The Life of Jesus of Nazareth Part 16

44. Geographical notes. _Capernaum_. The site is not clearly identified, two ruins on the NW of Sea of Galilee are rival claimants,--Tell Hum and Khan Minyeh. Tell Hum is advocated by Thomson, _Land and Book, Central Pal. and Phnicia_ (1882), 416-420; Khan Minyeh, by SmithHGHL 456, EnBib I. 696 ff. Latter is probably correct. See AndLOL 224-237.

_Bethsaida_. The full name is Bethsaida Julias, located at entrance of Jordan into the Sea of Galilee. SmithEnBib I. 565f., SmithHGHL 457f., shows that there is no need of the hypothesis of a second Bethsaida to meet the statement in Mk. vi. 45, or that in Jn. i. 44. See also AndLOL 230-236. Ewing HastBD I. 282f. renews the argument for two Bethsaidas.

_Chorazin_ was probably the modern Kerazeh, about one mile N of Tell Hum, and back from the lake. See SmithEnBib I. 751; SmithHGHL 456; AndLOL 237f.

45. _The mountain of the sermon on the mount_ (Mt. v. 1; Lk. vi. 12) probably refers to the Galilean highlands as distinct from the sh.o.r.e of the lake. More definite location is not possible. See AndLOL 268f.; EdersLJM I. 524. The traditional site, the Horns of Hattin, is a hill lying about seven miles SW from Khan Minyeh, which has near the top a level place (Lk. vi. 17) flanked by two low peaks or "horns."

46. _The country of the Gerasenes, Gadarenes, or Gergesenes_. Gadarenes is the best attested reading in Mt. viii. 28, Gerasenes in Mk. v. 1 and Lk.

viii. 26; Gergesenes has only secondary attestation. Gadara is identified with Um Keis on the Yarmuk, some six miles SE of the Sea of Galilee. This cannot have been the site of the miracle, though it is possible that Gadara may have controlled the country round about, including the sh.o.r.es of the sea. Gerasa is the name of a city in the highlands of Gilead, twenty miles E of Jordan, and thirty-five SE of the Sea of Galilee, and it clearly cannot have been the scene of the miracle. Near the E sh.o.r.e of the sea Thomson discovered the ruins of a village which now bears the name Khersa. The formation of the land in the neighborhood closely suits the narrative of the gospels. This is now accepted as the true identification.

See Thomson _Land and Book, Central Palestine_, 353-355; SBD^2 1097-1100; HastBD II. 159f.; AndLOL 296-300. The name "Gadarenes" may indicate that Gadara had jurisdiction over the region of Khersa; the names "Gerasenes"

and "Gergesenes" may be derived directly and independently from Khersa, or may be corruptions due to the obscurity of Khersa.

47. _The feeding of the five thousand_ took place on the E of the sea, in a desert region, abundant in gra.s.s, and mountainous, and located in the neighborhood of a place named Bethsaida. Near the ruins of Bethsaida Julias is a plain called now Butaiha, "a smooth, gra.s.sy place near the sea and the mountains," which meets the requirements of the narrative. See AndLOL 322f.

48. _The return of Jesus from the regions of Tyre "through Sidon"_ (Mk.

vii. 31) avoided Galilee, crossing N of Galilee to the territory of Philip and "_the Decapolis_." This latter name applies to a group of free Greek cities, situated for the most part E of the Jordan. Most of the cities of the group were farther S than the Sea of Galilee; some, however, were E and NE of that sea, hence Jesus' approach from Caesarea Philippi or Damascus could be described as "through Decapolis." See SmithHGHL 593-608; En Bib I. 1051 ff.; SchurerJPTX II. i. 94-121.

49. Of _Magadan_ (Mt. xv. 39) or _Dalmanutha_ (Mk. viii. 10) all that is known is that they must have been on the W coast of the Sea of Galilee.

They have never been identified, though there are many conjectures. See SBD^2, HastBD, and En Bib.

50. _Caesarea Philippi_ was situated at the easternmost and most important of the sources of the Jordan, it is called Panias by Jos. Ant. xv. 10.3, now Banias. Probably a sanctuary of the G.o.d Pan. Here Herod the Great built a temple which he dedicated to Caesar; Philip the Tetrarch enlarged the town and called it Caesarea Philippi. See SBD^2; HastBD; EnBib.

51. _The mountain of the transfiguration_. The traditional site, since the fourth century, is Tabor in Galilee. Most recent opinion has favored one of the shoulders of Hermon, owing to the supposed connection of the event with the sojourn near Caesarea Philippi. WeissLX III. 98 points out that there is no evidence that Jesus lingered for "six days" (Mk. ix. 2) near that town, and that therefore the effort to locate the transfiguration is futile. GilbertLJ 274 thinks that Mk. ix. 30 is decisive in favor of a place outside Galilee; he therefore holds to the common view that Hermon is the true locality. See AndLOL 357f.

52. General questions. _Was Jesus twice rejected at Nazareth?_ (comp. Lk.

iv. 16-30 with Mk. vi. 1-6^a; Mt. xiii. 54-58). Here are two accounts that read like independent traditions of the same event; they agree concerning the place, the teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, the astonishment of the Nazarenes, their scornful question, and Jesus' rejoinder. Luke makes no reference to the disciples (Mk. vi. 1) nor to the working of miracles (Mk. vi. 5); Matthew and Mark, on the other hand, say nothing of an attempt at violence. These differences are no more serious, however, than appear in the two accounts of the appeal of the centurion to Jesus (Mt. viii. 5-8; Lk. vii. 3-7). Moreover, Lk. iv. 23 indicates a time after the ministry in Capernaum had won renown, which agrees with the place given the rejection in Mark. The general statement (Lk. iv. 14f.) suggests that the visit to Nazareth is given at the beginning as an instance of "preaching in their synagogues." The three accounts probably refer to one event reported independently. For identification see WeissLX III. 34; Plummer on Luke iv. 30; GilbertLJ 254f. For two rejections see G.o.det's supplementary note on Lk. iv. 16-30; Meyer on Mt. xiii. 53-58; EdersLJM I.

457, note 1; Wieseler, _Synopsis_, 278. BeysLJ I. 270 identifies but prefers Luke's date.

53. _Were there two miraculous draughts of fish?_ Lk. v. 1-11 is sometimes identified with Jn. xxi. 3-13. So WendtLJ I. 211f., WeissLX II. 57f., and Meyer on Luke v. 1-11. Against the identification see Alford, G.o.det, and Plummer on the pa.s.sage in Luke. The two are alike in scene, the night of bootless toil, the great catch at Jesus' word. They differ in personnel, antecedent relations of the fishermen with Jesus, the effect of the miracle on Peter, and the subsequent teaching of Jesus, as well as in time. These differences make identification difficult.

54. _Where in the synoptic story should the journey to the feast in Jerusalem_ (Jn. v.) _be placed?_ There is nothing in John's narrative to identify the feast, although it is his custom to name the festivals to which he refers (Pa.s.sover, ii. 13, 23; vi. 4; xi. 55; xii. 1; Tabernacles, vii. 2; Dedication, x. 22). Even if John wrote "the feast," rather than "a feast" (the MSS. vary, A B D and seven other uncials omit the article), it would be impossible to decide between Pa.s.sover and Tabernacles. The omission of the article suggests either that the feast was of minor importance, or that its identification was of no significance for the understanding of the following discourse. Since a year and four months probably elapsed between the journey into Galilee (Jn. iv. 35) and the next Pa.s.sover mentioned in John (vi. 4), v. 1 may refer to any one of the feasts of the Jewish year. The commonest interpretation prefers Purim, a festival of a secular and somewhat hilarious type, which occurred on the 14th and 15th of Adar, a month before the Pa.s.sover. It is difficult to believe that this feast would have called Jesus to Jerusalem. See WeissLX II. 391; GilbertLJ 137-139, 142, 234-235. Against this interpretation see EdersLJM II. 765. Edersheim advocates the feast of Wood Gathering on the 15th of Ab--about our August. On this day all the people were permitted to offer wood for the use of the altar in the temple, while during the rest of the year the privilege was reserved for special families. See LJM II 765f.; Westcott, _Comm. on John_, add. note on v. 1, argues for the feast of Trumpets, or the new moon of the month Tisri,--about our September,--which was celebrated as the beginning of the civil year.

Others have suggested Pentecost, fifty days after the Pa.s.sover; the day of Atonement--but this was a fast, not a feast; and Tabernacles. The majority of those who do not favor Purim prefer the Pa.s.sover, notwithstanding the difficulty of thinking that John would refer to this feast simply as "a feast of the Jews." Read AndLOL 193-198, remembering that the question must be considered independently of the question of the length of Jesus'

ministry. The impossibility of determining the feast renders the adjustment of this visit to the synoptic story very uncertain. It may be that there was some connection between the Sabbath controversy in Galilee (Mk. ii. 23-28) and the criticism Jesus aroused in Jerusalem (Jn. v.). If so, one of the spring feasts, Pa.s.sover or Pentecost, would best suit the circ.u.mstances; but this arrangement is quite uncertain.

55. _Do the five conflicts of Mk. ii. 1 to iii. 6 belong at the early place in the ministry of Jesus to which that gospel a.s.signs them_? It is commonly held that they do not, and the argument for a two-year ministry rests on this a.s.sumption (see SandayHastBD II. 613). Holtzmann, _Hand-commentar_ I. 9f., remarks that at least for the cure of the paralytic and for the call and feast of Levi (Mk. ii. 1, 13, 15) the evangelist was confident that he was following the actual order of events; note the call of the fifth disciple, Mk. ii. 13, between the call of the four, Mk. i. 16-20, and that of the twelve, iii. 16-19. The question about fasting may owe its place (Mk. ii. 18-22) to a.s.sociation with the criticism of Jesus for eating with publicans (Mk. ii. 16). In like manner the second Sabbath conflict (Mk. iii. 1-6) may be attached to the first (ii. 23-28) as a result of the ident.i.ty of subject, for it is noteworthy that Mark records only these two Sabbath conflicts; moreover, the plot of Herodians and Pharisees to kill Jesus strongly suggests a later time for the actual occurrence of this criticism. The first Sabbath question, however, may belong early, as Mark has placed it. Weiss, Markusevangelium, 76, LX II. 232 ff., places these conflicts late. Edersheim, LJM II. 51 ff., discusses the Sabbath controversies after the feeding of the mult.i.tudes. RevilleJN II. 229 places the first of them early.

56. _The sermon on the mount._ Luke (vi. 12-19 = Mk. iii.

13-19^a indicates the place in the Galilean ministry; Matthew has therefore antic.i.p.ated in a.s.signing it to the beginning. The ident.i.ty of the two sermons (Mt. v. 1 to vii. 27; Lk. vi. 20-49) is shown by the fact that each begins with beat.i.tudes, each closes with the parables of the wise and foolish builders, each is followed by the cure of a centurian's servant in Capernaum (Mt. viii. 5-13; Lk. vii. 1-10), and the teachings which are found in each account are given in the same order.

Matthew is much fuller than Luke, many teachings given in the sermon in Matthew being found in later contexts in Luke. Much of the sermon in Matthew, however, evidently belonged to the original discourse, and was omitted by Luke, perhaps because of less interest to Gentile than to Jewish Christians. The following sections are found elsewhere in Luke, and were probably a.s.sociated with the sermon by the first evangelist: Mt. v.

25, 26; Lk. xii. 58, 59; Mt. vi. 9-13; Lk. xi. 2-4; Mt. vi. 19-34; Lk.

xii. 21-34; xi. 34-36; xvi. 13; Mt. vii. 7-11; Lk. xi. 9-13; Mt. vii. 13, 14; Lk. xiii. 24. The first evangelist's habit of grouping may explain also the presence in his sermon of teachings which he himself has duplicated later, thus: Mt. v. 29, 30 = xviii. 8,9; v. 32 = xix. 9, comp.

Mk. x. 11, ix. 43-47, Lk. xvi. 18; Mt. vi. 14, 15 = Mk. xi. 25. Matthew vii. 22, 23 has the character of the teachings which follow the confession at Caesarea Phillipi, and is quite unlike the other early teachings. It may belong to the later time, for it was natural for the early Christians to a.s.sociate together teachings which the Lord uttered on widely separated occasions. The sermon as originally given may be a.n.a.lyzed as follows: The privileges of the heirs of the kingdom of G.o.d, Mt. v. 3-13; Lk. vi. 20-26; their responsibilities, Mt. v. 13-16; the relation of the new to the old, Mt. v. 17-19; the text of the discourse, Mt. v. 20; the new conception of morality, Mt. v. 21-48; Lk. vi. 27-36; the new practice of religion, Mt.

vi. 1-8, 16-18; warning against a censorious spirit, Mt. vii. 16-20; Lk.

vi. 43-46; the wise and foolish builders, Mt. vii. 24-27; Lk. vi. 47-49.

57. _The discourse in parables._ Matthew gives seven parables at this point (xiii.), Mark (iv. 1-34) has three, one of them is not given in Matthew, Luke (viii. 4-18) gives in this connection but one,--the Sower.

Many think that the Tares of Matthew (xiii. 24-30, 36-43) is a doublet of Mark's Seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29); so Weiss LX II. 209 note, against which view see WendtLJ I. 178 f., and Bruce, _Parabolic Teaching of Xt_, 119. Matthew has probably made here a group of parables, as in chapters v. to vii. he has made a group of other teachings. The interpretation of the Tares, and of the Draw-net (xiii. 40-43, 49, 50), may indicate that these parables were spoken after Jesus began to teach plainly concerning the end of the world (Mk. viii. 31 to ix. 1), Luke gives the Mustard Seed and Leaven in another connection (xiii. 18-21), and it may be that Matthew has taken them out of their true context to a.s.sociate them with the other parables of his group; yet in popular teaching it must be recognized that ill.u.s.trations are most likely to be repeated in different situations. On the parables see Goebel, _The Parables of Jesus_ (1890), Bruce, _The Parabolic Teaching of Christ_, 3d ed. (1886), Julicher, _Die Gleichnissreden Jesu_ (2 vols. 1899), and the commentaries on the gospels.

58. _The instructions to the twelve_. Mt. ix. 36 to xi. 1. x. 1, 5-14 corresponds in general with Mk. vi. 7-11; Lk. ix. 1-5. The similarity is closer, however, between x. 7-15 and Lk. x. 3-12--the instructions to the seventy (see sect. A 68). The rest of Mt. x. (16-42) is paralleled by teachings found in the closing discourses in the synoptic gospels, and in teachings preserved in the section peculiar to Luke (ix. 51 to xviii. 14.

See SB sects. 88-92, footnotes). It is probable that here the first evangelist has made a group of instructions to disciples gathered from all parts of the Lord's teachings; such a collection was of great practical value in the early time of persecution.

59. _Did Jesus twice feed the mult.i.tudes_? All the gospels record the feeding of the five thousand (Mt. xiv. 13-23; Mk. vi. 30-46; Lk. ix.

10-17; Jn. vi. 1-15), Matthew (xv. 32-38) and Mark (viii. 1-9) give also the feeding of the four thousand. The similarities are so great that the two accounts would be regarded as doublets if they occurred in different gospels. The difficulty with such an identification is chiefly the reference which in both Matthew (xvi. 9, 10) and Mark (viii. 19, 20) Jesus is said to have made to the two feedings. The evangelists clearly distinguished the two. In view of this fact the differences between the accounts become important. These concern the occasion of the two miracles, the number fed, the nationality of the mult.i.tudes (compare Jn. vi. 31 and Mk. vii. 31), the number of loaves and of baskets of broken pieces (the name for basket is different in the two cases, and is preserved consistently in Mk. viii. 19, 20; Mt. xvi. 9, 10). See GilbertLJ 259-262, Gould, and Swete, on Mk. viii. 1-9; Meyer, Alford, on Mt. xv. 32-38.

WeissLX II. 376f., BeysLJ I. 279f., WendtLJ I. 42, Holtzmann _Hand-comm._ I. 186 ff., identify the accounts. See also SandayHastBD II. 629.

60. _Did Peter twice confess faith in Jesus as Messiah_? Synoptics give his confession at Caeesarea Philippi (Mk. viii. 27-30; Mt. xvi. 13-20; Lk.

ix. 18-21). John, however, gives a confession earlier at Capernaum (vi.

66-71). WeissLX III. 53 identifies the two, placing that in John at Caesarea Philippi, since there is no evidence that all of the long discourse of Jn. vi. was spoken in Capernaum the day after the feeding of the five thousand. This may be correct, yet the marked recognition which Jesus gave to the confession at Caesarea Philippi does not demand that he first at that time received a confession of his disciples' faith. The confession in Jn. vi. 68, 69 declared that the twelve were not shaken in their faith by the recent defection of many disciples. At Caesarea Philippi the confession was made after the revulsion of popular feeling had been made fully evident, and after the twelve had had time for reaction of enthusiasm consequent upon the growing coldness of the mult.i.tudes and active opposition of the leaders. The confession of Caesarea Philippi holds its unique significance, whether or not Jn. vi. 68 is identified with it.

61. _The journey to Tabernacles_ (Jn. vii.). Where in the synoptic story should it be placed? Lk. ix. 51 ff. records the final departure from Galilee. The journey of Jn. vii. is the last journey from Galilee given in John. Yet the two are very different. In John, Jesus went in haste, unpremeditatedly, in secret, and unaccompanied, and confronted the people with himself unexpectedly during the feast. In Luke (Mk. x. 1 and Mt. xix.

1 are so general that they give no aid) he advanced deliberately, with careful plans, announcing his coming in advance, accompanied by many disciples, with whom he went from place to place, arriving in Jerusalem long after he had set out. The two journeys cannot be identified. John seems to keep Jesus in the south after the Tabernacles, but his account does not forbid a return to Galilee between Tabernacles and Dedication (x.

22). After the hurried visit to Tabernacles, Jesus probably went back to Galilee, and gathered his disciples again for the final journey towards his cross--for the visit to Jerusalem had given fresh evidence of the kind of treatment he must expect in the capital (Jn. vii. 32, 45-52; viii. 59).

See AndLOL 369-379. Andrews suggests that the feast occurred before the withdrawal to Caesarea Philippi (376); this is possible, but it seems more natural to place it during the sojourn in Capernaum after the return from the north (Mk. ix. 33-50). See SB, sects. 82-85.

62. On the phenomena and interpretation of _Demoniac Possession_ see J. L.

Nevius, _Demon Possession and allied Themes_; Conybeare, Jew. Quar. Rev.

VIII. (1896) 576-608, IX. (1896-7) 59-114, 444-470, 581-603; J. Weiss in _Realencyklopadie_,^3 Hauck-Herzog, IV. 408-419; Binet, _Alterations of Personality_, 325-356; James, _Psychology, _ I. 373-400; and the articles on DEMONS in EnBib and HastBD.

The Journey through Perea to Jerusalem

63. Read SandayHastBD II. 630-632; see GilbertLJ 298-310: WeissLX III.

157-223; KeimJN V, 1-64; BeysLJ I. 287-294. II. 333-419; AndLOL 365-420; EdersLJM II. 126-360.

64. This journey began sometime between Tabernacles and Dedication (October and December) of the last year of Jesus' life, and continued until the arrival in Bethany six days before the last Pa.s.sover.

65. Geographical notes. _Perea_--a part of the domain of Antipas--was the Jewish territory E of the Jordan. Its northern limit seems to have been marked by Pella (Jos. Wars, iii 3. 3) or Gadara (Wars, iv. 7. 3), and its E boundary was marked by Philadelphia (Ant. xx. 1. 1); it extended S to the domain of Aretas, king of Arabia. The population was mixed, though predominatingly Jewish. Cities of the Decapolis, however, lay within the limits of Perea, and introduced Greek life and ideas to the people. On the highlands back from the Jordan it was a fertile and well populated land.

See SmithHGHL 539f.; SchurerJPTX II. i. 2-4.

66. On _Bethany and Jericho_ see BDs and, for the latter, SmithHGHL 266 ff.

67. _Ephraim_, (John xi. 54) is generally identified with the Ephron of II. Chron. xiii. 19 (Jos. Wars, iv. 9. 9). Robinson located it at et Taiyibeh, 4 m. NE of Bethel, and 14 from Jerusalem. See HastBD l. 728; SBD^2 975.

68. General questions. _The mission of the seventy_. Luke records two missions, that of the twelve (ix. 1-6), and that of the seventy (x. 1-24).

Many regard these as doublets, similar to the two feedings in Mark. So WeissLX II. 307 ff., BeysLJ I. 275, WendtLJ I. 84f. In favor of this conclusion emphasis is given to the fact that in Jewish thought seventy symbolized the nations of the world as twelve symbolized Israel. It is suggested that in his search for full records Luke came upon an account of the mission of disciples which had already been modified in the interests of Gentile Christianity, and failing to recognize its ident.i.ty with the account of the mission furnished by Mark, he added it in his peculiar section. The similarity of the instructions given follows from the nature of the case. A second sending out of disciples is suitable in view of the entrance into a region hitherto unvisited. As Dr. Sanday has remarked, the sayings connected by Luke with this mission bear witness to the authenticity of the account. There is therefore no need to identify the two missions. See particularly SandayHastBD II. 614, also GilbertLJ 226-230, Plummer's _Comm. on Luke_, 269 ff. Luke probably gives the correct place for the thanksgiving, self-declaration, and invitation of Jesus, in which the synoptists approach most nearly to the thought of John (Lk. x. 21, 22; Mt. xi. 25-30). The return of the seventy (Lk. x. 17-20) followed the woes addressed to the unbelieving cities (Lk. x. 13-16; Mt.

xi. 20-24).

69. _The destination of the seventy_. It is customary to think of them as sent to the various cities of Perea (see AndLOL 381-383). Were it not for the words "whither he himself was about to come" (Lk. x. I), it would be natural to conclude that they were sent E to Gerasa and Philadelphia, and S to the regions of the Dead Sea. If John's account is accepted, Jesus spent not a little time of the interval between his departure from Galilee and his final arrival in Bethany in and near Jerusalem. It may be that after the withdrawal from the Dedication he went far into the Perean districts. But John x. 40 is against it. The question must be left unanswered. The messengers may have visited places in all parts of Palestine.

VI

The Controversies of the Last Week

70. See GilbertLJ 311-335; WeissLX III. 224-270; AndLOL 421-450; KeimJN V.

65-275; BeysLJ II. 422-434; EdersLJM II. 363-478; SandayHastBD II 632f.

71. _The supper at Bethany_. John is definite, "six days before the pa.s.sover" (xii. I). Synoptists place it after the day of controversy, on the Wednesday preceding the Pa.s.sover (Mk. xiv. I, 3-9; Mt. xxvi. 2, 6-13).