus was toconvict him, by the testimony of witnesses and by his own avowals, ofblasphemy, and of outrage against the Mosaic religion, to condemn himto death according to law, and then to get the condemnation sanctionedby Pilate. The priestly authority, as we have already seen, was inreality entirely in the hands of Hanan. The order for the arrestprobably came from him. It was before this powerful personage thatJesus was first brought. [2] Hanan questioned him as to his doctrineand his disciples. Jesus, with proper pride, refused to enter intolong explanations. He referred Hanan to his teachings, which had beenpublic; he declared he had never held any secret doctrine; and desiredthe ex-high priest to interrogate those who had listened to him. Thisanswer was perfectly natural; but the exaggerated respect with whichthe old priest was surrounded made it appear audacious; and one ofthose present replied to it, it is said, by a blow. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 63; John vii. 12, 47. ]

[Footnote 2: John xviii. 13, and following. This circumstance, whichwe only find in John, is the strongest proof of the historic value ofthe fourth Gospel. ]

Peter and John had followed their Master to the dwelling of Hanan. John, who was known in the house, was admitted without difficulty; butPeter was stopped at the entrance, and John was obliged to beg theporter to let him pass. The night was cold. Peter stopped in theantechamber, and approached a brasier, around which the servants werewarming themselves. He was soon recognized as a disciple of theaccused. The unfortunate man, betrayed by his Galilean accent, andpestered by questions from the servants, one of whom, a kinsman ofMalchus, had seen him at Gethsemane, denied thrice that he had everhad the least connection with Jesus. He thought that Jesus could nothear him, and never imagined that this cowardice, which he sought tohide by his dissimulation, was exceedingly dishonorable. But hisbetter nature soon revealed to him the fault he had committed. Afortuitous circumstance, the crowing of the cock, recalled to him aremark that Jesus had made. Touched to the heart, he went out and weptbitterly. [1]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvi. 69, and following; Mark xiv. 66, andfollowing; Luke xxii. 54, and following; John xviii. 15, andfollowing, 25, and following. ]

Hanan, although the true author of the judicial murder about to beaccomplished, had not power to pronounce the sentence upon Jesus; hesent him to his son-in-law, Kaïapha, who bore the official title. Thisman, the blind instrument of his father-in-law, would naturally ratifyeverything that had been done. The Sanhedrim was assembled at hishouse. [1] The inquiry commenced; and several witnesses, preparedbeforehand according to the inquisitorial process described in theTalmud, appeared before the tribunal. The fatal sentence which Jesushad really uttered: "I am able to destroy the temple of God and tobuild it in three days, " was cited by two witnesses. To blaspheme thetemple of God was, according to the Jewish law, to blaspheme Godhimself. [2] Jesus remained silent, and refused to explain theincriminated speech. If we may believe one version, the high priestthen adjured him to say if he were the Messiah; Jesus confessed it, and proclaimed before the assembly the near approach of his heavenlyreign. [3] The courage of Jesus, who had resolved to die, renders thisnarrative superfluous. It is probable that here, as when before Hanan, he remained silent. This was in general his rule of conduct during hislast moments. The sentence was settled; and they only sought forpretexts. Jesus felt this, and did not undertake a useless defense. Inthe light of orthodox Judaism, he was truly a blasphemer, a destroyerof the established worship. Now, these crimes were punished by the lawwith death. [4] With one voice, the assembly declared him guilty of acapital crime. The members of the council who secretly leaned to him, were absent or did not vote. [5] The frivolity which characterizes oldestablished aristocracies, did not permit the judges to reflect longupon the consequences of the sentence they had passed. Human life wasat that time very lightly sacrificed; doubtless the members of theSanhedrim did not dream that their sons would have to render accountto an angry posterity for the sentence pronounced with such carelessdisdain. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xvi. 57; Mark xiv. 53; Luke xxii. 66. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxiii. 16, and following. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 69. John knowsnothing of this scene. ]

[Footnote 4: _Levit. _ xxiv. 14, and following; _Deut. _ xiii. 1, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 5: Luke xxiii. 50, 51. ]

The Sanhedrim had not the right to execute a sentence of death. [1] Butin the confusion of powers which then reigned in Judea, Jesus was, from that moment, none the less condemned. He remained the rest ofthe night exposed to the ill-treatment of an infamous pack ofservants, who spared him no indignity. [2]

[Footnote 1: John xviii. 31; Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvi. 67, 68; Mark xiv. 65; Luke xxii. 63-65. ]

In the morning the chief priests and the elders again assembled. [1]The point was, to get Pilate to ratify the condemnation pronounced bythe Sanhedrim, which, since the occupation of the Romans, was nolonger sufficient. The procurator was not invested, like the imperiallegate, with the disposal of life and death. But Jesus was not a Romancitizen; it only required the authorization of the governor in orderthat the sentence pronounced against him should take its course. Asalways happens, when a political people subjects a nation in which thecivil and the religious laws are confounded, the Romans had beenbrought to give to the Jewish law a sort of official support. TheRoman law did not apply to Jews. The latter remained under thecanonical law which we find recorded in the Talmud, just as the Arabsin Algeria are still governed by the code of Islamism. Althoughneutral in religion, the Romans thus very often sanctioned penaltiesinflicted for religious faults. The situation was nearly that of thesacred cities of India under the English dominion, or rather thatwhich would be the state of Damascus if Syria were conquered by aEuropean nation. Josephus asserts, though this may be doubted, that ifa Roman trespassed beyond the pillars which bore inscriptionsforbidding pagans to advance, the Romans themselves would havedelivered him to the Jews to be put to death. [2]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 1; Mark xv. 1; Luke xxii. 66, xxiii. 1; Johnxviii 28. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XV. Xi. 5; _B. J. _, VI. Ii. 4. ]

The agents of the priests therefore bound Jesus and led him to thejudgment-hall, which was the former palace of Herod, [1] adjoining theTower of Antonia. [2] It was the morning of the day on which thePaschal lamb was to be eaten (Friday the 14th of Nisan, our 3d ofApril). The Jews would have been defiled by entering thejudgment-hall, and would not have been able to share in the sacredfeast. They therefore remained without. [3] Pilate being informed oftheir presence, ascended the _bima_[4] or tribunal, situated in theopen air, [5] at the place named _Gabbatha_, or in Greek, _Lithostrotos_, on account of the pavement which covered the ground. 

[Footnote 1: Philo, _Legatio ad Caium_, § 38. Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Xiv. 8. ]

[Footnote 2: The exact place now occupied by the seraglio of the Pachaof Jerusalem. ]

[Footnote 3: John xviii. 28. ]

[Footnote 4: The Greek word [Greek: Bêma] had passed into theSyro-Chaldaic. ]

[Footnote 5: Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Ix. 3, xiv. 8; Matt. Xxvii. 27; Johnxviii. 33. ]

He had scarcely been informed of the accusation, before he displayedhis annoyance at being mixed up with this affair. [1] He then shuthimself up in the judgment-hall with Jesus. There a conversation tookplace, the precise details of which are lost, no witness having beenable to repeat it to the disciples, but the tenor of which appears tohave been well divined by John. His narrative, in fact, perfectlyaccords with what history teaches us of the mutual position of the twointerlocutors. 

[Footnote 1: John xviii. 29. ]

The procurator, Pontius, surnamed Pilate, doubtless on account of the_pilum_ or javelin of honor with which he or one of his ancestors wasdecorated, [1] had hitherto had no relation with the new sect. Indifferent to the internal quarrels of the Jews, he only saw in allthese movements of sectaries, the results of intemperate imaginationsand disordered brains. In general, he did not like the Jews, but theJews detested him still more. They thought him hard, scornful, andpassionate, and accused him of improbable crimes. [2]

[Footnote 1: Virg. , _Æn. _, XII. 121; Martial, _Epigr. _, I. Xxxii. , X. Xlviii. ; Plutarch, _Life of Romulus_, 29. Compare the _hasta pura_, amilitary decoration. Orelli and Henzen, _Inscr. Lat. _, Nos. 3574, 6852, etc. _Pilatus_ is, on this hypothesis, a word of the same formas _Torquatus_. ]

[Footnote 2: Philo, _Leg. Ad Caium_, § 38. ]

Jerusalem, the centre of a great national fermentation, was a veryseditious city, and an insupportable abode for a foreigner. Theenthusiasts pretended that it was a fixed design of the new procuratorto abolish the Jewish law. [1] Their narrow fanaticism, and theirreligious hatreds, disgusted that broad sentiment of justice and civilgovernment which the humblest Roman carried everywhere with him. Allthe acts of Pilate which are known to us, show him to have been a goodadministrator. [2] In the earlier period of the exercise of his office, he had difficulties with those subject to him which he had solved in avery brutal manner; but it seems that essentially he was right. TheJews must have appeared to him a people behind the age; he doubtlessjudged them as a liberal prefect formerly judged the Bas-Bretons, whorebelled for such trifling matters as a new road, or the establishmentof a school. In his best projects for the good of the country, notablyin those relating to public works, he had encountered an impassableobstacle in the Law. The Law restricted life to such a degree that itopposed all change, and all amelioration. The Roman structures, eventhe most useful ones, were objects of great antipathy on the part ofzealous Jews. [3] Two votive escutcheons with inscriptions, which hehad set up at his residence near the sacred precincts, provoked astill more violent storm. [4] Pilate at first cared little for thesesusceptibilities; and he was soon involved in sanguinary suppressionsof revolt, [5] which afterward ended in his removal. [6] The experienceof so many conflicts had rendered him very prudent in his relationswith this intractable people, which avenged itself upon its governorsby compelling them to use toward it hateful severities. The procuratorsaw himself, with extreme displeasure, led to play a cruel part inthis new affair, for the sake of a law he hated. [7] He knew thatreligious fanaticism, when it has obtained the sanction of civilgovernments to some act of violence, is afterward the first to throwthe responsibility upon the government, and almost accuses them ofbeing the author of it. Supreme injustice; for the true culprit is, insuch cases, the instigator!

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 1, init. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Ii. -iv. ]

[Footnote 3: Talm. Of Bab. , _Shabbath_, 33 _b_. ]

[Footnote 4: Philo, _Leg. Ad Caium_, § 38. ]

[Footnote 5: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 1 and 2; Luke xiii. 1. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iv. 1, 2. ]

[Footnote 7: John xviii. 35. ]

Pilate, then, would have liked to save Jesus. Perhaps the dignifiedand calm attitude of the accused made an impression upon him. According to a tradition, [1] Jesus found a supporter in the wife ofthe procurator himself. She may have seen the gentle Galilean fromsome window of the palace, overlooking the courts of the temple. Perhaps she had seen him again in her dreams; and the idea that theblood of this beautiful young man was about to be spilt, weighed uponher mind. Certain it is that Jesus found Pilate prepossessed in hisfavor. The governor questioned him with kindness, and with the desireto find an excuse for sending him away pardoned. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 19. ]

The title of "King of the Jews, " which Jesus had never taken uponhimself, but which his enemies represented as the sum and substanceof his acts and pretensions, was naturally that by which it was soughtto excite the suspicions of the Roman authority. They accused him onthis ground of sedition, and of treason against the government. Nothing could be more unjust; for Jesus had always recognized theRoman government as the established power. But conservative religiousbodies do not generally shrink from calumny. Notwithstanding his ownexplanation, they drew certain conclusions from his teaching; theytransformed him into a disciple of Judas the Gaulonite; they pretendedthat he forbade the payment of tribute to Cæsar. [1] Pilate asked himif he was really the king of the Jews. [2] Jesus concealed nothing ofwhat he thought. But the great ambiguity of speech which had been thesource of his strength, and which, after his death, was to establishhis kingship, injured him on this occasion. An idealist that is tosay, not distinguishing the spirit from the substance, Jesus, whosewords, to use the image of the Apocalypse, were as a two-edged sword, never completely satisfied the powers of earth. If we may believeJohn, he avowed his royalty, but uttered at the same time thisprofound sentence: "My kingdom is not of this world. " He explained thenature of his kingdom, declaring that it consisted entirely in thepossession and proclamation of truth. Pilate understood nothing ofthis grand idealism. [3] Jesus doubtless impressed him as being aninoffensive dreamer. The total absence of religious and philosophicalproselytism among the Romans of this epoch made them regard devotionto truth as a chimera. Such discussions annoyed them, and appeared tothem devoid of meaning. Not perceiving the element of danger to theempire that lay hidden in these new speculations, they had no reasonto employ violence against them. All their displeasure fell upon thosewho asked them to inflict punishment for what appeared to them to bevain subtleties. Twenty years after, Gallio still adopted the samecourse toward the Jews. [4] Until the fall of Jerusalem, the rule whichthe Romans adopted in administration, was to remain completelyindifferent to these sectarian quarrels. [5]

[Footnote 1: Luke xxiii. 2, 5. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvii. 11; Mark xv. 2; Luke xxiii. 3; John xviii. 33. ]

[Footnote 3: John xviii. 38. ]

[Footnote 4: _Acts_ xviii. 14, 15. ]

[Footnote 5: Tacitus (_Ann. _, xv. 44) describes the death of Jesus asa political execution by Pontius Pilate. But at the epoch in whichTacitus wrote, the Roman policy toward the Christians was changed;they were held guilty of secretly conspiring against the state. It wasnatural that the Latin historian should believe that Pilate, inputting Jesus to death, had been actuated by a desire for the publicsafety. Josephus is much more exact (_Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 3. )]

An expedient suggested itself to the mind of the governor by which hecould reconcile his own feelings with the demands of the fanaticalpeople, whose pressure he had already so often felt. It was the customto deliver a prisoner to the people at the time of the Passover. Pilate, knowing that Jesus had only been arrested in consequence ofthe jealousy of the priests, [1] tried to obtain for him the benefit ofthis custom. He appeared again upon the _bima_, and proposed to themultitude to release the "King of the Jews. " The proposition made inthese terms, though ironical, was characterized by a degree ofliberality. The priests saw the danger of it. They acted promptly, [2]and in order to combat the proposition of Pilate, they suggested tothe crowd the name of a prisoner who enjoyed great popularity inJerusalem. By a singular coincidence, he also was called Jesus, [3]and bore the surname of Bar-Abba, or Bar-Rabban. [4] He was awell-known personage, [5] and had been arrested for taking part in anuproar in which murder had been committed. [6] A general clamor wasraised, "Not this man; but Jesus Bar-Rabban;" and Pilate was obligedto release Jesus Bar-Rabban. 

[Footnote 1: Mark xv. 10. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvii. 20; Mark xv. 11. ]

[Footnote 3: The name of Jesus has disappeared in the greater part ofthe manuscripts. This reading has, nevertheless, very greatauthorities in its favor. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvii. 16. ]

[Footnote 5: Cf. St. Jerome. In Matt. Xxvii. 16. ]

[Footnote 6: Mark xv. 7; Luke xxiii. 19. John (xviii. 40), who makeshim a robber, appears here too much further from the truth than Mark. ]

His embarrassment increased. He feared that too much indulgence shownto a prisoner, to whom was given the title of "King of the Jews, "might compromise him. Fanaticism, moreover, compels all powers to maketerms with it. Pilate thought himself obliged to make some concession;but still hesitating to shed blood, in order to satisfy men whom hehated, wished to turn the thing into a jest. Affecting to laugh at thepompous title they had given to Jesus, he caused him to bescourged. [1] Scourging was the general preliminary of crucifixion. [2]Perhaps Pilate wished it to be believed that this sentence had alreadybeen pronounced, hoping that the preliminary would suffice. Then tookplace (according to all the narratives) a revolting scene. Thesoldiers put a scarlet robe on his back, a crown formed of branches ofthorns upon his head, and a reed in his hand. Thus attired, he was ledto the tribunal in front of the people. The soldiers defiled beforehim, striking him in turn, and knelt to him, saying, "Hail! King ofthe Jews. "[3] Others, it is said, spit upon him, and struck his headwith the reed. It is difficult to understand how Roman dignity couldstoop to acts so shameful. It is true that Pilate, in the capacity ofprocurator, had under his command scarcely any but auxiliarytroops. [4] Roman citizens, as the legionaries were, would not havedegraded themselves by such conduct. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 26; Mark xv. 15; John xix. 1. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _B. J. _, II. Xiv. 9, V. Xi. 1, VII. Vi. 4;Titus-Livy, XXXIII. 36; Quintus Curtius, VII. Xi. 28. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvii. 27, and following; Mark xv. 16, andfollowing; Luke xxiii. 11; John xix. 2, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: See _Inscript. Rom. Of Algeria_, No. 5, fragm. B. ]

Did Pilate think by this display that he freed himself fromresponsibility? Did he hope to turn aside the blow which threatenedJesus by conceding something to the hatred of the Jews, [1] and bysubstituting for the tragic denouement a grotesque termination, tomake it appear that the affair merited no other issue? If such werehis idea, it was unsuccessful. The tumult increased, and became anopen riot. The cry "Crucify him! crucify him!" resounded from allsides. The priests becoming increasingly urgent, declared the law inperil if the corrupter were not punished with death. [2] Pilate sawclearly that to save Jesus he would have to put down a terribledisturbance. He still tried, however, to gain time. He returned to thejudgment-hall, and ascertained from what country Jesus came, with thehope of finding a pretext for declaring his inability toadjudicate. [3] According to one tradition, he even sent Jesus toAntipas, who, it is said, was then at Jerusalem. [4] Jesus took no partin these well-meant efforts; he maintained, as he had done beforeKaïapha, a grave and dignified silence, which astonished Pilate. Thecries from without became more and more menacing. The people hadalready begun to denounce the lack of zeal in the functionary whoprotected an enemy of Cæsar. The greatest adversaries of the Romanrule were suddenly transformed into loyal subjects of Tiberius, thatthey might have the right of accusing the too tolerant procurator oftreason. "We have no king, " said they, "but Cæsar. If thou let thisman go, thou art not Cæsar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a kingspeaketh against Cæsar. "[5] The feeble Pilate yielded; he foresaw thereport that his enemies would send to Rome, in which they would accusehim of having protected a rival of Tiberius. Once before, in thematter of the votive escutcheons, [6] the Jews had written to theemperor, and had received satisfaction. He feared for his office. By acompliance, which was to deliver his name to the scorn of history, heyielded, throwing, it is said, upon the Jews all the responsibility ofwhat was about to happen. The latter, according to the Christians, fully accepted it, by exclaiming, "His blood be on us and on ourchildren!"[7]

[Footnote 1: Luke xxiii. 16, 22. ]

[Footnote 2: John xix. 7. ]

[Footnote 3: John xix. 9. Cf. Luke xxiii. 6, and following. ]

[Footnote 4: It is probable that this is a first attempt at a "Harmonyof the Gospels. " Luke must have had before him a narrative in whichthe death of Jesus was erroneously attributed to Herod. In order notto sacrifice this version entirely he must have combined the twotraditions. What makes this more likely is, that he probably had avague knowledge that Jesus (as John teaches us) appeared before threeauthorities. In many other cases, Luke seems to have a remote idea ofthe facts which are peculiar to the narration of John. Moreover, thethird Gospel contains in its history of the Crucifixion a series ofadditions which the author appears to have drawn from a more recentdocument, and which had evidently been arranged with a special view toedification. ]

[Footnote 5: John xix. 12, 15. Cf. Luke xxiii. 2. In order toappreciate the exactitude of the description of this scene in theevangelists, see Philo, _Leg. Ad Caium_, § 38. ]

[Footnote 6: See _ante_, p. 351. ]

[Footnote 7: Matt. Xxvii. 24, 25. ]

Were these words really uttered? We may doubt it. But they are theexpression of a profound historical truth. Considering the attitudewhich the Romans had taken in Judea, Pilate could scarcely have actedotherwise. How many sentences of death dictated by religiousintolerance have been extorted from the civil power! The king ofSpain, who, in order to please a fanatical clergy, delivered hundredsof his subjects to the stake, was more blameable than Pilate, for herepresented a more absolute power than that of the Romans atJerusalem. When the civil power becomes persecuting or meddlesome atthe solicitation of the priesthood, it proves its weakness. But letthe government that is without sin in this respect throw the firststone at Pilate. The "secular arm, " behind which clerical crueltyshelters itself, is not the culprit. No one has a right to say that hehas a horror of blood when he causes it to be shed by his servants. 

It was, then, neither Tiberius nor Pilate who condemned Jesus. It wasthe old Jewish party; it was the Mosaic Law. According to our modernideas, there is no transmission of moral demerit from father to son;no one is accountable to human or divine justice except for that whichhe himself has done. Consequently, every Jew who suffers to-day forthe murder of Jesus has a right to complain, for he might have actedas did Simon the Cyrenean; at any rate, he might not have been withthose who cried "Crucify him!" But nations, like individuals, havetheir responsibilities, and if ever crime was the crime of a nation, it was the death of Jesus. This death was "legal" in the sense that itwas primarily caused by a law which was the very soul of the nation. The Mosaic law, in its modern, but still in its accepted form, pronounced the penalty of death against all attempts to change theestablished worship. Now, there is no doubt that Jesus attacked thisworship, and aspired to destroy it. The Jews expressed this to Pilatewith a truthful simplicity: "We have a law, and by our law he ought todie; because he has made himself the Son of God. "[1] The law wasdetestable, but it was the law of ancient ferocity; and the hero whooffered himself in order to abrogate it, had first of all to endureits penalty. 

[Footnote 1: John xix. 7. ]

Alas! it has required more than eighteen hundred years for the bloodthat he shed to bear its fruits. Tortures and death have beeninflicted for ages in the name of Jesus, on thinkers as noble ashimself. Even at the present time, in countries which call themselvesChristian, penalties are pronounced for religious offences. Jesus isnot responsible for these errors. He could not foresee that people, with mistaken imaginations, would one day imagine him as a frightfulMoloch, greedy of burnt flesh. Christianity has been intolerant, butintolerance is not essentially a Christian fact. It is a Jewish factin the sense that it was Judaism which first introduced the theory ofthe absolute in religion, and laid down the principle that everyinnovator, even if he brings miracles to support his doctrine, oughtto be stoned without trial. [1] The pagan world has also had itsreligious violences. But if it had had this law, how would it havebecome Christian? The Pentateuch has thus been in the world the firstcode of religious terrorism. Judaism has given the example of animmutable dogma armed with the sword. If, instead of pursuing the Jewswith a blind hatred, Christianity had abolished the régime whichkilled its founder, how much more consistent would it have been!--howmuch better would it have deserved of the human race!

[Footnote 1: _Deut. _ xiii. 1, and following. ]

CHAPTER XXV. 

DEATH OF JESUS. 

Although the real motive for the death of Jesus was entirelyreligious, his enemies had succeeded, in the judgment-hall, inrepresenting him as guilty of treason against the state; they couldnot have obtained from the sceptical Pilate a condemnation simply onthe ground of heterodoxy. Consistently with this idea, the priestsdemanded, through the people, the crucifixion of Jesus. Thispunishment was not Jewish in its origin; if the condemnation of Jesushad been purely Mosaic, he would have been stoned. [1] Crucifixion wasa Roman punishment, reserved for slaves, and for cases in which it waswished to add to death the aggravation of ignominy. In applying it toJesus, they treated him as they treated highway robbers, brigands, bandits, or those enemies of inferior rank to whom the Romans did notgrant the honor of death by the sword. [2] It was the chimerical "Kingof the Jews, " not the heterodox dogmatist, who was punished. Followingout the same idea, the execution was left to the Romans. We know thatamongst the Romans, the soldiers, their profession being to kill, performed the office of executioners. Jesus was therefore delivered toa cohort of auxiliary troops, and all the most hateful features ofexecutions introduced by the cruel habits of the new conquerors, wereexhibited toward him. It was about noon. [3] They re-clothed him withthe garments which they had removed for the farce enacted at thetribunal, and as the cohort had already in reserve two thieves whowere to be executed, the three prisoners were taken together, and theprocession set out for the place of execution. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1. The Talmud, which represents thecondemnation of Jesus as entirely religious, declares, in fact, thathe was stoned; or, at least, that after having been hanged, he wasstoned, as often happened (Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, vi. 4. ) Talmud ofJerusalem, _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16. Talm. Of Bab. , same treatise, 43 _a_, 67 _a_. ]

[Footnote 2: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVII. X. 10, XX. Vi. 2; _B. J. _, V. Xi. 1;Apuleius, _Metam. _, iii. 9; Suetonius, _Galba_, 9; Lampridius, _Alex. Sev. _, 23. ]

[Footnote 3: John xix. 14. According to Mark xv. 25, it could scarcelyhave been eight o'clock in the morning, since that evangelist relatesthat Jesus was crucified at nine o'clock. ]

The scene of the execution was at a place called Golgotha, situatedoutside Jerusalem, but near the walls of the city. [1] The name_Golgotha_ signifies a _skull_; it corresponds with the French word_Chaumont_, and probably designated a bare hill or rising ground, having the form of a bald skull. The situation of this hill is notprecisely known. It was certainly on the north or northwest of thecity, in the high, irregular plain which extends between the walls andthe two valleys of Kedron and Hinnom, [2] a rather uninterestingregion, and made still worse by the objectionable circumstancesarising from the neighborhood of a great city. It is difficult toidentify Golgotha as the precise place which, since Constantine, hasbeen venerated by entire Christendom. [3] This place is too much in theinterior of the city, and we are led to believe that, in the time ofJesus, it was comprised within the circuit of the walls. [4]

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix. 20; _Heb. _ xiii. 12. ]

[Footnote 2: Golgotha, in fact, seems not entirely unconnected withthe hill of Gareb and the locality of Goath, mentioned in Jeremiahxxxi. 39. Now, these two places appear to have been at the northwestof the city. I should incline to fix the place where Jesus wascrucified near the extreme corner which the existing wall makes towardthe west, or perhaps upon the mounds which command the valley ofHinnom, above _Birket-Mamilla_. ]

[Footnote 3: The proofs by which it has been attempted to establishthat the Holy Sepulchre has been displaced since Constantine are notvery strong. ]

[Footnote 4: M. De Vogüé has discovered, about 83 yards to the east ofthe traditional site of Calvary, a fragment of a Jewish wall analogousto that of Hebron, which, if it belongs to the inclosure of the timeof Jesus, would leave the above-mentioned site outside the city. Theexistence of a sepulchral cave (that which is called "Tomb of Josephof Arimathea"), under the wall of the cupola of the Holy Sepulchre, would also lead to the supposition that this place was outside thewalls. Two historical considerations, one of which is rather strong, may, moreover, be invoked in favor of the tradition. The first is, that it would be singular if those, who, under Constantine, sought todetermine the topography of the Gospels, had not hesitated in thepresence of the objection which results from _John_ xix. 20, and from_Heb. _ xiii. 12. Why, being free to choose, should they have wantonlyexposed themselves to so grave a difficulty? The second considerationis, that they might have had to guide them, in the time ofConstantine, the remains of an edifice, the temple of Venus onGolgotha, erected by Adrian. We are, then, at times led to believethat the work of the devout topographers of the time of Constantinewas earnest and sincere, that they sought for indications, and that, though they might not refrain from certain pious frauds, they wereguided by analogies. If they had merely followed a vain caprice, theymight have placed Golgotha in a more conspicuous situation, at thesummit of some of the neighboring hills about Jerusalem, in accordancewith the Christian imagination, which very early thought that thedeath of Christ had taken place on a mountain. But the difficulty ofthe inclosures is very serious. Let us add, that the erection of atemple of Venus on Golgotha proves little. Eusebius (_Vita Const. _, iii. 26), Socrates (_H. E. _, i. 17), Sozomen (_H. E. _, ii. 1), St. Jerome (_Epist. _ xlix. , ad Paulin. ), say, indeed, that there was asanctuary of Venus on the site which they imagined to be that of theholy tomb; but it is not certain that Adrian had erected it; or thathe had erected it in a place which was in his time called "Golgotha";or that he had intended to erect it at the place where Jesus hadsuffered death. ]

He who was condemned to the cross, had himself to carry the instrumentof his execution. [1] But Jesus, physically weaker than his twocompanions, could not carry his. The troop met a certain Simon ofCyrene, who was returning from the country, and the soldiers, with theoff-hand procedure of foreign garrisons, forced him to carry thefatal tree. Perhaps they made use of a recognized right of forcinglabor, the Romans not being allowed to carry the infamous wood. Itseems that Simon was afterward of the Christian community. His twosons, Alexander and Rufus, [2] were well known in it. He relatedperhaps more than one circumstance of which he had been witness. Nodisciple was at this moment near to Jesus. [3]

[Footnote 1: Plutarch, _De Sera Num. Vind. _, 19; Artemidorus, _Onirocrit. _, ii. 56. ]

[Footnote 2: Mark xv. 21. ]

[Footnote 3: The circumstance, Luke xxiii. 27-31, is one of those inwhich we are sensible of the work of a pious and loving imagination. The words which are there attributed to Jesus could only have beenwritten after the siege of Jerusalem. ]

The place of execution was at last reached. According to Jewishcustom, the sufferers were offered a strong aromatic wine, anintoxicating drink, which, through a sentiment of pity, was given tothe condemned in order to stupefy him. [1] It appears that the ladiesof Jerusalem often brought this kind of wine to the unfortunates whowere led to execution; when none was presented by them, it waspurchased from the public treasury. [2] Jesus, after having touched theedge of the cup with his lips, refused to drink. [3] This mournfulconsolation of ordinary sufferers did not accord with his exaltednature. He preferred to quit life with perfect clearness of mind, andto await in full consciousness the death he had willed and broughtupon himself. He was then divested of his garments, [4] and fastened tothe cross. The cross was composed of two beams, tied in the form ofthe letter T. [5] It was not much elevated, so that the feet of thecondemned almost touched the earth. They commenced by fixing it, [6]then they fastened the sufferer to it by driving nails into his hands;the feet were often nailed, though sometimes only bound with cords. [7]A piece of wood was fastened to the upright portion of the cross, toward the middle, and passed between the legs of the condemned, whorested upon it. [8] Without that, the hands would have been torn andthe body would have sunk down. At other times, a small horizontal restwas fixed beneath the feet, and sustained them. [9]

[Footnote 1: Talm. Of Bab. , _Sanhedrim_, fol. 43 _a_. Comp. _Prov. _xxi. 6. ]

[Footnote 2: Talm. Of Bab. , _Sanhedrim_, _l. C. _]

[Footnote 3: Mark xv. 23; Matt. Xxvii. 34, falsifies this detail, inorder to create a Messianic allusion from Ps. Lxix. 20. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvii. 35; Mark xv. 24; John xix. 23. Cf. Artemidorus, _Onirocr. _, ii. 53. ]

[Footnote 5: Lucian, _Jud. Voc. _, 12. Compare the grotesque crucifixtraced at Rome on a wall of Mount Palatine. _Civilta Cattolica_, fasc. Clxi. P. 529, and following. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _B. J. _, VII. Vi. 4; Cic. , _In Verr. _, v. 66;Xenoph. Ephes. , _Ephesiaca_, iv. 2. ]

[Footnote 7: Luke xxiv. 39; John xx. 25-27; Plautus, _Mostellaria_, II. I. 13; Lucan. , _Phars. _, vi. 543, and following, 547; Justin, _Dial. Cum Tryph. _, 97; Tertullian, _Adv. Marcionem_, iii. 19. ]

[Footnote 8: Irenæus, _Adv. Hær. _, ii. 24; Justin, _Dial. CumTryphone_, 91. ]

[Footnote 9: See the _graffito_ quoted before. ]

Jesus tasted these horrors in all their atrocity. A burning thirst, one of the tortures of crucifixion, [1] devoured him, and he asked todrink. There stood near, a cup of the ordinary drink of the Romansoldiers, a mixture of vinegar and water, called _posca_. The soldiershad to carry with them their _posca_ on all their expeditions, [2] ofwhich an execution was considered one. A soldier dipped a sponge inthis drink, put it at the end of a reed, and raised it to the lips ofJesus, who sucked it. [3] The two robbers were crucified, one on eachside. The executioners, to whom were usually left the small effects(_pannicularia_) of those executed, [4] drew lots for his garments, and, seated at the foot of the cross, kept guard over him. [5]According to one tradition, Jesus pronounced this sentence, which wasin his heart if not upon his lips: "Father, forgive them, for theyknow not what they do. "[6]

[Footnote 1: See the Arab text published by Kosegarten, _Chrest. Arab. _, p. 64. ]

[Footnote 2: Spartianus, _Life of Adrian_, 10; Vulcatius Gallicanus, _Life of Avidius Cassius_, 5. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvii. 48; Mark xv. 36; Luke xxiii. 36; John xix. 28-30. ]

[Footnote 4: Dig. , XLVII. Xx. , _De bonis damnat. _, 6. Adrian limitedthis custom. ]

[Footnote 5: Matt. Xxvii. 36. Cf. Petronius, _Satyr. _, cxi. , cxii. ]

[Footnote 6: Luke xxiii. 34. In general, the last words attributed toJesus, especially such as Luke records, are open to doubt. The desireto edify or to show the accomplishment of prophecies is perceptible. In these cases, moreover, every one hears in his own way. The lastwords of celebrated prisoners, condemned to death, are alwayscollected in two or three entirely different shapes, by even thenearest witnesses. ]

According to the Roman custom, a writing was attached to the top ofthe cross, bearing, in three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, thewords: "THE KING OF THE JEWS. " There was something painful andinsulting to the nation in this inscription. The numerous passers-bywho read it were offended. The priests complained to Pilate that heought to have adopted an inscription which would have implied simplythat Jesus had called himself King of the Jews. But Pilate, alreadytired of the whole affair, refused to make any change in what had beenwritten. [1]

[Footnote 1: John xix. 19-22. ]

His disciples had fled. John, nevertheless, declares himself to havebeen present, and to have remained standing at the foot of the crossduring the whole time. [1] It may be affirmed, with more certainty, that the devoted women of Galilee, who had followed Jesus to Jerusalemand continued to tend him, did not abandon him. Mary Cleophas, MaryMagdalen, Joanna, wife of Khouza, Salome, and others, stayed at acertain distance, [2] and did not lose sight of him. [3] If we mustbelieve John, [4] Mary, the mother of Jesus, was also at the foot ofthe cross, and Jesus seeing his mother and his beloved discipletogether, said to the one, "Behold thy mother!" and to the other, "Behold thy son!" But we do not understand how the synoptics, who namethe other women, should have omitted her whose presence was sostriking a feature. Perhaps even the extreme elevation of thecharacter of Jesus does not render such personal emotion probable, atthe moment when, solely preoccupied by his work, he no longer existedexcept for humanity. [5]

[Footnote 1: John xix. 25, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: The synoptics are agreed in placing the faithful group"afar off" the cross. John says, "at the side of, " governed by thedesire which he has of representing himself as having approached verynear to the cross of Jesus. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41; Luke xxiii. 49, 55;xxiv. 10; John xix. 25. Cf. Luke xxiii. 27-31. ]

[Footnote 4: John xix. 25, and following. Luke, who always adopts amiddle course between the first two synoptics and John, mentions also, but at a distance, "all his acquaintance" (xxiii. 49). The expression, [Greek: gnôstoi], may, it is true, mean "kindred. " Luke, nevertheless(ii. 44), distinguishes the [Greek: gnôstoi] from the [Greek:sungeneis]. Let us add, that the best manuscripts bear [Greek: oignôstoi autô], and not [Greek: oi gnôstoi autou]. In the _Acts_ (i. 14), Mary, mother of Jesus, is also placed in company with theGalilean women; elsewhere (Gospel, chap. Ii. 35), Luke predicts that asword of grief will pierce her soul. But this renders his omission ofher at the cross the less explicable. ]

[Footnote 5: This is, in my opinion, one of those features in whichJohn betrays his personality and the desire he has of giving himselfimportance. John, after the death of Jesus, appears in fact to havereceived the mother of his Master into his house, and to have adoptedher (John xix. 27. ) The great consideration which Mary enjoyed in theearly church, doubtless led John to pretend that Jesus, whose favoritedisciple he wished to be regarded, had, when dying, recommended to hiscare all that was dearest to him. The presence of this precious trustnear John, insured him a kind of precedence over the other apostles, and gave his doctrine a high authority. ]

Apart from this small group of women, whose presence consoled him, Jesus had before him only the spectacle of the baseness or stupidityof humanity. The passers-by insulted him. He heard around him foolishscoffs, and his greatest cries of pain turned into hateful jests: "Hetrusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for hesaid, I am the Son of God. " "He saved others, " they said again;"himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, let him nowcome down from the cross, and we will believe him! Ah, thou thatdestroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, savethyself. "[1] Some, vaguely acquainted with his apocalyptic ideas, thought they heard him call Elias, and said, "Let us see whether Eliaswill come to save him. " It appears that the two crucified thieves athis side also insulted him. [2] The sky was dark;[3] and the earth, asin all the environs of Jerusalem, dry and gloomy. For a moment, according to certain narratives, his heart failed him; a cloud hidfrom him the face of his Father; he endured an agony of despair athousand times more acute than all his torture. He saw only theingratitude of men; he perhaps repented suffering for a vile race, andexclaimed: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" But his divineinstinct still prevailed. In the degree that the life of the bodybecame extinguished, his soul became clear, and returned by degrees toits celestial origin. He regained the idea of his mission; he saw inhis death the salvation of the world; he lost sight of the hideousspectacle spread at his feet, and, profoundly united to his Father, hebegan upon the gibbet the divine life which he was to live in theheart of humanity through infinite ages. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 40, and following; Mark xv. 29, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvii. 44; Mark xv. 32. Luke has here modified thetradition, in accordance with his taste for the conversion ofsinners. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvii. 45; Mark xv. 33; Luke xxiii. 44. ]

The peculiar atrocity of crucifixion was that one might live three orfour days in this horrible state upon the instrument of torture. [1]The hæmorrhage from the hands quickly stopped, and was not mortal. Thetrue cause of death was the unnatural position of the body, whichbrought on a frightful disturbance of the circulation, terrible painsof the head and heart, and, at length, rigidity of the limbs. Thosewho had a strong constitution only died of hunger. [2] The idea whichsuggested this cruel punishment was not directly to kill the condemnedby positive injuries, but to expose the slave nailed by the hand ofwhich he had not known how to make good use, and to let him rot on thewood. The delicate organization of Jesus preserved him from this slowagony. Everything leads to the belief that the instantaneous ruptureof a vessel in the heart brought him, at the end of three hours, to asudden death. Some moments before yielding up his soul, his voice wasstill strong. [3] All at once, he uttered a terrible cry, [4] which someheard as: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit!" but whichothers, more preoccupied with the accomplishment of prophecies, rendered by the words, "It is finished!" His head fell upon hisbreast, and he expired. 

[Footnote 1: Petronius, _Sat. _, cxi. , and following; Origen, _In Matt. Comment. Series_, 140 Arab text published in Kosegarten, _op. Cit. _, p. 63, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Eusebius, _Hist. Eccl. _, viii. 8. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 34. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvii. 50; Mark xv. 37; Luke xxiii. 46; John xix. 30. ]

Rest now in thy glory, noble initiator. Thy work is completed; thydivinity is established. Fear no more to see the edifice of thyefforts crumble through a flaw. Henceforth, beyond the reach offrailty, thou shalt be present, from the height of thy divine peace, in the infinite consequences of thy acts. At the price of a few hoursof suffering, which have not even touched thy great soul, thou hastpurchased the most complete immortality. For thousands of years theworld will extol thee. Banner of our contradictions, thou wilt be thesign around which will be fought the fiercest battles. A thousandtimes more living, a thousand times more loved since thy death thanduring the days of thy pilgrimage here below, thou wilt become to sucha degree the corner-stone of humanity, that to tear thy name from thisworld would be to shake it to its foundations. Between thee and God, men will no longer distinguish. Complete conqueror of death, takepossession of thy kingdom, whither, by the royal road thou has traced, ages of adorers will follow thee. 

CHAPTER XXVI. 

JESUS IN THE TOMB. 

It was about three o'clock in the afternoon, according to our mannerof reckoning, [1] when Jesus expired. A Jewish law[2] forbade a corpsesuspended on the cross to be left beyond the evening of the day of theexecution. It is not probable that in the executions performed by theRomans this rule was observed; but as the next day was the Sabbath, and a Sabbath of peculiar solemnity, the Jews expressed to the Romanauthorities[3] their desire that this holy day should not be profanedby such a spectacle. [4] Their request was granted; orders were givento hasten the death of the three condemned ones, and to remove themfrom the cross. The soldiers executed this order by applying to thetwo thieves a second punishment much more speedy than that of thecross, the _crurifragium_, or breaking of the legs, [5] the usualpunishment of slaves and of prisoners of war. As to Jesus, they foundhim dead, and did not think it necessary to break his legs. But one ofthem, to remove all doubt as to the real death of the third victim, and to complete it, if any breath remained in him, pierced his sidewith a spear. They thought they saw water and blood flow, which wasregarded as a sign of the cessation of life. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxvii. 46; Mark xv. 37; Luke xxiii. 44. Comp. Johnxix. 14. ]

[Footnote 2: _Deut. _ xxi. 22, 23; Josh. Viii. 29, x. 26, andfollowing. Cf. Jos. , _B. J. _, IV. V. 2; Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, vi. 5. ]

[Footnote 3: John says, "To Pilate"; but that cannot be, for Mark (xv. 44, 45) states that at night Pilate was still ignorant of the death ofJesus. ]

[Footnote 4: Compare Philo, _In Flaccum_, § 10. ]

[Footnote 5: There is no other example of the _crurifragium_ appliedafter crucifixion. But often, in order to shorten the tortures of thesufferer, a finishing stroke was given him. See the passage fromIbn-Hischâm, translated in the _Zeitschrift für die Kunde desMorgenlandes_, i. P. 99, 100. ]

John, who professes to have seen it, [1] insists strongly on thiscircumstance. It is evident, in fact, that doubts arose as to thereality of the death of Jesus. A few hours of suspension on the crossappeared to persons accustomed to see crucifixions entirelyinsufficient to lead to such a result. They cited many instances ofpersons crucified, who, removed in time, had been brought to lifeagain by powerful remedies. [2] Origen afterward thought it needful toinvoke miracle in order to explain so sudden an end. [3] The sameastonishment is found in the narrative of Mark. [4] To speak truly, thebest guarantee that the historian possesses upon a point of thisnature is the suspicious hatred of the enemies of Jesus. It isdoubtful whether the Jews were at that time preoccupied with the fearthat Jesus might pass for resuscitated; but, in any case, they musthave made sure that he was really dead. Whatever, at certain periods, may have been the neglect of the ancients in all that belonged tolegal proof and the strict conduct of affairs, we cannot but believethat those interested here had taken some precautions in thisrespect. [5]

[Footnote 1: John xix. 31-35. ]

[Footnote 2: Herodotus, vii. 194; Jos. , _Vita_, 75. ]

[Footnote 3: _In Matt. Comment. Series_, 140. ]

[Footnote 4: Mark xv. 44, 45. ]

[Footnote 5: The necessities of Christian controversy afterward led tothe exaggeration of these precautions, especially when the Jews hadsystematically begun to maintain that the body of Jesus had beenstolen. Matt. Xxvii. 62, and following, xxviii. 11-15. ]

According to the Roman custom, the corpse of Jesus ought to haveremained suspended in order to become the prey of birds. [1] Accordingto the Jewish law, it would have been removed in the evening, anddeposited in the place of infamy set apart for the burial of those whowere executed. [2] If Jesus had had for disciples only his poorGalileans, timid and without influence, the latter course would havebeen adopted. But we have seen that, in spite of his small success atJerusalem, Jesus had gained the sympathy of some important persons whoexpected the kingdom of God, and who, without confessing themselveshis disciples, were strongly attached to him. One of these persons, Joseph, of the small town of Arimathea (_Ha-ramathaïm_[3]), went inthe evening to ask the body from the procurator. [4] Joseph was a richand honorable man, a member of the Sanhedrim. The Roman law, at thisperiod, commanded, moreover, that the body of the person executedshould be delivered to those who claimed it. [5] Pilate, who wasignorant of the circumstance of the _crurifragium_, was astonishedthat Jesus was so soon dead, and summoned the centurion who hadsuperintended the execution, in order to know how this was. Pilate, after having received the assurances of the centurion, granted toJoseph the object of his request. The body probably had already beenremoved from the cross. They delivered it to Joseph, that he might dowith it as he pleased. 

[Footnote 1: Horace, _Epistles_, I. Xvi. 48; Juvenal, xiv. 77; Lucan. , vii. 544; Plautus, _Miles glor. _, II. Iv. 19; Artemidorus, _Onir. _, ii. 53; Pliny, xxxvi. 24; Plutarch, _Life of Cleomenes_, 39;Petronius, _Sat. _, cxi. -cxii. ]

[Footnote 2: Mishnah, _Sanhedrim_, vi. 5. ]

[Footnote 3: Probably identical with the ancient Rama of Samuel, inthe tribe of Ephraim. ]

[Footnote 4: Matt. Xxvii. 57, and following; Mark xv. 42, andfollowing; Luke xxiii. 50, and following; John xix. 38, andfollowing. ]

[Footnote 5: Dig. XLVIII. Xxiv. , _De cadaveribus puntorum_. ]

Another secret friend, Nicodemus, [1] whom we have already seenemploying his influence more than once in favor of Jesus, came forwardat this moment. He arrived, bearing ample provision of the materialsnecessary for embalming. Joseph and Nicodemus interred Jesus accordingto the Jewish custom--that is to say, they wrapped him in a sheet withmyrrh and aloes. The Galilean women were present, [2] and no doubtaccompanied the scene with piercing cries and tears. 

[Footnote 1: John xix. 39, and following. ]

[Footnote 2: Matt. Xxvii. 61; Mark xv. 47; Luke xxiii. 55. ]

It was late, and all this was done in great haste. The place had notyet been chosen where the body would be finally deposited. Thecarrying of the body, moreover, might have been delayed to a latehour, and have involved a violation of the Sabbath--now the disciplesstill conscientiously observed the prescriptions of the Jewish law. Atemporary interment was determined upon. [1] There was at hand, in thegarden, a tomb recently dug out in the rock, which had never beenused. It belonged, probably, to one of the believers. [2] The funeralcaves, when they were destined for a single body, were composed of asmall room, at the bottom of which the place for the body was markedby a trough or couch let into the wall, and surmounted by an arch. [3]As these caves were dug out of the sides of sloping rocks, they wereentered by the floor; the door was shut by a stone very difficult tomove. Jesus was deposited in the cave, and the stone was rolled to thedoor, as it was intended to return in order to give him a morecomplete burial. But the next day being a solemn Sabbath, the laborwas postponed till the day following. [4]

[Footnote 1: John xix. 41, 42. ]

[Footnote 2: One tradition (Matt. Xxvii. 60) designates Joseph ofArimathea himself as owner of the cave. ]

[Footnote 3: The cave which, at the period of Constantine, wasconsidered as the tomb of Christ, was of this shape, as may begathered from the description of Arculphus (in Mabillon, _Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. _, sec. Iii. , pars ii. , p. 504), and from the vaguetraditions which still exist at Jerusalem among the Greek clergy onthe state of the rock now concealed by the little chapel of the HolySepulchre. But the indications by which, under Constantine, it wassought to identify this tomb with that of Christ, were feeble orworthless (see especially Sozomen, _H. E. _, ii. 1. ) Even if we were toadmit the position of Golgotha as nearly exact, the Holy Sepulchrewould still have no very reliable character of authenticity. At allevents, the aspect of the places has been totally modified. ]

[Footnote 4: Luke xxiii. 56. ]

The women retired after having carefully noticed how the body waslaid. They employed the hours of the evening which remained to them inmaking new preparations for the embalming. On the Saturday allrested. [1]

[Footnote 1: Luke xxiii. 54-56. ]

On the Sunday morning, the women, Mary Magdalen the first, came veryearly to the tomb. [1] The stone was displaced from the opening, andthe body was no longer in the place where they had laid it. At thesame time, the strangest rumors were spread in the Christiancommunity. The cry, "He is risen!" quickly spread amongst thedisciples. Love caused it to find ready credence everywhere. What hadtaken place? In treating of the history of the apostles we shall haveto examine this point and to make inquiry into the origin of thelegends relative to the resurrection. For the historian, the life ofJesus finishes with his last sigh. But such was the impression he hadleft in the heart of his disciples and of a few devoted women, thatduring some weeks more it was as if he were living and consoling them. Had his body been taken away, [2] or did enthusiasm, always credulous, create afterward the group of narratives by which it was sought toestablish faith in the resurrection? In the absence of opposingdocuments this can never be ascertained. Let us say, however, thatthe strong imagination of Mary Magdalen[3] played an important part inthis circumstance. [4] Divine power of love! Sacred moments in whichthe passion of one possessed gave to the world a resuscitated God!

[Footnote 1: Matt. Xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 1; John xx. 1. ]

[Footnote 2: See Matt. Xxviii. 15; John xx. 2. ]

[Footnote 3: She had been possessed by seven demons (Mark xvi. 9; Lukeviii. 2. )]

[Footnote 4: This is obvious, especially in the ninth and followingverses of chap. Xvi. Of Mark. These verses form a conclusion of thesecond Gospel, different from the conclusion at xvi. 1-8, with whichmany manuscripts terminate. In the fourth Gospel (xx. 1, 2, 11, andfollowing, 18), Mary Magdalen is also the only original witness of theresurrection. ]

CHAPTER XXVII. 

FATE OF THE ENEMIES OF JESUS. 

According to the calculation we adopt, the death of Jesus happened inthe year 33 of our era. [1] It could not, at all events, be eitherbefore the year 29, the preaching of John and Jesus having commencedin the year 28, [2] or after the year 35, since in the year 36, andprobably before the passover, Pilate and Kaïapha both lost theiroffices. [3] The death of Jesus appears, moreover, to have had noconnection whatever with these two removals. [4] In his retirement, Pilate probably never dreamt for a moment of the forgotten episode, which was to transmit his pitiful renown to the most distantposterity. As to Kaïapha, he was succeeded by Jonathan, hisbrother-in-law, son of the same Hanan who had played the principalpart in the trial of Jesus. The Sadducean family of Hanan retained thepontificate a long time, and more powerful than ever, continued towage against the disciples and the family of Jesus, the implacable warwhich they had commenced against the Founder. Christianity, which owedto him the definitive act of its foundation, owed to him also itsfirst martyrs. Hanan passed for one of the happiest men of hisage. [5] He who was truly guilty of the death of Jesus ended his lifefull of honors and respect, never having doubted for an instant thathe had rendered a great service to the nation. His sons continued toreign around the temple, kept down with difficulty by theprocurators, [6] ofttimes dispensing with the consent of the latter inorder to gratify their haughty and violent instincts. 

[Footnote 1: The year 33 corresponds well with one of the data of theproblem, namely, that the 14th of Nisan was a Friday. If we reject theyear 33, in order to find a year which fulfils the above condition, wemust at least go back to the year 29, or go forward to the year 36. ]

[Footnote 2: Luke iii. 1. ]

[Footnote 3: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iv. 2 and 3. ]

[Footnote 4: The contrary assertion of Tertullian and Eusebius arisesfrom a worthless apocryphal writing (See Philo, _Cod. Apocr. , N. T. _, p. 813, and following. ) The suicide of Pilate (Eusebius, _H. E. _, ii. 7; _Chron. _ ad annl. Caii) appears also to be derived from legendaryrecords. ]

[Footnote 5: Jos. , _Ant. _, XX. Ix. 1. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _l. C. _]

Antipas and Herodias soon disappeared also from the political scene. Herod Agrippa having been raised to the dignity of king by Caligula, the jealous Herodias swore that she also would be queen. Pressedincessantly by this ambitious woman, who treated him as a coward, because he suffered a superior in his family, Antipas overcame hisnatural indolence, and went to Rome to solicit the title which hisnephew had just obtained (the year 39 of our era). But the affairturned out in the worst possible manner. Injured in the eyes of theemperor by Herod Agrippa, Antipas was removed, and dragged out therest of his life in exile at Lyons and in Spain. Herodias followed himin his misfortunes. [1] A hundred years, at least, were to elapsebefore the name of their obscure subject, now become deified, shouldappear in these remote countries to brand upon their tombs the murderof John the Baptist. 

[Footnote 1: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Vii. 1, 2; _B. J. _, II. Ix. 6. ]

As to the wretched Judas of Kerioth, terrible legends were currentabout his death. It was maintained that he had bought a field in theneighborhood of Jerusalem with the price of his perfidy. There was, indeed, on the south of Mount Zion, a place named _Hakeldama_ (thefield of blood[1]). It was supposed that this was the propertyacquired by the traitor. [2] According to one tradition, [3] he killedhimself. According to another, he had a fall in his field, inconsequence of which his bowels gushed out. [4] According to others, hedied of a kind of dropsy, accompanied by repulsive circumstances, which were regarded as a punishment from heaven. [5] The desire ofshowing in Judas the accomplishment of the menaces which the Psalmistpronounces against the perfidious friend[6] may have given rise tothese legends. Perhaps, in the retirement of his field of Hakeldama, Judas led a quiet and obscure life; while his former friends conqueredthe world, and spread his infamy abroad. Perhaps, also, the terriblehatred which was concentrated on his head, drove him to violent acts, in which were seen the finger of heaven. 

[Footnote 1: St. Jerome, _De situ et nom. Loc. Hebr. _ at the word_Acheldama_. Eusebius (_ibid. _) says to the north. But the Itinerariesconfirm the reading of St. Jerome. The tradition which styles thenecropolis situated at the foot of the valley of Hinnom _Haceldama_, dates back, at least, to the time of Constantine. ]

[Footnote 2: _Acts_ i. 18, 19. Matthew, or rather his interpolator, has here given a less satisfactory turn to the tradition, in order toconnect with it the circumstance of a cemetery for strangers, whichwas found near there. ]

[Footnote 3: Matt. Xxvii. 5. ]

[Footnote 4: _Acts_, _l. C. _; Papias, in Oecumenius, _Enarr. In Act. Apost. _, ii. , and in Fr. Münter, _Fragm. Patrum Græc. _ (Hafniæ, 1788), fasc. I. P. 17, and following; Theophylactus, in Matt. Xxvii. 5. ]

[Footnote 5: Papias, in Münter, _l. C. _; Theophylactus, _l. C. _]

[Footnote 6: Psalms lxix. And cix. ]

The time of the great Christian revenge was, moreover, far distant. The new sect had no part whatever in the catastrophe which Judaism wassoon to undergo. The synagogue did not understand till much later towhat it exposed itself in practising laws of intolerance. The empirewas certainly still further from suspecting that its future destroyerwas born. During nearly three hundred years it pursued its pathwithout suspecting that at its side principles were growing destinedto subject the world to a complete transformation. At once theocraticand democratic, the idea thrown by Jesus into the world was, togetherwith the invasion of the Germans, the most active cause of thedissolution of the empire of the Cæsars. On the one hand, the right ofall men to participate in the kingdom of God was proclaimed. On theother, religion was henceforth separated in principle from the state. The rights of conscience, withdrawn from political law, resulted inthe constitution of a new power--the "spiritual power. " This power hasmore than once belied its origin. For ages the bishops have beenprinces, and the Pope has been a king. The pretended empire of soulshas shown itself at various times as a frightful tyranny, employingthe rack and the stake in order to maintain itself. But the day willcome when the separation will bear its fruits, when the domain ofthings spiritual will cease to be called a "power, " that it may becalled a "liberty. " Sprung from the conscience of a man of the people, formed in the presence of the people, beloved and admired first by thepeople, Christianity was impressed with an original character whichwill never be effaced. It was the first triumph of revolution, thevictory of the popular idea, the advent of the simple in heart, theinauguration of the beautiful as understood by the people. Jesus thus, in the aristocratic societies of antiquity, opened the breach throughwhich all will pass. 

The civil power, in fact, although innocent of the death of Jesus (itonly countersigned the sentence, and even in spite of itself), oughtto bear a great share of the responsibility. In presiding at the sceneof Calvary, the state gave itself a serious blow. A legend full ofall kinds of disrespect prevailed, and became universally known--alegend in which the constituted authorities played a hateful part, inwhich it was the accused that was right, and in which the judges andthe guards were leagued against the truth. Seditious in the highestdegree, the history of the Passion, spread by a thousand popularimages, displayed the Roman eagles as sanctioning the most iniquitousof executions, soldiers executing it, and a prefect commanding it. What a blow for all established powers! They have never entirelyrecovered from it. How can they assume infallibility in respect topoor men, when they have on their conscience the great mistake ofGethsemane?[1]

[Footnote 1: This popular sentiment existed in Brittany in the time ofmy childhood. The gendarme was there regarded, like the Jew elsewhere, with a kind of pious aversion, for it was he who arrested Jesus!]

CHAPTER XXVIII. 

ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE WORK OF JESUS. 

Jesus, it will be seen, limited his action entirely to the Jews. Although his sympathy for those despised by orthodoxy led him to admitpagans into the kingdom of God--although he had resided more than oncein a pagan country, and once or twice we surprise him in kindlyrelations with unbelievers[1]--it may be said that his life was passedentirely in the very restricted world in which he was born. He wasnever heard of in Greek or Roman countries; his name appears only inprofane authors of a hundred years later, and then in an indirectmanner, in connection with seditious movements provoked by hisdoctrine, or persecutions of which his disciples were the object. [2]Even on Judaism, Jesus made no very durable impression. Philo, whodied about the year 50, had not the slightest knowledge of him. Josephus, born in the year 37, and writing in the last years of thecentury, mentions his execution in a few lines, [3] as an event ofsecondary importance, and in the enumeration of the sects of his time, he omits the Christians altogether. [4] In the _Mishnah_, also, thereis no trace of the new school; the passages in the two Gemaras inwhich the founder of Christianity is named, do not go further backthan the fourth or fifth century. [5] The essential work of Jesus wasto create around him a circle of disciples, whom he inspired withboundless affection, and amongst whom he deposited the germ of hisdoctrine. To have made himself beloved, "to the degree that after hisdeath they ceased not to love him, " was the great work of Jesus, andthat which most struck his contemporaries. [6] His doctrine was solittle dogmatic, that he never thought of writing it or of causing itto be written. Men did not become his disciples by believing thisthing or that thing, but in being attached to his person and in lovinghim. A few sentences collected from memory, and especially the type ofcharacter he set forth, and the impression it had left, were whatremained of him. Jesus was not a founder of dogmas, or a maker ofcreeds; he infused into the world a new spirit. The least Christianmen were, on the one hand, the doctors of the Greek Church, who, beginning from the fourth century, entangled Christianity in a path ofpuerile metaphysical discussions, and, on the other, the scholasticsof the Latin Middle Ages, who wished to draw from the Gospel thethousands of articles of a colossal system. To follow Jesus inexpectation of the kingdom of God, was all that at first was impliedby being Christian. 

[Footnote 1: Matt. Viii. 5, and following; Luke vii. 1, and following;John xii. 20, and following. Comp. Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 3. ]

[Footnote 2: Tacitus, _Ann. _, xv. 45; Suetonius, _Claudius_, 25. ]

[Footnote 3: _Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 3. This passage has been altered by aChristian hand. ]

[Footnote 4: _Ant. _, XVIII. I. ; _B. J. _, II. Viii. ; _Vita_, 2. ]

[Footnote 5: Talm. Of Jerusalem, _Sanhedrim_, xiv. 16; _Aboda zara_, ii. 2; _Shabbath_, xiv. 4; Talm. Of Babylon, _Sanhedrim_, 43 _a_, 67_a_; _Shabbath_, 104 _b_, 116 _b_. Comp. _Chagigah_, 4 _b_; _Gittin_, 57 _a_, 90 _a_. The two Gemaras derive the greater part of their datarespecting Jesus from a burlesque and obscene legend, invented by theadversaries of Christianity, and of no historical value. ]

[Footnote 6: Jos. , _Ant. _, XVIII. Iii. 3. ]

It will thus be understood how, by an exceptional destiny, pureChristianity still preserves, after eighteen centuries, the characterof a universal and eternal religion. It is, in fact, because thereligion of Jesus is in some respects the final religion. Produced bya perfectly spontaneous movement of souls, freed at its birth from alldogmatic restraint, having struggled three hundred years for libertyof conscience, Christianity, in spite of its failures, still reaps theresults of its glorious origin. To renew itself, it has but to returnto the Gospel. The kingdom of God, as we conceive it, differs notablyfrom the supernatural apparition which the first Christians hoped tosee appear in the clouds. But the sentiment introduced by Jesus intothe world is indeed ours. His perfect idealism is the highest rule ofthe unblemished and virtuous life. He has created the heaven of puresouls, where is found what we ask for in vain on earth, the perfectnobility of the children of God, absolute purity, the total removal ofthe stains of the world; in fine, liberty, which society excludes asan impossibility, and which exists in all its amplitude only in thedomain of thought. The great Master of those who take refuge in thisideal kingdom of God is still Jesus. He was the first to proclaim theroyalty of the mind; the first to say, at least by his actions, "Mykingdom is not of this world. " The foundation of true religion isindeed his work: after him, all that remains is to develop it andrender it fruitful. 

"Christianity" has thus become almost a synonym of "religion. " Allthat is done outside of this great and good Christian tradition isbarren. Jesus gave religion to humanity, as Socrates gave itphilosophy, and Aristotle science. There was philosophy beforeSocrates and science before Aristotle. Since Socrates and sinceAristotle, philosophy and science have made immense progress; but allhas been built upon the foundation which they laid. In the same way, before Jesus, religious thought had passed through many revolutions;since Jesus, it has made great conquests: but no one has improved, andno one will improve upon the essential principle Jesus has created; hehas fixed forever the idea of pure worship. The religion of Jesus inthis sense is not limited. The Church has had its epochs and itsphases; it has shut itself up in creeds which are, or will be buttemporary: but Jesus has founded the absolute religion, excludingnothing, and determining nothing unless it be the spirit. His creedsare not fixed dogmas, but images susceptible of indefiniteinterpretations. We should seek in vain for a theological propositionin the Gospel. All confessions of faith are travesties of the idea ofJesus, just as the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, in proclaimingAristotle the sole master of a completed science, perverted thethought of Aristotle. Aristotle, if he had been present in the debatesof the schools, would have repudiated this narrow doctrine; he wouldhave been of the party of progressive science against the routinewhich shielded itself under his authority; he would have applauded hisopponents. In the same way, if Jesus were to return among us, he wouldrecognize as disciples, not those who pretend to enclose him entirelyin a few catechismal phrases, but those who labor to carry on hiswork. The eternal glory, in all great things, is to have laid thefirst stone. It may be that in the "Physics, " and in the "Meteorology"of modern times, we may not discover a word of the treatises ofAristotle which bear these titles; but Aristotle remains no less thefounder of natural science. Whatever may be the transformations ofdogma, Jesus will ever be the creator of the pure spirit of religion;the Sermon on the Mount will never be surpassed. Whatever revolutiontakes place will not prevent us attaching ourselves in religion tothe grand intellectual and moral line at the head of which shines thename of Jesus. In this sense we are Christians, even when we separateourselves on almost all points from the Christian tradition which haspreceded us. 

And this great foundation was indeed the personal work of Jesus. Inorder to make himself adored to this degree, he must have beenadorable. Love is not enkindled except by an object worthy of it, andwe should know nothing of Jesus, if it were not for the passion heinspired in those about him, which compels us still to affirm that hewas great and pure. The faith, the enthusiasm, the constancy of thefirst Christian generation is not explicable, except by supposing atthe origin of the whole movement, a man of surpassing greatness. Atthe sight of the marvellous creations of the ages of faith, twoimpressions equally fatal to good historical criticism arise in themind. On the one hand we are led to think these creations tooimpersonal; we attribute to a collective action, that which has oftenbeen the work of one powerful will, and of one superior mind. On theother hand, we refuse to see men like ourselves in the authors ofthose extraordinary movements which have decided the fate of humanity. Let us have a larger idea of the powers which Nature conceals in herbosom. Our civilizations, governed by minute restrictions, cannot giveus any idea of the power of man at periods in which the originality ofeach one had a freer field wherein to develop itself. Let us imagine arecluse dwelling in the mountains near our capitals, coming out fromtime to time in order to present himself at the palaces of sovereigns, compelling the sentinels to stand aside, and, with an imperious tone, announcing to kings the approach of revolutions of which he had beenthe promoter. The very idea provokes a smile. Such, however, wasElias; but Elias the Tishbite, in our days, would not be able to passthe gate of the Tuileries. The preaching of Jesus, and his freeactivity in Galilee, do not deviate less completely from the socialconditions to which we are accustomed. Free from our polishedconventionalities, exempt from the uniform education which refines us, but which so greatly dwarfs our individuality, these mighty soulscarried a surprising energy into action. They appear to us like thegiants of an heroic age, which could not have been real. Profounderror! Those men were our brothers; they were of our stature, felt andthought as we do. But the breath of God was free in them; with us, itis restrained by the iron bonds of a mean society, and condemned to anirremediable mediocrity. 

Let us place, then, the person of Jesus at the highest summit of humangreatness. Let us not be misled by exaggerated doubts in the presenceof a legend which keeps us always in a superhuman world. The life ofFrancis d'Assisi is also but a tissue of miracles. Has any one, however, doubted of the existence of Francis d'Assisi, and of the partplayed by him? Let us say no more that the glory of the foundation ofChristianity belongs to the multitude of the first Christians, and notto him whom legend has deified. The inequality of men is much moremarked in the East than with us. It is not rare to see arise there, inthe midst of a general atmosphere of wickedness, characters whosegreatness astonishes us. So far from Jesus having been created by hisdisciples, he appeared in everything as superior to his disciples. Thelatter, with the exception of St. Paul and St. John, were men withouteither invention or genius. St. Paul himself bears no comparison withJesus, and as to St. John, I shall show hereafter, that the part heplayed, though very elevated in one sense, was far from being in allrespects irreproachable. Hence the immense superiority of the Gospelsamong the writings of the New Testament. Hence the painful fall weexperience in passing from the history of Jesus to that of theapostles. The evangelists themselves, who have bequeathed us the imageof Jesus, are so much beneath him of whom they speak, that theyconstantly disfigure him, from their inability to attain to hisheight. Their writings are full of errors and misconceptions. We feelin each line a discourse of divine beauty, transcribed by narratorswho do not understand it, and who substitute their own ideas for thosewhich they have only half understood. On the whole, the character ofJesus, far from having been embellished by his biographers, has beenlowered by them. Criticism, in order to find what he was, needs todiscard a series of misconceptions, arising from the inferiority ofthe disciples. These painted him as they understood him, and often inthinking to raise him, they have in reality lowered him. 

I know that our modern ideas have been offended more than once in thislegend, conceived by another race, under another sky, and in the midstof other social wants. There are virtues which, in some respects, aremore conformable to our taste. The virtuous and gentle MarcusAurelius, the humble and gentle Spinoza, not having believed inmiracles, have been free from some errors that Jesus shared. Spinoza, in his profound obscurity, had an advantage which Jesus did not seek. By our extreme delicacy in the use of means of conviction, by ourabsolute sincerity and our disinterested love of the pure idea, wehave founded--all we who have devoted our lives to science--a newideal of morality. But the judgment of general history ought not to berestricted to considerations of personal merit. Marcus Aurelius andhis noble teachers have had no permanent influence on the world. Marcus Aurelius left behind him delightful books, an execrable son, and a decaying nation. Jesus remains an inexhaustible principle ofmoral regeneration for humanity. Philosophy does not suffice for themultitude. They must have sanctity. An Apollonius of Tyana, with hismiraculous legend, is necessarily more successful than a Socrates withhis cold reason. "Socrates, " it was said, "leaves men on the earth, Apollonius transports them to heaven; Socrates is but a sage, Apollonius is a god. "[1] Religion, so far, has not existed without ashare of asceticism, of piety, and of the marvellous. When it waswished, after the Antonines, to make a religion of philosophy, it wasrequisite to transform the philosophers into saints, to write the"Edifying Life" of Pythagoras or Plotinus, to attribute to them alegend, virtues of abstinence, contemplation, and supernatural powers, without which neither credence nor authority were found in that age. 

[Footnote 1: Philostratus, _Life of Apollonius_, i. 2, vii. 11, viii. 7; Unapius, _Lives of the Sophists_, pages 454, 500 (edition Didot). ]

Preserve us, then, from mutilating history in order to satisfy ourpetty susceptibilities! Which of us, pigmies as we are, could do whatthe extravagant Francis d'Assisi, or the hysterical saint Theresa, hasdone? Let medicine have names to express these grand errors of humannature; let it maintain that genius is a disease of the brain; let itsee, in a certain delicacy of morality, the commencement ofconsumption; let it class enthusiasm and love as nervousaccidents--it matters little. The terms healthy and diseased areentirely relative. Who would not prefer to be diseased like Pascal, rather than healthy like the common herd? The narrow ideas which arespread in our times respecting madness, mislead our historicaljudgments in the most serious manner, in questions of this kind. Astate in which a man says things of which he is not conscious, inwhich thought is produced without the summons and control of the will, exposes him to being confined as a lunatic. Formerly this was calledprophecy and inspiration. The most beautiful things in the world aredone in a state of fever; every great creation involves a breach ofequilibrium, a violent state of the being which draws it forth. 

We acknowledge, indeed, that Christianity is too complex to have beenthe work of a single man. In one sense, entire humanity hasco-operated therein. There is no one so shut in, as not to receivesome influence from without. The history of the human mind is full ofstrange coincidences, which cause very remote portions of the humanspecies, without any communication with each other, to arrive at thesame time at almost identical ideas and imaginations. In thethirteenth century, the Latins, the Greeks, the Syrians, the Jews, andthe Mussulmans, adopted scholasticism, and very nearly the samescholasticism from York to Samarcand; in the fourteenth century everyone in Italy, Persia, and India, yielded to the taste for mysticalallegory; in the sixteenth, art was developed in a very similar mannerin Italy, at Mount Athos, and at the court of the Great Moguls, without St. Thomas, Barhebræus, the Rabbis of Narbonne, or the_Motécallémin_ of Bagdad, having known each other, without Dante andPetrarch having seen any _sofi_, without any pupil of the schools ofPerouse or of Florence having been at Delhi. We should say there aregreat moral influences running through the world like epidemics, without distinction of frontier and of race. The interchange of ideasin the human species does not take place only by books or by directinstruction. Jesus was ignorant of the very name of Buddha, ofZoroaster, and of Plato; he had read no Greek book, no Buddhist Sudra;nevertheless, there was in him more than one element, which, withouthis suspecting it, came from Buddhism, Parseeism, or from the Greekwisdom. All this was done through secret channels and by that kind ofsympathy which exists among the various portions of humanity. Thegreat man, on the one hand, receives everything from his age; on theother, he governs his age. To show that the religion founded by Jesuswas the natural consequence of that which had gone before, does notdiminish its excellence; but only proves that it had a reason for itsexistence that it was legitimate, that is to say, conformable to theinstinct and wants of the heart in a given age. 

Is it more just to say that Jesus owes all to Judaism, and that hisgreatness is only that of the Jewish people? No one is more disposedthan myself to place high this unique people, whose particular giftseems to have been to contain in its midst the extremes of good andevil. No doubt, Jesus proceeded from Judaism; but he proceeded from itas Socrates proceeded from the schools of the Sophists, as Lutherproceeded from the Middle Ages, as Lamennais from Catholicism, asRousseau from the eighteenth century. A man is of his age and his raceeven when he reacts against his age and his race. Far from Jesushaving continued Judaism, he represents the rupture with the Jewishspirit. The general direction of Christianity after him does notpermit the supposition that his idea in this respect could lead to anymisunderstanding. The general march of Christianity has been to removeitself more and more from Judaism. It will become perfect in returningto Jesus, but certainly not in returning to Judaism. The greatoriginality of the founder remains then undiminished; his glory admitsno legitimate sharer. 

Doubtless, circumstances much aided the success of this marvellousrevolution; but circumstances only second that which is just and true. Each branch of the development of humanity has its privileged epoch, in which it attains perfection by a sort of spontaneous instinct, andwithout effort. No labor of reflection would succeed in producingafterward the masterpieces which Nature creates at those moments byinspired geniuses. That which the golden age of Greece was for artsand literature, the age of Jesus was for religion. Jewish societyexhibited the most extraordinary moral and intellectual state whichthe human species has ever passed through. It was truly one of thosedivine hours in which the sublime is produced by combinations of athousand hidden forces, in which great souls find a flood ofadmiration and sympathy to sustain them. The world, delivered from thevery narrow tyranny of small municipal republics, enjoyed greatliberty. Roman despotism did not make itself felt in a disastrousmanner until much later, and it was, moreover, always less oppressivein those distant provinces than in the centre of the empire. Our pettypreventive interferences (far more destructive than death to things ofthe spirit) did not exist. Jesus, during three years, could lead alife which, in our societies, would have brought him twenty timesbefore the magistrates. Our laws upon the illegal exercise of medicinewould alone have sufficed to cut short his career. The unbelievingdynasty of the Herods, on the other hand, occupied itself little withreligious movements; under the Asmoneans, Jesus would probably havebeen arrested at his first step. An innovator, in such a state ofsociety, only risked death, and death is a gain to those who labor forthe future. Imagine Jesus reduced to bear the burden of his divinityuntil his sixtieth or seventieth year, losing his celestial fire, wearing out little by little under the burden of an unparalleledmission! Everything favors those who have a special destiny; theybecome glorious by a sort of invincible impulse and command of fate. 

This sublime person, who each day still presides over the destiny ofthe world, we may call divine, not in the sense that Jesus hasabsorbed all the divine, or has been adequate to it (to employ anexpression of the schoolmen), but in the sense that Jesus is the onewho has caused his fellow-men to make the greatest step toward thedivine. Mankind in its totality offers an assemblage of low beings, selfish, and superior to the animal only in that its selfishness ismore reflective. From the midst of this uniform mediocrity, there arepillars that rise toward the sky, and bear witness to a noblerdestiny. Jesus is the highest of these pillars which show to manwhence he comes, and whither he ought to tend. In him was condensedall that is good and elevated in our nature. He was not sinless; hehas conquered the same passions that we combat; no angel of Godcomforted him, except his good conscience; no Satan tempted him, except that which each one bears in his heart. In the same way thatmany of his great qualities are lost to us, through the fault of hisdisciples, it is also probable that many of his faults have beenconcealed. But never has any one so much as he made the interests ofhumanity predominate in his life over the littlenesses of self-love. Unreservedly devoted to his mission, he subordinated everything to itto such a degree that, toward the end of his life, the universe nolonger existed for him. It was by this access of heroic will that heconquered heaven. There never was a man, Cakya-Mouni perhaps excepted, who has to this degree trampled under foot, family, the joys of thisworld, and all temporal care. Jesus only lived for his Father and thedivine mission which he believed himself destined to fulfill. 

As to us, eternal children, powerless as we are, we who labor withoutreaping, and who will never see the fruit of that which we have sown, let us bow before these demi-gods. They were able to do that which wecannot do: to create, to affirm, to act. Will great originality beborn again, or will the world content itself henceforth by followingthe ways opened by the bold creators of the ancient ages? We know not. But whatever may be the unexpected phenomena of the future, Jesus willnot be surpassed. His worship will constantly renew its youth, thetale of his life will cause ceaseless tears, his sufferings willsoften the best hearts; all the ages will proclaim that among the sonsof men, there is none born who is greater than Jesus. 

[THE END. ]

_Modern Library of the World's Best Books_

COMPLETE LIST OF TITLES IN

THE MODERN LIBRARY

For convenience in ordering use number at right of title

 * * * * *

ADAMS, HENRY The Education of Henry Adams 76AIKEN, CONRAD A Comprehensive Anthology of American Poetry 101AIKEN, CONRAD 20th-Century American Poetry 127ANDERSON, SHERWOOD Winesburg, Ohio 104AQUINAS, ST. THOMAS Introduction to St. Thomas Aquinas 259ARISTOTLE Introduction to Aristotle 248ARISTOTLE Politics 228BALZAC Droll Stories 193BALZAC Père Goriot and Eugénie Grandet 245BEERBOHM, MAX Zuleika Dobson 116BELLAMY, EDWARD Looking Backward 22BENNETT, ARNOLD The Old Wives' Tale 184BERGSON, HENRI Creative Evolution 231BIERCE, AMBROSE In the Midst of Life 133BOCCACCIO The Decameron 71BRONTË, CHARLOTTE Jane Eyre 64BRONTË, EMILY Wuthering Heights 106BUCK, PEARL The Good Earth 15BURK, JOHN N. The Life and Works of Beethoven 241BURTON, RICHARD The Arabian Nights 201BUTLER, SAMUEL Erewhon and Erewhon Revisited 136BUTLER, SAMUEL The Way of All Flesh 13BYRNE, DONN Messer Marco Polo 43CALDWELL, ERSKINE God's Little Acre 51CALDWELL, ERSKINE Tobacco Road 249CANFIELD, DOROTHY The Deepening Stream 200CARROLL, LEWIS Alice in Wonderland, etc. 79CASANOVA, JACQUES Memoirs of Casanova 165CELLINI, BENVENUTO Autobiography of Cellini 150CERVANTES Don Quixote 174CHAUCER The Canterbury Tales 161COMMAGER, HENRY STEELE A Short History of the United States 235CONFUCIUS The Wisdom of Confucius 7CONRAD, JOSEPH Heart of Darkness (In Great Modern Short Stories 168)CONRAD, JOSEPH Lord Jim 186CONRAD, JOSEPH Victory 186CORNEILLE and RACINE Six Plays of Corneille and Racine 194CORVO, FREDERICK BARON A History of the Borgias 192CRANE, STEPHEN The Red Badge of Courage 130CUMMINGS, E. E. The Enormous Room 214DANA, RICHARD HENRY Two Years Before the Mast 236DANTE The Divine Comedy 208DAY, CLARENCE Life with Father 230DEFOE, DANIEL Robinson Crusoe and A Journal of the Plague Year 92DEFOE, DANIEL Moll Flanders 122DEWEY, JOHN Human Nature and Conduct 173DICKENS, CHARLES A Tale of Two Cities 189DICKENS, CHARLES David Copperfield 110DICKENS, CHARLES Pickwick Papers 204DICKINSON, EMILY Selected Poems of 25DINESEN, ISAK Seven Gothic Tales 54DOS PASSOS, JOHN Three Soldiers 205DOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR Crime and Punishment 199DOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR The Brothers Karamazov 151DOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR The Possessed 55DOUGLAS, NORMAN South Wind 5DOYLE, SIR ARTHUR CONAN The Adventures and Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes 206DREISER, THEODORE Sister Carrie 8DUMAS, ALEXANDRE Camille 69DUMAS, ALEXANDRE The Three Musketeers 143DU MAURIER, DAPHNE Rebecca 227DU MAURIER, GEORGE Peter Ibbetson 207EDMAN, IRWIN The Philosophy of Plato 181EDMAN, IRWIN The Philosophy of Santayana 224ELLIS, HAVELOCK The Dance of Life 160EMERSON, RALPH WALDO Essays and Other Writings 91FAST, HOWARD The Unvanquished 239FAULKNER, WILLIAM Sanctuary 61FAULKNER, WILLIAM The Sound and the Fury and As I Lay Dying 187FIELDING, HENRY Joseph Andrews 117FIELDING, HENRY Tom Jones 185FLAUBERT, GUSTAVE Madame Bovary 28FORESTER, C. S. The African Queen 102FORSTER, E. M. A Passage to India 218FRANCE, ANATOLE Penguin Island 210FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN Autobiography, etc. 39FROST, ROBERT The Poems of 242GALSWORTHY, JOHN The Apple Tree (In Great Modern Short Stories 168)GAUTIER, THEOPHILE Mlle. De Maupin and One of Cleopatra's Nights 53GEORGE, HENRY Progress and Poverty 36GODDEN, RUMER Black Narcissus 256GOETHE Faust 177GOETHE The Sorrows of Werther (In Collected German Stories 108)GOGOL, NIKOLAI Dead Souls 40GRAVES, ROBERT I, Claudius 20HAMMETT, DASHIELL The Maltese Falcon 45HAMSUN, KNUT Growth of the Soil 12HARDY, THOMAS Jude the Obscure 135HARDY, THOMAS The Mayor of Casterbridge 17HARDY, THOMAS The Return of the Native 121HARDY, THOMAS Tess of the D'Urbervilles 72HART AND KAUFMAN Six Plays by 233HARTE, BRET The Best Stories of 250HAWTHORNE, NATHANIEL The Scarlet Letter 93HELLMAN, LILLIAN Four Plays by 223HEMINGWAY, ERNEST A Farewell to Arms 19HEMINGWAY, ERNEST The Sun Also Rises 170HEMON, LOUIS Maria Chapdelaine 10HENRY, O. Best Short Stones of 4HERODOTUS The Complete Works of 255HERSEY, JOHN A Bell for Adano 16HOMER The Iliad 166HOMER The Odyssey 167HORACE The Complete Works of 141HUDSON, W. H. Green Mansions 89HUDSON, W. H. The Purple Land 24HUGHES, RICHARD A High Wind in Jamaica 112HUGO, VICTOR The Hunchback of Notre Dame 35HUXLEY, ALDOUS Antic Hay 209HUXLEY, ALDOUS Point Counter Point 180IBSEN, HENRIK A Doll's House, Ghosts, etc. 6IRVING, WASHINGTON Selected Writings of Washington Irving 240JACKSON, CHARLES The Lost Weekend 258JAMES, HENRY The Portrait of a Lady 107JAMES, HENRY The Turn of the Screw 169JAMES, HENRY The Wings of the Dove 244JAMES, WILLIAM The Philosophy of William James 114JAMES, WILLIAM The Varieties of Religious Experience 70JEFFERS, WILLIAM Roan Stallion; Tamar and Other Poems 118JEFFERSON, THOMAS The Life and Selected Writings of 234JOYCE, JAMES Dubliners 124JOYCE, JAMES A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man 145KAUFMAN AND HART Six Plays by 233KOESTLER, ARTHUR Darkness at Noon 74KUPRIN, ALEXANDRE Yama 203LAOTSE The Wisdom of 262LARDNER, RING The Collected Short Stories of 211LAWRENCE, D. H. The Rainbow 128LAWRENCE, D. H. Sons and Lovers 109LAWRENCE, D. H. Women in Love 68LEWIS, SINCLAIR Arrowsmith 42LEWIS, SINCLAIR Babbitt 162LEWIS, SINCLAIR Dodsworth 252LONGFELLOW, HENRY W. Poems 56LOUYS, PIERRE Aphrodite 77LUDWIG, EMIL Napoleon 95MACHIAVELLI The Prince and The Discourses of Machiavelli 65MALRAUX, ANDRÉ Man's Fate 33MANN, THOMAS Death in Venice (In Collected German Stories 108)MANSFIELD, KATHERINE The Garden Party 129MARQUAND, JOHN P. The Late George Apley 182MARX, KARL Capital and Other Writings 202MAUGHAM, W. SOMERSET Of Human Bondage 176MAUGHAM, W. SOMERSET The Moon and Sixpence 27MAUPASSANT, GUY DE Best Short Stories 98MAUROIS, ANDRÉ Disraeli 46McFEE, WILLIAM Casuals of the Sea 195MELVILLE, HERMAN Moby Dick 119MEREDITH, GEORGE Diana of the Crossways 14MEREDITH, GEORGE The Ordeal of Richard Feverel 134MEREDITH, GEORGE The Egoist 253MEREJKOWSKI, DMITRI The Romance of Leonardo da Vinci 138MILTON, JOHN The Complete Poetry and Selected Prose of John Milton 132MISCELLANEOUS An Anthology of American Negro Literature 163 An Anthology of Light Verse 48 Best Amer. Humorous Short Stories 87 Best Russian Short Stories, including Bunin's The Gentleman from San Francisco 18 Eight Famous Elizabethan Plays 94 Famous Ghost Stories 73 Five Great Modern Irish Plays 30 Four Famous Greek Plays 158 Fourteen Great Detective Stories 144 Great German Short Novels and Stories 108 Great Modern Short Stories 168 Great Tales of the American West 238 Outline of Abnormal Psychology 152 Outline of Psychoanalysis 66 The Consolation of Philosophy 226 The Federalist 139 The Making of Man: An Outline of Anthropology 149 The Making of Society: An Outline of Sociology 183 The Poetry of Freedom 175 The Sex Problem in Modern Society 198 The Short Bible 57 Three Famous French Romances 85 Sapho, by Alphonse Daudet Manon Lescaut, by Antoine Prevost Carmen, by Prosper MerimeeMOLIERE Plays 78MORLEY, CHRISTOPHER Parnassus on Wheels 190NASH, OGDEN The Selected Verse of Ogden Nash 191NEVINS, ALLAN A Short History of the United States 235NIETZSCHE, FRIEDRICH Thus Spake Zarathustra 9NOSTRADAMUS Oracles of 81ODETS, CLIFFORD Six Plays of 67O'NEILL, EUGENE The Emperor Jones, Anna Christie and The Hairy Ape 146O'NEILL, EUGENE The Long Voyage Home and Seven Plays of the Sea 111PALGRAVE, FRANCIS The Golden Treasury 232PARKER, DOROTHY The Collected Short Stories of 123PARKER, DOROTHY The Collected Poetry of 237PASCAL, BLAISE Pensées and The Provincial Letters 164PATER, WALTER Marius the Epicurean 90PATER, WALTER The Renaissance 86PAUL, ELLIOT The Life and Death of a Spanish Town 225PEARSON, EDMUND Studies in Murder 113PEPYS, SAMUEL Samuel Pepys' Diary 103PERELMAN, S. J. The Best of 247PETRONIUS ARBITER The Satyricon 156PLATO The Philosophy of Plato 181PLATO The Republic 153POE, EDGAR ALLAN Best Tales 82POLO, MARCO The Travels of Marco Polo 196POPE, ALEXANDER Selected Works of 257PORTER, KATHERINE ANNE Flowering Judas 88PROUST, MARCEL Swann's Way 59PROUST, MARCEL Within a Budding Grove 172PROUST, MARCEL The Guermantes Way 213PROUST, MARCEL Cities of the Plain 220PROUST, MARCEL The Captive 120PROUST, MARCEL The Sweet Cheat Gone 260RAWLINGS, MARJORIE KINNAN The Yearling 246READE, CHARLES The Cloister and the Hearth 62REED, JOHN Ten Days that Shook the World 215RENAN, ERNEST The Life of Jesus 140ROSTAND, EDMOND Cyrano de Bergerac 154ROUSSEAU, JEAN JACQUES The Confessions of Jean Jacques Rousseau 243RUSSELL, BERTRAND Selected Papers of Bertrand Russell 137SCHOPENHAUER The Philosophy of Schopenhauer 52SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM Tragedies, 1, 1A--complete, 2 vols. SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM Comedies, 2, 2A--complete, 2 vols. SHAKESPEARE, WILLIAM Histories, 3 } Histories, Poems, 3A } complete, 2 vols. SHEEAN, VINCENT Personal History 32SMOLLETT, TOBIAS Humphry Clinker 159SNOW, EDGAR Red Star Over China 126SPINOZA The Philosophy of Spinoza 60STEINBECK, JOHN In Dubious Battle 115STEINBECK, JOHN Of Mice and Men 29STEINBECK, JOHN The Grapes of Wrath 148STEINBECK, JOHN Tortilla Flat 216STENDHAL The Red and the Black 157STERNE, LAURENCE Tristram Shandy 147STEWART, GEORGE R. Storm 254STOKER, BRAM Dracula 31STONE, IRVING Lust for Life 11STOWE, HARRIET BEECHER Uncle Tom's Cabin 261STRACHEY, LYTTON Eminent Victorians 212SUETONIUS Lives of the Twelve Caesars 188SWIFT, JONATHAN Gulliver's Travels, A Tale of a Tub, The Battle of the Books 100SWINBURNE, CHARLES Poems 23SYMONDS, JOHN A. The Life of Michelangelo 49TACITUS The Complete Works of 222TCHEKOV, ANTON Short Stories 50TCHEKOV, ANTON Sea Gull, Cherry Orchard, Three Sisters, etc. 171THACKERAY, WILLIAM Henry Esmond 80THACKERAY, WILLIAM Vanity Fair 131THOMPSON, FRANCIS Complete Poems 38THOREAU, HENRY DAVID Walden and Other Writings 155THUCYDIDES The Complete Writings of 58TOLSTOY, LEO Anna Karenina 37TOMLINSON, H. M. The Sea and the Jungle 99TROLLOPE, ANTHONY Barchester Towers and The Warden 41TROLLOPE, ANTHONY The Eustace Diamonds 251TURGENEV, IVAN Fathers and Sons 21VAN LOON, HENDRIK W. Ancient Man 105VEBLEN, THORSTEIN The Theory of the Leisure Class 63VIRGIL'S WORKS Including The Aeneid, Eclogues, and Georgics 75VOLTAIRE Candide 47WALPOLE, HUGH Fortitude 178WALTON, IZAAK The Compleat Angler 26WEBB, MARY Precious Bane 219WELLS, H. G. Tono Bungay 197WHARTON, EDITH The Age of Innocence 229WHITMAN, WALT Leaves of Grass 97WILDE, OSCAR Dorian Gray, De Profundis 125WILDE, OSCAR Poems and Fairy Tales 84WILDE, OSCAR The Plays of Oscar Wilde 83WOOLF, VIRGINIA Mrs. Dalloway 96WOOLF, VIRGINIA To the Lighthouse 217WRIGHT, RICHARD Native Son 221YEATS, W. B. Irish Fairy and Folk Tales 44YOUNG, G. F. The Medici 179ZOLA, EMILE Nana 142ZWEIG, STEFAN Amok (In Collected German Stories 108)

MODERN LIBRARY GIANTS

_A series of full-sized library editions of books that formerly wereavailable only in cumbersome and expensive sets. _

THE MODERN LIBRARY GIANTS REPRESENT ASELECTION OF THE WORLD'S GREATEST BOOKS

_Many are illustrated and some of them are over 1200 pages long. _

 * * * * *

G1. TOLSTOY, LEO. War and Peace. G2. BOSWELL, JAMES. Life of Samuel Johnson. G3. HUGO, VICTOR. Les Miserables. G4. THE COMPLETE POEMS OF KEATS AND SHELLEY. G5. PLUTARCH'S LIVES (The Dryden Translation). G6. } GIBBON, EDWARD. The Decline and Fall of the RomanG7. } Empire (Complete in three volumes). G8. }G9. YOUNG, G. F. The Medici (Illustrated). G10. TWELVE FAMOUS RESTORATION PLAYS (1660-1820) (Congreve, Wycherley, Gay, Goldsmith, Sheridan, etc. )G11. JAMES, HENRY. The Short Stories of. G12. THE MOST POPULAR NOVELS OF SIR WALTER SCOTT (Quentin Durward, Ivanhoe and Kenilworth). G13. CARLYLE, THOMAS. The French Revolution. G14. BULFINCH'S MYTHOLOGY (Illustrated). G15. CERVANTES. Don Quixote (Illustrated). G16. WOLFE, THOMAS. Look Homeward, Angel. G17. THE POEMS AND PLAYS OF ROBERT BROWNING. G18. ELEVEN PLAYS OF HENRIK IBSEN. G19. THE COMPLETE WORKS OF HOMER. G20. THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. G21. SIXTEEN FAMOUS AMERICAN PLAYS. G23. TOLSTOY, LEO. Anna Karenina. G24. LAMB, CHARLES. The Complete Works and Letters of Charles Lamb. G25. THE COMPLETE PLAYS OF GILBERT AND SULLIVAN. G26. MARX, KARL. Capital. G27. DARWIN, CHARLES. The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. G28. THE COMPLETE WORKS OF LEWIS CARROLL. G29. PRESCOTT, WILLIAM H. The Conquest of Mexico and The Conquest of Peru. G30. MYERS, GUSTAVUS. History of the Great American Fortunes. G31. WERFEL, FRANZ. The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. G32. SMITH, ADAM. The Wealth of Nations. G33. COLLINS, WILKIE. The Moonstone and The Woman in White. G34. NIETZSCHE, FRIEDRICH. The Philosophy of Nietzsche. G35. BURY, J. B. A History of Greece. G36. DOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR. The Brothers Karamazov. G37. THE COMPLETE NOVELS AND SELECTED TALES OF NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE. G38. ROLLAND, ROMAIN. Jean-Christophe. G39. THE BASIC WRITINGS OF SIGMUND FREUD. G40. THE COMPLETE TALES AND POEMS OF EDGAR ALLAN POE. G41. FARRELL, JAMES T. Studs Lonigan. G42. THE POEMS AND PLAYS OF TENNYSON. G43. DEWEY, JOHN. Intelligence in the Modern World: John Dewey's Philosophy. G44. DOS PASSOS, JOHN. U. S. A. G45. LEWISOHN, LUDWIG. The Story of American Literature. G46. A NEW ANTHOLOGY OF MODERN POETRY. G47. THE ENGLISH PHILOSOPHERS FROM BACON TO MILL. G48. THE METROPOLITAN OPERA GUIDE. G49. TWAIN, MARK. Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. G50. WHITMAN, WALT. Leaves of Grass. G51. THE BEST-KNOWN NOVELS OF GEORGE ELIOT. G52. JOYCE, JAMES. Ulysses. G53. SUE, EUGENE. The Wandering Jew. G54. FIELDING, HENRY. Tom Jones. G55. O'NEILL, EUGENE. Nine Plays by. G56. STERNE, LAURENCE. Tristram Shandy and A Sentimental Journey. G57. BROOKS, VAN WYCK. The Flowering of New England. G58. THE COMPLETE NOVELS OF JANE AUSTEN. G59. HEMINGWAY, ERNEST. The Short Stories of. G60. DOSTOYEVSKY, FYODOR. The Idiot. (Illustrated by Boardman Robinson). G61. SPAETH, SIGMUND. A Guide to Great Orchestral Music. G62. THE POEMS, PROSE AND PLAYS OF PUSHKIN. G63. SIXTEEN FAMOUS BRITISH PLAYS. G64. MELVILLE, HERMAN. Moby Dick. G65. THE COMPLETE WORKS OF RABELAIS. G66. THREE FAMOUS MURDER NOVELS _Before the Fact_, Francis Iles. _Trent's Last Case_, E. C. Bentley. _The House of the Arrow_, A. E. W. Mason. G67. ANTHOLOGY OF FAMOUS ENGLISH AND AMERICAN POETRY. G68. THE SELECTED WORK OF TOM PAINE. G69. ONE HUNDRED AND ONE YEARS' ENTERTAINMENT. G70. THE COMPLETE POETRY OF JOHN DONNE AND WILLIAM BLAKE. G71. SIXTEEN FAMOUS EUROPEAN PLAYS. G72. GREAT TALES OF TERROR AND THE SUPERNATURAL. G73. A SUBTREASURY OF AMERICAN HUMOR.