iii. 21 it is the feast which the Lord will celebrate with His

followers; in vii. 16, 17 there is an allusion to the Lamb who shall feed His own so that they shall no more hunger or thirst; chapter xix. describes the marriage feast of the Lamb.

The Messianic feast therefore played a dominant part in the conception of blessedness from Enoch to the Apocalypse of John. From this we can estimate what sacramental significance a guarantee of taking part in that feast must have had. The meaning of the celebration was obvious in itself, and was made manifest in the conduct of it. The sacramental effect was wholly independent of the apprehension and comprehension of the recipient. Therefore, in this also the meal at the lake‐side was a true sacrament.

291 Weisse rightly remarks that the task of the historian in dealing with Mark must consist in explaining how such “myths” could be accepted by a chronicler who stood so relatively near the events as our Mark does.

292 It is to be noticed that the cry of Jesus from the cross, “Eli, Eli,” was immediately interpreted by the bystanders as referring to Elias.

293 From this difficulty we can see, too, how impossible it was for any of them to have “arrived gradually at the knowledge of the Messiahship of Jesus.”

294 For the hypothesis of the two sets of narratives which have been worked into one another, see the “Sketch of the Life of Jesus,” 1901, p. 52 ff., “After the Mission of the Disciples. Literary and historical problems.” A theory resting on the same principle was lately worked out in detail by Johannes Weiss, _Das älteste Evangelium_ (The Earliest Gospel), 1903, p. 205 ff.

295 It is typical of the constant agreement of the critical conclusions in thoroughgoing scepticism and thoroughgoing eschatology that Wrede also observes: “The transfiguration and Peter’s confession are closely connected in content” (p. 123). He also clearly perceives the inconsistency in the fact that Peter at Caesarea Philippi gives evidence of possessing a knowledge which he and his fellow‐disciples do not show elsewhere (p. 119), but the fact that it is Peter, not Jesus, who reveals the Messianic secret, constitutes a very serious difficulty for Wrede’s reading of the facts, since this assumes Jesus to have been the revealer of it.

296 “After these years shall my Son, the Christ, die, together with all who have the breath of men. Then shall the Age be changed into the primeval silence; seven days, as at the first beginning so that no man shall be left. After seven days shall the Age, which now sleeps, awake, and perishability shall itself perish.”

297 Difficult problems are involved in the prediction of the resurrection in Mark xiv. 28. Jesus there promises His disciples that He will “go before them” into Galilee. That cannot mean that He will go alone into Galilee before them, and that they shall there meet with Him, their risen Master; what He contemplates is that He shall return _with_ them, at their head, from Jerusalem to Galilee. Was it that the manifestation of the Son of Man and of the Judgment should take place there? So much is clear: the saying, far from directing the disciples to go away to Galilee, chains them to Jerusalem, there to await Him who should lead them home. It should not therefore be claimed as supporting the tradition of the Galilaean appearances.

We find it “corrected” by the saying of the “young man” at the grave, who says to the women, “Go, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee. There shall ye see Him as He said unto you.”

Here then the idea of following in point of time is foisted upon the words “he goeth before you,” whereas in the original the word has a purely local sense, corresponding to the καὶ ἦν προάγων αὐτοὺς ὁ Ιησοῦς in Mark x. 32.

But the correction is itself meaningless since the visions took place in Jerusalem. We have therefore in this passage a more detailed indication of the way in which Jesus thought of the events subsequent to His Resurrection. The interpretation of this unfulfilled saying is, however, wholly impossible for us: it was not less so for the earliest tradition, as is shown by the attempt to give it a meaning by the “correction.”

298 Here it is evident also from the form taken by the prophecy of the sufferings that the section Mark viii. 34 ff. cannot possibly come after the revelation at Caesarea Philippi, since in it, it is the thought of the general sufferings which is implied. For the same reason the predictions of suffering and tribulation in the Synoptic Apocalypse in Mark xiii. cannot be derived from Jesus.

299 Weisse and Bruno Bauer had long ago pointed out how curious it was that Jesus in the sayings about His sufferings spoke of “many” instead of speaking of “His own” or “the believers.” Weisse found in the words the thought that Jesus died for the nation as a whole; Bruno Bauer that the “for many” in the words of Jesus was derived from the view of the later theology of the Christian community. This explanation is certainly wrong, for so soon as the words of Jesus come into any kind of contact with early theology the “many” disappear to give place to the “believers.” In the Pauline words of institution the form is: My body for you (1 Cor. xi. 24).

Johannes Weiss follows in the footsteps of Weisse when he interprets the “many” as the nation (_Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes_, 2nd ed., 1909, p. 201). He gives however, quite a false turn to this interpretation by arguing that the “many” cannot include the disciples, since they “who in faith and penitence have received the tidings of the Kingdom of God no longer need a special means of deliverance such as this.” They are the chosen, to them the Kingdom is assured. But a ransom, a special means of salvation, is needful for the mass of the people, who in their blindness have incurred the guilt of rejecting the Messiah. For this grave sin, which is, nevertheless, to some extent excused as due to ignorance, there is a unique atoning sacrifice, the death of the Messiah.

This theory is based on a distinction of which there is no hint in the teaching of Jesus; and it takes no account of the predestinarianism which is an integral part of eschatology, and which, in fact, dominated the thoughts of Jesus. The Lord is conscious that He dies only for the elect. For others His death can avail nothing, nor even their own repentance. Moreover, He does not die in order that this one or that one may come into the Kingdom of God; He provides the atonement in order that the Kingdom itself may come. Until the Kingdom comes even the elect cannot possess it.

300 One might use it as a principle of division by which to classify the lives of Jesus, whether they make Him go to Jerusalem to work or to die. Here as in so many other places Weisse’s clearness of perception is surprising. Jesus’ journey was according to him a pilgrimage to death, not to the Passover.

301 “That ye enter not into temptation” is the content of the prayer that they are to offer while watching with Him.

302 As long ago as 1880, H. W. Bleby (_The Trial of Jesus considered as a Judicial Act_) had emphasised this circumstance as significant. The injustice in the trial of Jesus consisted, according to him, in the fact that He was condemned on His own admission without any witnesses being called. Dalman, it is true, will not admit that this technical error was very serious.

But the really important point is not whether the condemnation was legal or not; it is the significant fact that the High Priest called no witnesses. Why did he not call any? This question was obscured for Bleby and Dalman by other problems.

303 That would have been to utter a heresy which would alone have sufficed to secure His condemnation. It would certainly have been brought up as a charge against Him.

304 When it is assumed that the Messianic claims of Jesus were generally known during those last days at Jerusalem there is a temptation to explain the absence of witnesses in regard to them by supposing that they were too much a matter of common knowledge to require evidence. But in that case why should the High Priest not have fulfilled the prescribed formalities? Why make such efforts first to establish a different charge? Thus the obscure and unintelligible procedure at the trial of Jesus becomes in the end the clearest proof that the public knew nothing of the Messiahship of Jesus.