§ 135. The sequence of the transactions during the supper appears to have been the following: The taking of their places at table; the contention; the first cup of wine; the washing of the disciples' feet, and reproof (§§ 133, 134); the pointing out of the traitor (§ 135); [institution of the Lord's Supper ($136); the foretelling of Peter's denial (§ 137), etc.]. Luke's order differs from that of Matthew and Mark in placing by anticipation the institution of the Eucharist before the pointing out of the traitor, etc. He was apparently led to this by the mention of the first cup of wine, vv. 17, 18. Afterwards he returns and narrates the previous circumstances. [The $$ 136, 137 are transposed for the reasons given under § 136.]

In the present section Jesus first declares that one of the twelve shall betray him; they in amazement inquire, "Lord, is it I? is it I?" and Peter makes a sign to John, leaning on Jesus' bosom, that he should ask who it was. John does so; and Jesus gives him privately a sign by which he may know the traitor, namely, the sop. The amazement and inquiry still continuing, Jesus gives the sop to Judas; who then, conscience-smitten, but desiring to conceal his confusion, asks, as the others had done, "Lord, is it I?" Jesus answers him, and he immediately goes out, before the institution of the Eucharist; comp. John 13: 26 sq. [The presence of Judas at the Lord's Supper is extremely improbable, but has been strenuously maintained by many commentators, and connected with questions respecting the Eucharist. The ablest defender of the presence of Judas is Godet, who, however, accepts in the main the correctness of Luke's order.] For John 13: 28, 29, see Introd. Note, p. 191. [§ 136. The institution of the Lord's Supper is placed before the prophecy of Peter's denial, etc., for the following reasons: (1) Matthew and Mark give this order; (2) this arrangement reduces the variations of order in Luke's narrative; (3) the account of John omits all direct reference to the Lord's Supper, and it may be placed after v. 35 quite as naturally as after v. 38; (4) Matthew and Mark place the warning to Peter after the mention of the going out to the Mount of Olives, and this points to a position after the Lord's Supper. See § 137.]

The institution of the Lord's Supper took place, obviously, at the close of the Passover-meal, and in connection with the "cup of blessing," or third cup, which terminated the meal proper; comp. 1 Cor. 10: 16, and see p. 189, above. With this view accords the expression "after supper" in Luke 22 : 20 and so 1 Cor. 11 : 25. Matthew and Mark speak of Jesus as breaking the bread "as they were eating," which implies nothing more than "during the meal," while they were yet eating, and does not require the institution of the bread to be separated from that of the cup. [In view of the importance of this section, nearly all the changes of the R. V. have been given in the footnotes to the English text.]

But

§ 137. John lets the warnings to Peter immediately follow the pointing out of the traitor [see § 136]; Matthew and Mark narrate the warning to Peter, as if given on the way to the Mount of Olives; Matt. 26:30, 36; Mark 14: 26, 32. Luke, like John, places it before they went out; 22: 34, 35. [This assumes that the warnings were uttered but once. The earlier position is necessary in that case, though it is more naturally placed after the Lord's Supper. But since Matthew and Mark connect the warning with another important prophecy, not mentioned by the other two Evangelists and with difficulty fitted into their narratives, it seems probable that the warning was spoken first in the room in Jerusalem (Luke and John) and repeated on the way to Gethsemane (Matthew and Mark); comp. § 142. This accords with Peter's character, and accounts for the somewhat increased emphasis in the warnings as given by Matthew and Mark. — It may be added that the incident about the swords cannot readily be placed before the institution of the Lord's Supper.]

Mark says, "Before the cock crow twice," v. 30; the other Evangelists have simply, "Before the cock crow;" see Note on § 144.

$132. Matthew relates that our Lord went away thrice and prayed; Mark speaks of his going away twice only, but mentions his coming again the third time, v. 41, and therefore accords with Matthew. According to Luke, Jesus goes away and prays, and an angel strengthens him; after which he prays the " more earnestly,"

V. 44. The three Evangelists, therefore, agree in their narratives.

§ 143. Jesus advances to meet the crowd, and declares himself to be the person whom they sought. At the same time Judas, in order to fulfil his bargain, comes up and salutes him with a kiss.

[§§ 144–146. The Examination of our Lord by the Jewish Rulers. The Notes of Dr. Robinson accept but one examination of our Lord by the Jewish rulers. This view is open to serious objection: (a) It is opposed by the correct rendering of John 18: 24: "Annas therefore sent him bound unto Caiaphas, the high priest." "Therefore" is well supported and makes it impossible to render the verb "had sent." (b) It fails to account for the order in John's Gospel, which is that of an eye-witness, both of the early part of the trial and of Peter's denial. (c) It confuses two distinct statements in Matthew and Mark: those which tell of a night examination (Matt. 26: 57–68; Mark 14 : 53–65) and also of a morning assembly of the Sanhedrin (Matt. 27:1; Mark 15 : 7), at the same time failing to account for the position these Evangelists assign to Peter's denials. (d) It dislocates without necessity the course of Luke's narrative. See especially Luke 22 : 66, where the morning is referred to, after the buffeting in vv. 63–65. If the several accounts are taken in their natural sense, they suggest (1) an informal examination before Annas, narrated by John (18 : 19–23); (2) a more formal examination before Caiaphas and many of the Sanhedrin, narrated by Matthew and Mark (the denials of Peter occurring during the period from the close of the former to the end of the latter); then in the morning (3) a formal condemnation narrated somewhat fully by Luke, but hinted at by Matthew and Mark. Such a repetition is not in itself improbable, and the legal condemnation could not take place before morning. The main difficulty is with the examination before Annas. If that is accepted, it must be admitted that John calls him "high priest." Though this is not done elsewhere by that Evangelist, it seems more probable that he should thus term Annas (who was recognized as high priest by the Jews) than that he should use the Greek aorist as a pluperfect. Writing later, he would naturally tell of what was not noticed by the other Evangelist, especially as he was himself present in "the court of the high priest." This view implies that Annas and Caiaphas, for convenience, occupied the same house. See Godet, Commentaries on Luke and John.

The arrangement of the text in the Harmony has, however, not been altered, and Dr. Robinson's statement of his view is retained in full. The difference of opinion is so great, and the difficulties are so serious, that it seems best to present fully both sides.]

$144. The presence of the chief priests and scribes and elders, that is, the Sanhedrin, at the house of Caiaphas, as noted by Matthew and Mark, seems mentioned here by anticipation. According to Luke 22: 66, they did not come together until after daybreak; see § 145. [See Note above. The formal morning meeting, at all events, was held.]

An oriental house is usually built around a quadrangular interior court, into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding gate, with a smaller wicket for single persons, kept by a porter. In the text, the interior court, often paved or flagged, and open to the sky, is the place ["court," R. V.] where the attendants made a fire; and the passage beneath the front of the house from the street to this court is the porch in Matt. 26: 71; Mark 14: 68. The place where Jesus stood before the high priest may have been an open room or place of audience on the ground-floor, in the rear or on one side of the court, such rooms, open in front, being customary. It was close upon the court, for Jesus heard all that was going on around the fire, and turned and looked upon Peter; Luke 22: 61.

Peter's first denial took place at the fire in the middle of the court, on his being questioned by the female porter. Peter then, according to Matthew and Mark, retreats into the passage leading to the street, where he is again questioned, and makes his second denial. Luke and John do not specify the place. The Evangelists differ in their statements here as to the person who now questioned him. Mark says the same maid saw him again, and began to question him; v. 69; Matthew has "another maid ;" v. 71; Luke writes" another," that is, another man; v. 58; while John uses the indefinite form they said. As, according to Matthew (v. 71) and Mark (v. 69), there were several persons present, Peter may have been interrogated by several. - The third denial took place about an hour after, probably near the fire, or at least within the court, where our Lord and Peter could see each other; Luke 22 : 61. Here Matthew and Mark speak of several interrogators; Luke still has "another,”

and John specifies the servant of the high priest. [The most satisfactory explanation accepts three episodes of denial, different particulars being given by the different Evangelists. The last occasion was probably at the close of the night examination before Caiaphas.]

The three denials are here placed together for convenience, although during the intervals between them the examination of Jesus was going on before the high priest; the progress of which is given in § 145.

Mark relates that the cock crowed twice; vv. 68, 72; the others speak only of his crowing once. [The text in Mark 14 : 68 is in doubt; but v. 72 plainly states that it was the second time.] This accords also with their respective accounts of our Lord's prophecy; see § 137. The cock often crows irregularly about midnight or not long after, and again always and regularly about the third hour or day-break. When, therefore, "the cock-crowing" is spoken of alone, this last is always meant. Hence the name cock-crowing for the third watch of the night, which ended at the third hour after midnight; Mark 13 : 35. Mark therefore here relates more definitely; the others more generally.

§ 145. This examination by Caiaphas, John 18: 19-23, took place, according to John, soon after Peter's first denial; see § 141. Not improbably the high priest again withdrew, after having sent off messengers to convoke the Sanhedrin, which met at early dawn; Luke 22: 66. —Luke 22: 63-65 is transposed, in accordance with Matthew and Mark. [But see Note above.]

It has been supposed by some that this examination was held before Annas, John 18:13. But Peter's denials all took place in the house of Caiaphas; Matt. 26:57; John 18: 24 sq.; comp. v. 28; and Caiaphas alone was high priest. Hence John 18: 24 is to be rendered "Annas had sent him," etc. [The correct reading in John 18: 24 renders this explanation impossible; see Note on § 144-146. Comp. R. V.] § 146. On John 18: 28 see Introd. Note, p. 191. [According to the view given in the Note on §§ 144-146, Luke 22: 66-72 should be placed parallel with Matt. 27:1; Mark 15: 1; while 23: 1 is, in any case, parallel with Matt. 27: 2, and the latter half of Mark 15: 1.]

§ 149. The scarlet robe of Matt. 27: 28, and the purple robe of John 19: 2, are put for the paludamentum or red military cloak worn by officers; Sinith's Dict. of Antt. art. Paludamentum. The Greek word in Matthew signifies properly coccusdyed, crimson, and seems to be nearly synonymous with purple; just as purple-red and crimson are interchanged in English.

§ 150. On the phrase "preparation of the passover," v. 14, see the Introd. Note, p. 192. In the same verse the expression "about the sixth hour" does not accord with the "third hour" of Mark 15:25; see in § 153. But the "third hour" of Mark, as the hour of the crucifixion, is sustained by the whole course of the transac tions and circumstances; as also by the fact stated by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that the darkness commenced at the sixth hour, after Jesus had already for some time hung upon the cross; see § 155. The reading sixth in John is therefore probably an early error of transcription for third. [The numeral signs were similar, but such an error is unlikely. No recent editor accepts the reading. The internal evidence is decidedly against it, since the transcribers would be likely to correct the numeral to conform with the accounts of the Synoptists. It has been suggested that Mark indicates the time when the scourging took place, that being regarded as part of the crucifixion, while John, by "about the sixth hour," means "towards noonday." The Synoptists are specific in their statement respecting the darkness.] The suggestion of some commentators, that John here computes the hours from midnight, seems to be without any historical foundation. [The usage of the Evangelist himself also seems against this view.] The time, also, which would thus result, namely, sunrise, would be much too early for the course of events.

§ 151. Judas repented, it would seem, as soon as he saw that Jesus was delivered over to be crucified. Till then he had hoped, perhaps, to enjoy the reward of his treachery, without involving himself in the guilt of his Master's blood.

According to Matthew (v. 5), Judas "strangled," that is, hanged, himself. Luke says, in Acts 1:18, "falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst." These two accounts are not inconsistent with each other; the rope breaking, the fall might easily be such as to cause the bursting of the abdomen.

In Acts 1: 18 the word "purchased " [R. V., more correctly; "obtained"] is to be taken as expressing the idea: he gave occasion to purchase, was the occasion of purchasing. For such a usage, see Matt. 27: 60; Rom. 14: 15; 1 Cor. 7:16; 1 Tim. 4: 16, etc.

The quotation in Matt. 27 : 9, 10 is found, not in Jeremiah, but in Zech. 11 : 12 sq. The reading Jeremiah is therefore most probably an early error of a transcriber, misled by a reminiscence of Jer. 18: 1 sq. The Syriac version, the earliest of all, as also several other versions and manuscripts, have simply "through the prophet,' which is apparently the true reading. Other later authorities read Zechariah. [Origen suggested the later reading, and a number of the Fathers discuss the difficulty. This shows that "Jeremiah was the received reading in the second century. The simplest explanation is that the name "Jeremiah" is applied to the whole book of the prophets, since the Jews placed that prophet first. Many other theories have been suggested, most of them quite fanciful.]

§ 152. Jesus bore his cross at first; but he being probably faint from exhaustion, Simon was compelled to bear it after him. [Simon may have carried only the hinder part of the cross.]

The "vinegar mingled with gall" of Matt. 27:34 is the same with the "wine mingled with myrrh" of Mark 15:23, namely, cheap acid wine mingled with myrrh. [In Matthew the correct reading is "wine;" so R. V.] Such a drink was given to persons about to be executed, in order to stupefy them.

§ 153. Various slight transpositions in the verses are made in this section, in order to present their parallelism to the eye. On the four different forms of the title on the cross, see Note on § 15. [It is probable, though not demonstrable, that three of the Evangelists give respectively the form used in one of the three languages, while Mark gives "the King of the Jews," which was common to all the three forms.]

$154. According to Matthew and Mark, both the malefactors reviled Jesus; while, according to Luke, one was penitent. In the former Evangelists there is here an enallage of number; the plural being put for the singular. This is often done, where the predicate relates strictly to one subject while yet the writer expresses the idea generally. [This method of explaining the different statements is open to serious objection. The Gospels are historical books; the writers, however they were inspired, were not omniscient, or independent of literary method. It seems far more likely that two of them were not aware of the fact mentioned by Luke than that they should use the plural for the singular. This holds good against most of the examples cited by Dr. Robinson.] So Matt. 26: 8, comp. John 12: 4; Matt. 2: 20; 9:8; Mark 7: 17, comp. Matt. 15:15: Mark 5:31, comp. Luke 8: 45; Matt. 24: 1, comp. Mark 13: 1; John 19: 29, comp. Matt. 27: 48, etc.

In John 19: 25 the marginal reading of the English version is the proper one, namely, Clopas, instead of Cleophas. [So R. V., there being no sufficient authority for Cleophas.] It is strictly a Greek form of a Hebrew name, which is elsewhere represented by Alphæus. The Cleopas of Luke 24: 18 is a different name of regular Greek derivation, and belongs to another person.

For the "vinegar" in Luke 23: 36 see Note on § 155.

$155. In Matt. 27: 46 Eli is the Hebrew word for my God; comp. Ps. 22:2; and in Mark 15: 34 Eloi is the corresponding Aramæan word for the same. The "vinegar" in Matt. 27: 48 and the parallel verses is here the posca or common drink of the Roman soldiers, namely, cheap acid wine mingled with water. In Matthew and Mark the sponge is said to be put upon a reed; in John, upon hyssop. Here, probably, a stalk or stem of hyssop is to be understood; the cross not being of any great height. The particular plant designated by the hyssop of the Hebrews has not yet been fully ascertained by botanists. [But see Bible Dictionaries.] It probably included not only the hyssop of the shops, but also other aromatic plants, as mint, wild marjoram, etc.

[The arrangement of the "Seven Words from the Cross" given by Dr. Robinson is that generally accepted. He seems to give the last place to the exclamation: "Father," etc., which is the more probable order.]

§ 156. Matt. 27: 55, 56, etc., refers to a later point of time than John 19: 25 sq. Mary and the other women had now retired to a distance from the scene of suffering. [As Salome is mentioned by Matthew and Mark, not by John, it seems prob

able that she is "the sister of his mother" (John 19: 25). Mary had withdrawn before the time included in this section.]

§ 157. On the phrase: ["the day of that Sabbath was a high day," R. V.], John 19: 31, see Introd. Note, p. 193.

Luke 23:54: "and the Sabbath drew on," [R. V. margin: Greek, “began to dawn "]; the term which properly belongs to the natural day is here figuratively and poetically applied to the civil day, which among the Jews began at sunset. Compare Matthew and Mark, "when even was come," and Luke himself in the first clause of the verse.

It was according to law and custom among the Jews that the bodies of persons publicly executed should be taken down and buried before sunset; see Deut. 21: 22, 23. Thus Josephus, B. J. iv. 5, § 2: "So great care did the Jews take respecting sepulture, that even the bodies of those condemned to be crucified they took down and buried before sunset."

[The R. V. properly connects the latter part of Luke 23: 56 with the next chapter, as the Greek requires. This leaves it uncertain, so far as Luke's statement is concerned, when the spices were "prepared : see Note on § 159.]

PART IX.

OUR LORD'S RESURRECTION, HIS SUBSEQUENT APPEARANCES, AND HIS ASCENSION.

SS 159-173.

INTRODUCTORY NOTE.

A FULL discussion upon this part of the Gospel History, embracing a review of the main difficulties in the way of harmonizing the accounts of the four Evangelists, was published by the author of these Notes, in the Bibliotheca Sacra for February, 1815, p. 162 sq. To this the student is referred for a more complete examination of the subject. [For compact summaries of a number of the various theories for harmonizing the accounts, see Andrews, Life of Our Lord, pp. 587–594.]

It is no doubt true that more of these apparent difficulties are found in this short portion of the Gospels than in almost all the rest. This has its cause in the circumstance that each writer here follows an eclectic method, and records only what appertained to his own particular purpose or experience. Thus many of the minor and connecting facts have not been preserved; and the data are therefore wanting to make out a full and complete harmony of all the accounts, without an occasional resort to something of hypothesis. Had we all the facts, we may well rest assured that this part of the sacred history would at once prove to be as exact, as consistent, and as complete, as any and every other portion of the Word of God. [The divergences in the narratives of the resurrection seem fatal to all theories respecting the origin of the Gospels which imply interdependence.]

The general results of the investigations upon which we are now entering may be presented in the following summary view of the events and circumstances connected with our Lord's resurrection and ascension, in the order of their occurrence.

The resurrection took place at or before early dawn on the first day of the week; when there was an earthquake, and an angel descended and rolled away the stone from the sepulchre and sat upon it, so that the keepers became as dead men from terror. At early dawn, the same morning, the women who had attended on Jesus, namely, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, Salome, and others, went out with spices to the sepulchre in order further to embalm the Lord's body. They inquire among themselves who should remove for them the stone which closed the sepulchre. On their arrival they find the stone already taken away. The Lord had risen. The women, knowing nothing of all that had taken place, were amazed; they enter the tomb and find not the body of the Lord, and are greatly perplexed. At this time Mary Magdalene, impressed with the idea that the body had been stolen away, leaves the sepulchre and the other women and runs to the city to tell Peter

and John.