decision. The gospel according to John will continue to appeal more intensely to everyone whose interest is chiefly theological. It is a book written by a theologian, for theologians. The historian, however, naturally turns to the book which is first of all and almost exclusively a history, the gospel according to Mark, and its offspring, the gospels according to Matthew and Luke.

This book, then, is frankly an attempt to reconstruct the life of Jesus upon the model first of Mark, consolidating with it the other material contained in Matthew and in Luke. It is based upon the conviction that the gospel according to John was written long afterwards, its historical information drawn almost exclusively from these and in no point to be considered as authoritative when it contradicts the Marcan narrative. In a few instances, particularly in the narration of the events of the last twenty-four hours of Jesus' life, there are touches in the gospel according to John which indicate the possibility that its author may have had access to an original source. These instances give information not contained in the other gospels, which is not contradictory to them, but which can well be considered as supplementary to them. This material it is true is commingled with other material which is directly contradictory to the synoptic story and it may be as inaccurate as this other material, but it is sufficiently illuminating if true that the possibility of its truth has been adopted. All other sources approximately contemporary making refer

ences to Jesus,-Josephus, the Book of Acts, Ignatius, Eusebius,-have been used for what they are worth as throwing light upon the story, but the narrative remains after all essentially the story told by John Mark, the cousin of Joses who was surnamed Barnabas, the companion of Peter and of Paul, who * dwelt in Jerusalem during those stirring days and who probably himself saw many of the events of that wonderful and fatal last week.

CHAPTER I.

THE BEGINNING JOHN THE BAPTIZER.

Sometime late in the year 28 or early in the year 29 of our era' a strange figure appeared in the hill country of eastern Judea. A man who was called Jochanan, the equivalent of our English "John," robed in garments of camel's hair, girded with leathern girdle, a typical inhabitant of the wilderness, began to proclaim to the Jewish inhabitants of that rugged region an announcement to them most significant and stirring.

"Repent," said he, "for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand."

Never was spoken message more tremendous in its effect. The inhabitants of the hill country flocked around him. By word of mouth this-to us

'Luke 3:1-2. This is the only date connected with the life of Jesus which can be determined with any degree of accuracy. The reign of Tiberius Caesar began on August 19, A. D. 14. Consequently its fifteenth year began August 19, A. D. 28 and ended August 18, A. D. 29. Those who desire to retain the stories of the miraculous birth and annunciations (Matt. 1:18-2:23; Luke 1:52:52) and attempt to reconcile the chronology of these two sections with the careful statement of Luke 3:1-2, count the reign of Tiberius as beginning two years earlier when he practically assumed joint responsibility with Augustus, making the appearance of John in 26 or 27. This rather strained conclusion, however, fails to eliminate the contradictions, and is unnecessary when it is recognized that the entire story of Matthew 1 is unhistorical, the product of later reflection on the relation between Jesus and the prophecies believed to be essential in the conception of the Messiah. See note 3, page 26.

strange message passed swiftly from the hills of the Judean wilderness to Jerusalem and to all parts of Judea and the regions about the Jordan until multitudes surrounded the anchorite, hanging upon the burning words which fell from his lips, and pressing upon one another to participate in the rite which gave him the peculiar name by which he was known, "John the Baptizer.

992

But if strange to us, his message was full of meaning to those who came to hear him. In them was not the least uncertainty as to what he meant. The Messianic hope of the Jews, their expectation that a special kingdom of God would come upon the earth, to be composed of the chosen and worthy of the Jewish nation, was at that time in the full vigor of its grasp upon the people whom it was later to destroy." This wonderful expectation enabled the Jews, proud and imperious of spirit and inspired by the memory of a glorious history, in the face of most contradictory circumstances to retain their racial pride and confidence that they were the especially chosen peo

'Matt. 3:1-6; Mark 1:4-6; Luke 3:1-4.

'It is evident from the account of Josephus that the disturbances which culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus had their root in the Messianic expectation. Josephus himself nowhere specifically makes such a statement, but numerous hints of the general attitude of the leaders in sedition appear, and indicate that Josephus was rather concealing the Messianic tendencies of his people, which when he wrote had by no means died out and would if revealed to the authorities at Rome, subject the Jews to further persecution. See, for example, Wars II, xiii, 3-5 and the continuous references to the Zealots all through the story of the disorders in Jerusalem. See also note 3 to Chapter VI, page 70.

ple of the Most High. At that time they had completely lost their once proud national position. With the passing of the Maccabean dynasty and following their conquest by Pompey, they had become the helpless subjects of Rome. Oppressed, humiliated, almost stripped of standing among the nations of the earth, deprived of national liberty, no longer ruled by their own princes, but subject to the creatures of the far-away Roman government who mingled with a deep contempt a fear which made them more harsh and oppressive than was even the Roman practice, they nevertheless maintained a firm hope and confidence that they were still God's chosen people and that ultimately they would triumph over their oppressors through Him.

The expectation that one of the line of David would restore the Kingdom to the Jews had been common among them for centuries. This belief was

a universal racial heritage and was at least as old as the days of the conquest and destruction of the nation by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. We have certain knowledge that for almost two hundred years' it had been definite in form, persistent through every fresh humiliation, growing stronger as the national difficulties grew greater and the

'See, for example, Isaiah 11:1-12; written almost 700 years before. Similar specimen references occur in the succeeding notes; they are merely samples of what occurs abundantly through all the prophets.

"That is, since the days of Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 175164). The book of Daniel, which was written during this period, contains the basis and much of the detail of the later conception.