Crew

Available at alibris.com
( 4.6/5.0 ★ | 243 downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.26
530786936144734&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2
Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0786936144734
Crew

ISBN: 0786936144734
Category: Media > DVDs & Movies
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 19.1 MB
Language: English
Website: alibris.com
Short description: Run time: 87 mins. Aspect ratio: 1.85: 1.
Originally released: 2000. Language: English. Mill Creek/Disney
Release. Factory Sealed Brand New DVD. Our SKU H3C Loaded with laughs,
THE CREW features Academy Award(R)-winner Richard Dreyfuss (MR.
HOLLAND'S OPUS) and Burt Reynolds (MYSTERY, ALASKA) in a sidesplitting
story about a set of golden-year goodfellas fighting to protect their
last piece of turf! Back in the days when mobsters were larger than
life, none lived bigger than Bobby (Dreyfuss), "Ba

DOWNLOAD: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&
offerid=1494105.26530786936144734&type=15&murl=http%3A%2F%2F
www.alibris.com%2Fsearch%2Fbooks%2Fisbn%2F0786936144734
 Crew

• Click the link: https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1494105.2653078693614473

• Don’t miss the chance to explore our extensive collection of high-quality resources, books, and guides on
our website. Visit us regularly to stay updated with new titles and gain access to even more valuable
materials.
.
 VI. 12.—VII. 10. 103 of Christ to Capernaum, and hence
that particular incidents mentioned in these collections may even
have been subsequent to much that is recorded in the sequel.
Whether however with respect to the chronology of the same
occurrences which are differently placed and connected. in Matthew,
he affords any greater certainty, is a point on which we cannot here
give a general opinion. The part yet remaining of this second main
division, which on the whole is common to the three Gospels, is
divided as follows, by passages which discover themselves plainly
enough to be beginnings of distinct and once independent
narratives. VII. 11—50 cannot be parted; at VIII. 1 a new narrative
begins; at VIII. 22 another; at IX. 1 a third, which proceeds as far as
LX. 45; 46—50 is a little appendage, and with 51 the third main
division of the Gospel begins. I have only one general remark to
make on the subject of this subdivision, that I am at a loss to
conceive how these beginnings have been in part so mistaken, that
some acute commentators designate the passage VIII. 1—3 as the
end of a memoir. If it had been said merely by way of conclusion,
that Jesus set out presently afterwards on a journey, how should so
accurate a description of his travelling companions have found its
way ‘into such a concluding remark ? And does not the expression
xal rwy xara mda imimogevomevwy nar’ durdy In
 104 VI. 12.—VI.. 16. verse 4, evidently refer to the words
xa} duris diwdeve uate TOMY xai xwuyy In the Ist verse? And how
was it possible to overlook the circumstance, that it is precisely to
this company by which Jesus was then immediately surrounded that
the words cir! cio: werrne ov xa) ddcAgoi wou are to be referred,
which is necessary to give to the whole ‘passage its proper finish
and keeping? Whereas it is evident that VIII. 22 is not of a piece
with that narrative. For the person who writes here xa) of wadyre)
airod knows nothing of the companions of the journey before
described ; otherwise he would either have said in general oi wer
adrov, or have dropped a word to mention that the women were left
behind in this passage over the water. That really strange
supposition, that VIII. 1—3 is a conclusion, must | have originated in
the phrase @ rHxa4et7s, which, independently of other objections,
cannot possibly be taken as a part of the preceding memoir, because
that itself subjoins the Pharisee’s entertainment, without any
determination of time, to the account of John’s message. This
phrase, on the contrary, must certainly be ascribed to the compiler
of the whole, who probably found only xa Eyevero ort ards Ouddeve,
but when he assigned to the narrative its place, whether he followed
his own conviction, or information which he had collected, that this
journey was subsequent to John’s | message, in order to express his
judgement on the point he inserted that phrase. |
 VII. 11—60. 105 I entertain the same opinion of the same
phrase, ev ro es, VIE. 11, with which the first piece, which we will
now examine more closely, begins. For I read here év r# és, though
Griesbach, in his last edition too, has adhered to the common
reading. The evidence indeed appears to me to preponderate
considerably in favour of the former, which however this is not the
proper place to discuss; but superadded to this is the resemblance to
VIII. 1, whereas at 1X. 37 with the phrase év 77 £75 we find juéee
also expressed in all the manuscripts. At the same time the matter
itself adds peculiar weight to this side of the question. For as we
know from Matthew, that the incident immediately preceding the
healing of the servant took place on the occasion of a new entrance
into Capernaum, it is in the highest degree improbable that Christ
should the next day again have quitted his place of abode, which
was also that of many of the apostles, where there must have been
a variety of affairs for them to transact, and have set out on his way
to Jerusalem. Let us therefore ascribe this expression 2 ro é&£ys,
with which the detached narrative could not begin, to the compiler
who assigned to it its present place. The whole piece contains three
sections, the raising of the widow’s son, John’s message, and the
Pharisee’s entertainment, the union of which in one whole may
appear perplexing. A connexion indeed might be supposed to be
indicated between the first two, inasmuch as the message seems to
 106 ~ VIL. 14—50. be founded on what John heard of J
esus, which several commentators accordingly refer to this raising
from the dead, whereof the fame had spread as far as Judea, on the
frontier of which John was confined. But this is very improbable.
‘The first narrative has all the air of proceeding from an eye-witness;
now even if this person accompanied Jesus still farther, and was also
an eyewitness of the following incident, still he could scarcely have
any reason for referring these messengers, who, according to the
above mentioned supposition, could not certainly have arrived within
a fortnight afterwards (an interval in which many other remarkable
occurrences must have happened) to that particular fact. Nor ought
he in that case to have expressed this particular reference by the
words ze) ravrwy vovrwy. Should we now allow this phrase sufficient
weight to destroy our whole view, and say that ze, xavrwv rovrw
refers to all the miraculous acts hitherto performed by Christ, still
even this would not be sufficient, as the miraculous is so scattered
over our Gospel and blended with other matter, and as on turning
back we find almost immediately the long discourse, and not
miraculous facts. We are therefore reduced at last to the
supposition, that this phrase is only another expression for
Matthew’s dxotcas ra eeya tod Xeierod, and thereby again entirely
lose the precise connexion with the preceding history. The Pharisee’s
feast, on the other hand, is subjoined to the
 VH. 11—s0 10 message in a perfectly simple manner,
without any distinct separation or distinct connexion. But one
relation of the three sections to each other readily presents itself;
John’s message is evidently the nucleus round which the other two
narratives coalesce. ‘The reporter is very anxious to refer the words
addressed to John’s disciples by Christ to that which he had been
doing just before. With this view he introduces the 21st verse, in
which he particularly notices the blind. But he could not say, in the
same manner, that Christ at that time had also raised many from the
dead, and this therefore might easily induce the reporter, if he was
in possession of that history of the miracle at Nain, to premise it, in
order to verify at least. the general assertion. In the same way, the
person who took down the narrative of the message, or one who
became owner of it, might be acquainted with no other instance of
Jesus having, in a stricter sense, proved himself a ¢idos duagrwawy,
and this might induce him to annex the ensuing history, in order to
shew the foundation of the charge which Christ puts into the mouth
of his adversaries. The former might also very well be the case with
our compiler, in the whole of whose materials no other instance
occurs of a raising from the dead ; and so perhaps he might be the
first who, in order to justify the assertion vex, éyeigovra, assigned
this place to the history of Nain, which he possessed by itself. In this
case the words xo) éryyyeiay were the ori 
 108 VII. 11—50. ginal beginning of the narrative of the
message, as it was rather awkwardly connected by some one with
general recollections which occurred to him, and were likely to occur
to every reader. And this same narrator, from the same motive which
gave rise to verse 21, might have annexed the history of the
anointing at the Pharisee’s feast, which follows almost immediately
after the description ¢idos reAwniv nal duacrwrwy. Whichever of
these suppositions is preferred, it is difficult to conceive any other
connexion between these three sections, and therefore no
chronological succession must be looked for here. But each of these
three several narratives is also too remarkable in respect to the
relation of our Gospel to the others, to permit us to proceed without
dwelling upon them a little longer. In the first place then, in the
history of the revival of the young man of Nain the most remarkable
circumstance is, that it appears in no other evangelist. Considering
the scanty number of instances of a restoration to life, and the
power which they could not fail to possess above all other miracles
of producing conviction, if we imagine the first propagators of
Christianity deliberating on a selection of passages from the life of
Jesus, which should be employed as proofs of his dignity as Messiah,
we must find it inconceivable, that this history and that of Lazarus
should not have been admitted among the first into the original
Gospel,
 SS VII. 11—30. 109 especially as the account of the
daughter of Jairus was admitted, from which the adversaries of
Christianity, when they still heard that the Christians boasted that
their Jesus had raised other persons from the dead, might be apt to
infer there was not much more in these instances than in the former,
in which Jesus himself expressly said, the maid was not dead, but
only slept. Or are we to say, that the confidential disciples neglected
this history because Jesus himself made no account of it, a false
report having in this instance been spread concerning him, as he
had not effected the return of life, but was only the first who
discovered that it had already returned. On a supposition so
extremely improbable, which can find within the whole range of
natural combinations no tenable ground, and is forced to give way
by every blow from whatever side it be struck, we will not seriously
dwell. The absence then of this history and. of that of Lazarus from
our Gospels cannot well be explained, if we imagine their original
common ground-work to have been a document framed for the
purpose of the ministry by the joint labour of the apostles, or even
only occasioned and sanctioned by them ; nay, dropping even the
notion of an original Gospel, and confining ourselves to our own
hypothesis, this phenomenon is difficult to comprehend, if we
suppose that the most intimate disciples of Jesus were, even in most
instances, the persons who either themselves first committed 5
 110 VII. 11—50. to writing the several incidents of his
history, or at least related them circumstantially for the purpose of
their being so recorded. For as to the raising of Lazarus, it is
sufficiently evident from John that none of the Twelve could have
been strangers to the occurrence, and in our narrative it would be
an utterly groundless and most unnatural construction, to say that of
wabyral adrod ixave} were all disciples of a less intimate class, and
that Jesus was not at the time accompanied by the Twelve ; a
supposition utterly improbable. Only under one view does the
omission of these incidents excite no surprize, but seem natural, that
is, ‘if we suppose that the first written accounts originated in the
efforts, and at the instance of persons, who, not personally
acquainted with Christ, and therefore not in the same sense his
contemporaries, sought for circumstantial accounts, and ‘aimed at
perpetuating by writing the voice of oral tradition before it died
away. For on the one hand these persons had less courage to apply
to the Apostles, who were busily engaged in the greater work of
preaching and propagating Christianity, except in particular cases on
an extraordinary inducement, and rather sought out friends and
hearers of the second class; on the other hand they of course
directed their researches principally to places from which they might
hope for the most abundant harvest, that is to Capernaum and
Jerusalem. At the latter place now the most recent
 VII. 11—50. iit occurrences naturally left the deepest
impression on the memory of men, and hence the portions of the
three Gospels which are common-to them consist chiefly of incidents
from. the different periods of Christ’s stay at Capernaum, and his
last stay at Jerusalem. What took place at other places could - not
so easily form a part of their common stock ; on the contrary,
instead of being surprized that we do not find it in all of them, we
have reason to be glad that each was fortunate enough to preserve
something of this sort. And the same cause have we to congratulate
ourselves on this history of Nain. As to the message of John’s two
disciples, the most interesting question for the point of view here
taken is, whether the narrative in our Gospel and that in Matthew
are originally different, or are . to be referred to one and the same?
for the decision of this question has no slight influence on the aspect
of the whole matter. If we have before us here two entirely
independent narratives of the same occurrence, we can scarcely help
considering both the address of the messengers and Jesus’s answer
as literally reported. But the coincidence in the speeches is here so
great, no thought being omitted or receiving a different turn except
where our narrative inserts something and afterwards where it
breaks off, that two reports so completely corresponding are highly
improbable. If this be so, then our narrative is evi 
 112 VII. 11—50. dently a re-modelling of the original,
which was preserved purer in Matthew. Our author wishing to
convey a lively image of the whole occurrence adds, at verse 20,
how the messengers come and discharge their commission. Then in
order to lay a foundation for Christ’s words, he relates, at verse 21,
that he had been just engaged in acts of healing ; and we must
conclude that he was not aware, from his own knowledge or the
reports of others, of many other instances in which Jesus had made
the blind to see, because he takes particular notice of thispoint. In
the same way, in order to explain Christ’s last words from verse 31,
he relates, verse 29-—-30, how the different classes of the nation
stood affected towards John and his doctrine. For I cannot prevail on
myself to consider these two verses, differing in tone so completely
as they do from that which precedes and that which follows them,
as a continuation of Christ’s discourse. The opposite view, that our
narrative is the original and Matthew’s on the other hand abridged,
is improbable for this reason, that in that case our narrator would
certainly have begun with verse 21. An immediate eye-witness will
scarcely describe in a parenthesis the whole scene which forms the
ground on which a particular incident is exhibited. Now since the
motive which led to the form adopted in our narrative is precisely
the same with that which caused the preceding history to be
connected with this, we can entertain no doubt
 VII. 11—50. 113 that both were one, that the person who
so remodelled this history also prefixed that which precedes, and
subjoined that which follows it. But this could not have been the
compiler of the whole ; for he, instead of writing at verse 29 and 30,
as if he had told us nothing of John’s history before, would have
referred to the former piece. But we may now ask farther, if verse 21
belongs only to the enlargement of our reporter who referred the
words of Jesus, a cere xa) qusvoare, to the immediate present, was
then Jesus at that time actually engaged in the act of healing ? Or is
this quite unnecessary, as indeed Matthew says nothing of it, and did
Jesus appeal only to that which they had it in their power to see at
all times, and hear of in every place through which he passed ? With
this is connected a second question, namely, whether if no more
than this was meant it was possible for Jesus, without assuming a
tone of exaggeration quite unsuitable and foreign to his character, to
use the expression vexpol éyelgovras, if it is to be understood in the
literal sense, and we do not choose to presume that many instances
of restoration to life occurred with which we are wholly
unacquainted ? The latter supposition is the more improbable,
because in those general summaries, which recur so often in
Matthew and Mark, wherein they mention all kinds of diseases and
demoniacal maladies, raising from the dead is nowhere mentioned
among the other miracles. Hence it 1
 114 VII. 11—50: is certainly probable, that these words are
to be taken in the figurative sense of spiritual death, as Jesus
unquestionably often used them, and the more, as the allusion to
Isaiah LXI. 1, in the words rvgao} dvatagrouci and trwyol
Zuwyyertfovreu, Which has been already remarked by others, but
which escaped the reporter in our Gospel, affixes to those words
also a figurative sense. Not that the rrwxo} must be exactly the poor
in spirit, but they who were not able to distinguish themselves in the
legal sense, the trrwy0) xard vowov xal nara mapddacw. ‘These
receive the tidings of the Gastrsia rod @c0d, which introduces a
different measure of spiritual worth. But are we to suppose Christ,
with an almost intolerable accumulation of metaphors, to have
spoken the words xwaol mecimarodor, Aerpoh xabapitovras and
xw¢gor dxovover also in the figurative sense? Certainly not ; either
these are amplifying additions, perhaps of the original narrator, who
may have introduced them in the place of some clauses which he
had forgotten, or Christ began by referring in proper terms to his
outward operation, and afterwards proceeded to describe the
impression which he had also produced on the minds of men, but
the expressions have been confounded by the narrator. In the same
way the words of the messengers may by abridgement have been
set in a false light. For John himself can scarcely have entertained a
doubt respecting Jesus’s character of Messiah, nor could he
compromise his own reiterated testimony by in
 VII. 11—50. 115 structing his doubting disciples to express
their doubts in his name. But here another difficulty presents itself. If
the occurrence took place when John was in prison, it is hardly
‘credible that the two disciples can in the strictest sense of the word
have been commissioned by John: For Josephus’s narrative leaves’no
doubt that the dread of sedition was either the real cause which
induced Herod to throw John into prison, or at least his pretext for
so doing, with which therefore he would at all events have been
obliged to act consistently ; and under these circumstances it is not
credible that his disciples should have had free access to him. But as
this may probably enough have been introduced by Matthew, for the
sake of conformity with his first mention of John’s confinement,
which is certainly premature, and as Christ gives the disciples an
answer directly for their master, I would rather believe they were
really sent by him, and that he was then still at liberty. And indeed
the manner in which Jesus afterwards speaks of John to the people
renders it improbable that he was in prison at the time. If then
according to this view we put a rather different construction on the
words 7 aAdroy reordsx0vey, and suppose the messengers to have
said, 7’hou art surely he who should come, and since thou doest
besides such great things, what should we any longer wait for 2?
ought not John with his whole authority forthwith to command by us
all 12
 116 VII. 11—50. who have been baptized by him to obey
thee as Messiah, and to wait upon thy bidding ? by this construction
we get rid of the strange appearance which the words now present,
as though the very miracles of Jesus had raised doubts in the minds
of John and his disciples, and the figurative part of Jesus’s speech
then evidently becomes the principal point. For in this he declares,
that the course which the cause has hitherto taken is the right one,
and that it ought to proceed in the same way without intermixture of
any thing foreign to it. Whether however the discourses which in
Matthew are subjoined to this, from XI. 20 to 24, er even to 30,
belong to this interview, I do not wish to decide. ‘That they are
wanting in our alteration is no proof of the negative, but the vére in
verse 20 and the 2éy éxcivw 70 naw in verse 25 are certainly none
of the affirmative, and other circumstances render it more probable
that they are discourses of later date, placed here, as is so
frequently the case in Matthew, on account of the similarity of
import. The third piece in this portion, the narrative of the Pharisee’s
entertainment, well repays the trouble of considering once more,
whether the incident is or is not the.same with that related Matthew
XXVI. 6—13, Mark XIV. 3—9, and John XII. 1—8. Are we, in a
narrative like this in our Gospel, which does not at all concern itself
about the locality, to consider the merely ineci
 Oh ite ee Ie ee VII. 11—50. 117 dental expression v 77
roasi, which only betrays, as every thing here does, a narrator who
learnt the affair at second hand and but incidentally, as a proof that
the incident could not have occurred in Bethany? Is it in itself
probable, that Christ should, two different times, and both at an
entertainment where the host’s name was Simon, have been
anointed by a woman, when no difference in the statement of place
and time forces us to suppose such a repetition? Is it probable, if
Christ had on a former occasion so decidedly defended the action,
that his disciples would a second time so decidedly have censured it
? Is it not more natural to suppose, that our narrative is only taken
in a different point of view, for which reason the discourse of Christ
with the Pharisee is here communicated, while the censure, which
the disciples may have uttered at the same time, is omitted ?
Matthew on the other hand evidently connects the occurrence with
the treachery of Judas, and for that reason omits that conversation.
John almost seems to have had before him both narratives, but as
his object is merely to correct them, he has no motive for
mentioning Christ’s discourse with the Pharisee; he only defends the
other disciples from the suspicion of having taken part in the
censure expressed by Judas, and the woman from that of being a
sinner in the common sense of the word. Nor in fact did Simon say
that she was so; the reporter only inferred it from the manner in
which
 118 VIL. 11—-50. Jesus notices the unuttered thoughts of
his host, and afterwards ends by announcing to the woman — lerself
the forgiveness of her sins. If then, in reading our narrative, we
conceive that part which is only the narrator’s opinion omitted, we
may as easily conceive that Simon only took offence at the
extraordinary respect shown to his guest, whereas he himself seems
to have invited him only because he could not decently avoid it. Nor
does it follow from Christ’s words, that the woman was a sinner in
the common sense of the word; for all that Jesus says is, that her
action arose out of a fulness of genuine reverential attachment. Now
if she was, as John informs us, the sister of Lazarus, a person who
had been for a considerable time on terms of intimacy with Christ,
he might very well address her, with a particular allusion quite
unknown to us, in the words d¢éwrral co ai dwagrias, which to most
of the persons present who were acquainted with Mary would be
unintelligible, but at the same time would excite in them no
suspicion, and yet might afterwards give occasion to this
misunderstanding, when the story was told to one, to whom the
narrator believed it to be immaterial who this woman was, And
precisely some such person appears to have reported it in this
passage, with this natural but certainly not quite accurate
supplement. But as this is exactly the same sort of comment and
supplement which the preceding history of the message from John
under
 VII. 11—350. 119 went here, we have in this circumstance
an additional confirmation of the conjecture, that both in their
present form flowed from the same pen, and that the expression
¢idos dpagrwawy was the occasion of their connexion. A striking
resemblance in manner is also visible in the circumstance, that here
verse 38 is formed out of.the words of Jesus in verse 44, just as
verse 21 above out of verse 22, and just so has the reporter derived
Simon’s thoughts, verse 39, from verses 47 and 48. Is it indeed
probable, that a Pharisee of reputation, at a great entertainment,
should have allowed a person justly infamous throughout the town
access to the room where he received his guests? If then the
criminality attributed to the woman in our narrative is only an
erroneous supposition of a later reporter *, there is no farther
reason why she should not have been the sister of Lazarus. On the
contrary, in order to explain the whole scene, we require precisely
such a supposition, that the person who could undertake and
accomplish an action of this kind, without either being repulsed and
forced to retire in a mortifying manner, or appearing per* An
inference, as it appears to me not better founded, from the words of
Christ, @ 6 cAiyoy dgieras, oAryoy ayamg, is Paulus’s conjecture,
that Christ had healed the Pharisee of a slight bodily complaint,
though upon our supposition it might with great plausibility be
added, that it was a slighter kind of leprosy, since in the other
narratives the host is called Limwy 6 Aewpes.
 120 VII. 11—50. fectly extravagant and ridiculous, must on
the one hand have had a right to be there and near the company,
and on the other have been known beforehand to stand on terms of
intimacy with Christ. And the more improbable is it that a similar
incident should have taken place a second time. The narrative in
Matthew moreover seems to be also from a second hand, unless we
should suppose that there was a kind of general agreement to
preserve silence for a certain time on incidents relating to the family
of Lazarus. And thus we have here at the same time one of the most
remarkable and instructive instances of the corrections of the other
evangelists, which are really found in John; though it does not follow
in respect to our evangelist, that John must have had the whole of
his Gospel before him, of which he need not have been acquainted
with more than this little piece. | Finally, I would also deduce from
this narrative an additional proof, that if an original Gospel existed, it
was unknown, at least as such, to the compiler of our Gospel, which
would at all events, to say no more, render Eichhorn’s construction
of that original document inadmissible. In fact, supposing even that
the narrative in Matthew comes from a second hand, yet the words
of Christ reported by him, XXVI. 13, are certainly genuine. No one in
the first place would have invented them, except perhaps a friend of
the family
 VIII. 1—21. 121 at Bethany, and he would then certainly
not have omitted the name of the woman; but surely no one of the
genuine apostolical school would have ventured to invent such
words. If then Christ spoke them, they contain the most distinct
direction to admit this passage of his history above all others into
such a work. This incident therefore must have had a place in the
original Gospel ; and is it conceivable that the words of Christ, by
which this very place was secured to it, were omitted ? And would
Luke then have hesitated, even if he considered the transaction here
‘stated as the same, to admit also these striking words of Christ,
which he might without much alteration as easily have inserted at
the end of Christ’s discourse to the Pharisee, or even at the end of
the whole narrative, after the words "ogevou eis cioyvyv? J take this
to be as good a proof as can in such cases be adduced, that Luke,
as the author of our Gospel, had not before him nor was acquainted
with the original Gospel, nor with those of Matthew or Mark in their
present state. We have already discussed the reasons for which the
following narrative, VIII. 1—21, must be considered as a separate
whole, with which what has preceded cannot have been originally
connected ; but it likewise presents some remarkable points. There
was unquestionably more to be related of this journey, and indeed
the words cundvrwy 32 dyAwy mohawy are inserted without any
designation of time,
 122 VIII. 1—21. and can only be taken to mean, When
once upon this journey a great multitude had assembled. From this
single instance then we see that the original detached narratives had
not always for their subject certain days, or other definite periods,
but that frequently from a number even of remarkable incidents a
few particulars were selected with some design or other and
committed to writing, no notice being taken of the rest. The design
of the present narrative, if we compare the beginning and end,
cannot remain doubtful ; it is to celebrate that company which
attended Jesus and ministered to him, and undoubtedly also those
women whose names are mentioned ; and this is effected partly by
drawing a comparison between them and his natural kindred, to
whom he preferred them as his spiritual kindred, and partly by
applying to them the parable of the sower, who in them found the
good ground, which keeps the word when heard, and brings forth
fruit. This being the sole scope of the narrative, all particular
circumstances, the locality and details of that sort, are of course
omitted, and much even might have passed between the parable
and its explanation, which our narrator would have had no
inducement to mention. This is confirmed by comparing Matthew
and Mark on this head. Both of them, Matthew XII. 46—50; Mark
III. 31—35, relate the answer concerning Jesus’s relatives
immediately after that healing of the demoniac which
 VIII. 1—21. 123 in Luke is recorded afterwards, on
occasion of which Jesus is charged by some with casting out devils
by means of the devil, by others again is asked for a sign; but in
both evangelists the parable of the sower follows immediately after
the answer, and Matthew subjoins it with the definite phrase éy
éxcivn ri yu2ea. If we add now that this same narrator, whom Mark
though without determining the day exactly follows here, represents
the parable as spoken at the lake, where Jesus certainly could not
enter into so private a conversation with his disciples as that in
which he explains to them the parable, and that Matthew, in relating
how the relatives of Jesus were announced to him, uses the words
Zw éoryxaci, from which it must be inferred that he was within doors
at the time; if we take this into consideration it will be necessary, in
order to reconcile the two narratives, to set out from these two
points, that our narrative is not inconsistent with the fact that the
miracle wrought on the demoniac and the discourse it occasioned
took place on the same day, but that at the same time Jesus’s
answer derives its proper clearness and dignity from that reference
to the parable which in our narrative is manifestly ascribed to it.
Matthew's narrative therefore apparently introduces the parable too
late, because the miracle and the conversation connected with it
were most present to his mind. That the parable notwithstanding oc

 124 VIII. 1—21. curred to him, and that he subjoined it, is
most easily explained by supposing that the explanation of the
parable was given after that answer of Jesus, when the people to
whom he was then still speaking had dispersed. Our narrator on the
other hand we must suppose not only to have omitted the incidents
which were foreign to his purpose, and to have passed over the
change of place as an immaterial circumstance, especially as he had
not assigned any place at all, but also to have anticipated the
explanation of the parable, that he might be able to conclude with
Jesus’s answer and that the answer might be completely intelligible
to every reader, which proceeding must be acknowledged to be
perfectly adapted to his purpose. The best way then of conceiving
the transaction is to represent to ourselves Jesus going forth in the
morning to the lake, and there—of course among other things and in
the progress of a longer discourse—delivering the parable of the
sower. As he enters into some place quite unknown to us, for the
incident must have occurred on a journey and not in Capernaum,
the blind and dumb demoniac (if we choose to adopt both these
circumstances from Matthew) is brought to him ; he heals him; and
now arises among the accompanying multitude, on the one hand the
wish for a heavenly sign, and on the other the suspicion of a
diabolical power possessed by Jesus, from which one should be
alinost inclined to conclude that it
 VIII. 1—21. 125 was a place which then for the first time
experienced his miraculous power. Jesus discourses on this subject,
partly as he proceeds through the town, partly in the house
designed for his reception. While he is yet speaking his relatives are
announced to him, and, his mind still occupied with the discourse
which he had delivered by the lake, he gives the answer which is the
point of our narrative, and which our narrator alone has taken in the
right sense. Upon this the multitude disperses, the sooner perhaps
for hearing of this very reply ; Jesus finds himself alone with his
disciples, and on their inquiry explains to them the parable. In this
way the whole is perfectly consistent, and I think no one can
hesitate, on considering all the circumstances, to admit this
connexion of the facts to be more natural than that exhibited by
Paulus. But the relation which the two narratives bear to each other
is evidently to be explained neither from an original Gospel, nor by
supposing Luke to have had Matthew before him, or the reverse.
There is no greater agreement between Luke and Matthew either in
the parable or its exposition, than might naturally be presented by
two perfectly independent reporters, in an image which so readily
and so vividly imprints itself on the memory, and the difference of
arrangement indicates any thing rather than an original common
source. On the contrary it is obvious that we are indebted for our
 126 VIII. 1—21. narrative, with its remarkable fact of the
ministering women, to some private connexion which cannot now be
ascertained. Even in Matthew I should be inclined to deny the view
of combining together the occurrences of one day; the narrator’s
view was directed to that part of the day of which no notice is taken
in our narrative. The parable only oceurred to him afterwards, and to
it he subjoins in his usual manner several which were certainly not
spoken at the same time. This appears to me evident from XIII. 36,
where Jesus sends the people away and goes into the house. For it
was certainly impossible, notwithstanding what Paulus says, that
Jesus could explain the parable of the sower to his disciples in the
manner he does, in the presence of the people; this therefore was
certainly another dismission after another assembling of the people.
Andindeed not only does the expression xwe!s mapaBorys ov
rhaéaci adrois, of which Paulus gives a rather elaborate explanation,
and the quotation connected with it, evidently betray a
misapprehension of the words of Christ previously reported, and a
second hand, whether it be that of the compiler or an earlier one,
but the conclusion also of this whole collection of parables, verses
51, 52, sounds very strange. Hence I cannot allow so much weight
to the phrase in Matthew XIII. 53, nat eyevero, dre eredecev 0
Iycods ras mapaBords Favras, [esripev exsidev, aS to believe, that
what there follows is still immediately conuected with that which
 VU. 1—21. 127 precedes it. That connexion was certainly
interrupted at verse 24. It might otherwise be very convenient to
say, that Jesus by no means neglected his relatives, as his answer
would lead one to suppose, but that he really set out directly after
for Nazareth, where the incident which Luke has already related
soon occurred. This, as I have said, would for.the moment be
convenient enough, but it might not improbably be found
exceptionable in the sequel, and I would not therefore build on so
slight a foundation ; especially as no place was previously
designated in Matthew, and there is therefore nothing to which
¢xcilev can be referred. Whereas if the narrative were strictly
coherent, the narrator could not but have known also where the
preceding incidents occurred, and would have mentioned it, as he
states the place here, either before or in this same passage. How
too are we to extricate ourselves between Matthew and Mark, if the
latter lays the same claim to historical connexion, and _ yet makes
the passage across the lake take place on the same day, IV. 35? In
Mark’s strange addition, III. 21—for strange it still appears to me, in
whatever way it be understood and qualified—I would not seek any
discovery of the relation then subsisting between Jesus and his
kinsfolk. Nor should I be inclined to suppose any communication on
that subject from Peter, which would certainly have been more
definite, or would not have been miade at all, if the mother of Jesus
 128 VIII. 22—56. had really suffered herself to become an
instrument in the hands of hisenemies. This addition belongs
undoubtedly tothe number of the accumulations and exaggerations
which are so very common with Mark, both in the introductions to
the several incidents of his Gospel, and in the general statements
which he occasionally inserts to fill up a chasm. And perhaps this will
become fully evident, as soon as we attempt to explain how Mark
came to omit here the healing of the demoniac, which, according to
the concurring testimony of Matthew and Luke, gave the first
occasion to the report that Jesus himself had a devil. But this would
lead us too far from our present subject. That verse 22 must be
considered as the beginning of a new narrative, and cannot have
been written in connexion with that which precedes it, has been
already intimated. The phrase itself év mad viv iwepdiv proves this.
Otherwise a phrase must have been used, which would either have
distinctly affirmed, or distinctly denied, the incident to have taken
place during the journey performed with the company so distinctly
described above. But perhaps the determination of the other end of
this narrative may require to be more circumstantially justified. In
fact it might be asked, since three occurrences are here related, _ of
which moreover the first two have a more definite conclusion than
the last, why the remainder of this chapter is not considered as
consisting of
 VIII. 22-—56. 129 three originally distinct narratives, or the
beginning of the following chapter is not included in the same series.
This possible objection gives me a wished-for opportunity of
explaining more precisely what I mean with respect to these forms
of conclusion, and in what cases they designate the end of an
originally separate piece, and in what not. The description of the
impression produced by the laying of the storm at verse 25 is
certainly a return from the particular to the general, and so far
marks the end of this particular incident. But as in the sequel the
thread is evidently resumed, and the landing on the shore of Gadara
is described as a continuation of the same passage, dyrmepay in
verse 26 unquestionably referring to eis ro wegay in Verse 22, it
follows that the description in verse 25 is only a partial conclusion,
after which the same narrative proceeds to a new incident. The
same holds with respect to the end of the second incident; for that
the healed man complied with Jesus’s command, is a description of a
subsequent event which interrupts the immediate connexion, and
with which, if this occurence had been related by itself, the narrative
would undoubtedly conclude. But in the sequel the thread is
resumed; for ¢v ro imooreivas:, at verse 40, evidently refers to avris
8... vrerrgevev, verse 37. These three incidents then were originally
interwoven in one and the same narrative ; many other things
indeed may have occurred during K
 130 VIII. 22—56. this excursion, but certainly nothing
which our reporter, who seems to speak quite in the tone of a
spectator, witnessed, and thought worthy of a place by the side of
the transactions here recorded. Hence also, by the way, I cannot
believe, that after the return to the Galilean side any other miracle
or other important occurrence, such as the entertainment at the
Pharisee’s house, preceded the restoration of Jairus’s daughter to life
; for the words joav yao wavres mpocdoxwyres avrov: nal idov zt. A.
betray too clearly that this was the first remarkable incident. To me
at least this seems a circumstance which may be more safely relied
on, than the phrase raira adroi Aadoivres durois in Matthew IX. 18,
definite as it apparently is, considering that even the most definite of
this kind are not unfrequently misemployed by that Evangelist. And I
am the more inclined to suppose such a misapplication in this case
also, as the expression éyepels in verse 19 seems to involve the
wholly inadmissible notion, that the conversation with the Pharisees,
which Luke has also related above at V. 30-—39, took place during
the entertainment itself.—That the original narrative which we are
here examining does not extend beyond the end of the present
chapter, I infer principally from this, that in the following narrative,
as in the preceding, all the parts are closely connected, partly by
internal references, partly, where these are wanting, by an exact
determination of the time, as at
 ae VIL. 22—56. 131] IX. 28 and 37. If then both narratives
formed one original whole, the words cvyxarsoapéves 32 rods
dudexx would unquestionably, according to the same law, have been
better connected, either by a distinct reference to what had
preceded, as is the case in the narrative we have been considering,
or by a determination of the time, as in the ensuing narrative; the
introducing them without a link, under these circumstances, most
clearly betrays an interstice. As to the narrative itself, VIII. 22—56, it
betrays the eye-witness from beginning to end by its unreserved
explicitness, and vivid mode of representation, but yet it does not
explain to us the object of this passage of Jesus and his disciples to
the eastern shore of the lake. None but a person, whose sole
purpose was to relate the incidents of this passage unconnected
with any thing farther, could entirely avoid mentioning its object ; a
biographer and one who was enlarging an original Gospel already
existing and pervaded by a thread, which it was of course necessary
to retain, would have intimated it had it been by never so slight an
allusion. At the same time one might be almost led to conclude from
our narrative, that Jesus on this occasion had no particular object in
view. If he had meant to make a journey for the purposes of his
ministry, and was prepared with his followers for that purpose, why
should the deprecating intreaties of the K 2
 132 VIII. 22—56. _ people in the neighbourhood of Gadara
—for only these are mentioned in our narrative, nor could any but
these have assembled within so short a time, if Christ, as is most
probable, landed about midway on the eastern shore near the
northern extremity of the district of Gadara—why should those
intreaties have induced him to abandon all farther attempts on the
eastern shore, when he could not even infer from their reception of
him that which he might meet with in the town, and the road
besides was open to him both northward and southward? For that
he should have allowed so much weight to an inauspicious sign, is a
supposition quite inadmissible. The intention which Matthew
attributes to him, of escaping from the people, VIII. 18, is also
improbable, for in that case, instead of landing at the same spot,
and it seems evident that he set out from Capernaum and_ returned
to it, he would have directed his course towards some other quarter,
in order to withdraw for a longer period from the people. The easiest
way of conceiving the whole occurrence is to imagine that the
disciples had gone out in the boat to fish, that Jesus accompanied
them—for why should he have always let the time so spent be lost
for their instruction and the exertion of his whole influence on them
?—-and that it was only during the passage, that the thought of
visiting the opposite shore occurred to him, which is very consistent
with our narrative. In this way we un