ing figuratively to his disciples, said that henceforth it would be necessary that they should purchase swords, against the time when they should be assailed on all hands, but where they understood these words literally, and reminded him that they were already in possession of two swords of all explanations I prefer that of Schleiermacher, who thinks that the evangelist introduced these observations in order to prepare for the blow in the succeeding narrative by which one of them cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest.

The other differences with respect to the last supper will be noticed in the course of the following investigations.

§ CXX.

Prediction of the Treason, and of the Denial.

Whilst the fourth evangelist is the only one who says that Jesus knew from the beginning who should betray him, all four agree in stating that at the last supper, he predicted that one of the apostles was a traitor.

There is, however, in the first place, a difference which we should remark, which is, that whilst, according to the two first evangelists, the observations respecting the traitor are placed at the commencement of the narrative, and, in particular, precede the institution of the Lord's Supper (Matt. xxvi. 21; Mark xiv. 18) according to Luke it was only after the repast was finished, and after the commemorative supper had been instituted (xxii. 21) that Jesus spoke of the approaching treason. According to John what is said respecting the traitor is said during and after the ablution of the feet (xiii. 10-30). It would, in itself, be of no consequence to know which of the evangelists was right in this particular; but there is a reason why theologians attach importance to this question; for as this may be decided it would appear that we decide at the

same time whether the traitor also partook of the eucharist. The participation in the Lord's Supper of so strange a member does not appear consistent with the idea of this institution, considered as a supper of love, indicative of the most intimate union, nor do the love and mercy of our Lord allow us to believe that he would have suffered an unworthy individual to partake of the eucharist and thus increase the magnitude of his crime. Some have thought to evade this subject of fear by taking for granted the order preserved by Matthew and Mark, and by considering that the designation of the traitor preceded the institution of the supper; and as it was known by the gospel of John that Judas, seeing himself discovered and pointed out, had quitted the company, they thought they were right in laying it down as established that Jesus did not proceed to the institution of the supper till the traitor had departed. But this conclusion is only to be arrived at by mixing up, in an illogical manner, the narrative of John with those of the synoptics, for the fourth evangelist is the only one who says that Judas quitted the company; and he is also the only one whose narrative requires it to be supposed that he should have left the company, since, according to him it was only at this time that Judas entered into negotiations with the enemies of Jesus, so that he required a little more time to make arrangements with them and to obtain an escort. In the synoptical gospels, on the contrary, there is nothing to show that the traitor quitted the company; every thing is related as if he only rose from the table at the same time as the other guests, and as if, instead of going directly into the garden, he had gone at once to the high-priests, with whom he had previously entered into arrangements, and who instantly furnished him with the means of arresting Jesus. Then whoever may be right in the elucidation of the facts of the case, Luke or Matthew, it is not the less certain that, according to all the synoptics, Judas, who did not quit the company before the rest, must have partaken of the eucharist.

There are also remarkable differences amongst the evangelists with respect to the manner in which Jesus pointed out the individual who was to betray him. According to Luke, Jesus was contented with asserting briefly that the hand of him who was to betray him was with him on the table, on which the disciples inquired amongst themselves which of them it was that "should do this thing." According to Matthew and Mark, he said, in the first place, that one of them should betray him, and as each one in his turn asked, "Lord, is it I?" he answered, that it was "he that dippeth his hand with me in the dish," and then, at last, after a malediction pronounced upon the traitor, Judas, according to Matthew, propounds the same question, to which Jesus makes an affirmative reply. According to John, Jesus remarked in the first place during and after the ablution of the feet, that all the disciples present were not pure, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me." He then directly asserted that one of them should betray him, and as the disciples regarded each other to know who it should be, Peter beckoned to John, who was nearest to Jesus, that he should ask which of them it was; on which Jesus replied that it was he to whom he should give a sop; and when he had dipped the sop he gave it to Judas, desiring him at the same time to use dispatch in what he was about to do. Thereupon Judas quitted the company.

In this case, again, harmonists soon began to engraft the different narratives upon each other, and to conciliate the various versions. According to them, Jesus, having declared that one of them should betray him, on the demand of each of his disciples if it were he, replied that it was he who dipped with him in the dish (Matthew); then John asked, in a low tone of voice, positively, who it should be, to which Jesus replied, also in a low tone, "He to whom I shall give this sop" (John); then Judas, again in an under tone, asked if it were he, to which Jesus replied, 88

VOL. IV.

in the same tone, affirmatively (Matthew); in fine, the taunting observations of Jesus induced the traitor to quit the company (John). But Matthew, in reporting the question of Judas and the answer of Jesus, does not say that they were pronounced in a low tone of voice, and we cannot even well conceive that they should have been so pronounced, unless we imagine, what is not very probable, that Judas was placed on one side of Jesus as John was on the other. Now, if the question and answer were made in a loud voice, the disciples could not have so strangely misunderstood, as John says they did, the meaning of the words, "that thou doest do quickly;" and, seriously, we cannot stop to suppose a whispered question on the part of Judas, and an answer at random from Jesus. Neither is it probable that Jesus, after having said that he who dipped his hand with him in the dish should betray him, should afterwards himself, needlessly, have dipped a sop, in order to point him out with greater precision. It is evident that both these designations are identical-the only difference is, in the way in which they are presented. When, with Paulus and Olshausen, we have come to this conclusion, we need seek for no forced explanations respecting the difficulty presented by the formal reply, which, according to Matthew, Jesus made to the traitor; and we are justified in the conviction that we have here two different accounts, of which one was not made to complete the omissions of the other.

When, with Sieffert and Fritsche, we have arrived at this conclusion, we have only to ask which of the two narratives, is most probably correct? To this question Sieffert has replied by a decision in favour of John, not merely, as he says, because of any prejudice entertained for him, as a supposed eye-witness of what he describes, but because, in this instance, his narrative, from its internal marks of truth, and its dramatic character, is indisputably superior to that of Matthew, in which there is nothing to show that it was drawn up de visu. This author affirms that,

whilst John was capable of giving the most exact details respecting the manner in which Jesus pointed out the traitor, it is quite evident, according to the narrative of the first evangelist, that he was only acquainted with the fact that Jesus had personally indicated the individual who was to betray him. In this respect, it is certain that the concise answer which Jesus makes to Judas, in Matthew (25) has altogether the appearance of having been composed for the occasion, in conformity with this general notion; and in this respect it is inferior to the more disguised, and, consequently, more probable way in which the traitor is indicated in John. But this is not the case with respect to the other point. According to the two first evangelists, Jesus said, "He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish," or, "that dippeth with me in the dish;" according to John, he said, "he it is to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it;" here, evidently, the greatest precision in the designation, and consequently the smallest degree of probability in the narrative, is on the side of the fourth evangelist. In Luke, Jesus only designates the traitor as one of those who were seated at table with him; and even the phrase of Matthew and Mark, "He that. dippeth his hand with me in the dish," is explained by Kuinol and Henneberg as signifying "one of those at table with him," without intimating which; an explanation which is not so likely to mislead as Olshausen imagines. For, on the one hand, to the question of each of the disciples who asked him, "Is it I?" Jesus might, on each occasion, have thought proper to give an evasive answer; on the other hand, according to the just remark of Kuinol, this answer is, with respect to the preceding phrase, "one of you shall betray me" (Matt. xxvi. 21), a fitting gradation in this respect, that it exhibits the guilt of the traitor aggravated by the fact of his presence at the table. Doubtless, the compilers of the two first gospels understood the expression in question as though it was in personal allusion to Judas, who had put his hand into the plate