[1402] Deeply as we appreciate the beauty of Keim's remarks about the character and views of John, we feel only the more that such a man could not have taken the public position nor made such public proclamation of the Kingdom as at hand, without a direct and objective call to it from God. The treatment of John's earlier history by Keim is, of course, without historical basis.
[1403] The year from Tishri (autumn) 779 to Tishri 780 was a Sabbatic year. Comp. the evidence in Wieseler, Synopse d. Evang. pp. 204, 205.
[1404] We read of three places where John baptized: the wilderness of Judæa' - probably the traditional site near Jericho; Ænon, near Salim, on the boundary between Samaria and Judæa (Conder's Handbook of the Bible, p. 320); and Beth-Abara, the modern Abarah, one of the main Jordan fords, a little north of Beisân' (u. s.).
[1405] It is one of the merits of Lieut. Conder to have identified the site of Beth-Abara. The word probably means the house of passage' (fords), but may also mean the house of shipping,' the word Abarah in Hebrew meaning ferryboat,' 2 Sam. xix. 18. The reading Bethania instead of Bethabara seems undoubtedly the original one, only the word must not be derived (as by Mr. Conder, whose explanations and comments are often untenable), from the province Batanea, but explained as Beth-Oniyah, the house of shipping.' (See Lücke, Comment. u. d. Evang. Joh. i. pp. 392. 393.).
[1406] St. John i. 28.
[1407] Considerable probability attaches to the tradition of the Basilideans, that our Lord's Baptism took place on the 6th or 10th of January. (See Bp. Ellicott's Histor. Lect. on the Life of our Lord Jesus Christ, p. 105, note 2.
[1408] St. John i. 33.
[1409] The superficial objection on the supposed discrepancy between St. Matthew iii. 14 and St. John i. 33 has been well put aside by Bp. Ellicott (u. s. p. 107, note).
[1410] Comp. Nicholson, Gospel according to the Hebrews, pp. 38, 92, 93.
[1411] It would occupy too much space to give the names of the authors of these theories. The views of Godet come nearest to what we regard as the true explanation.
[1412] I must here, once for all, express my astonishment that a book so frivolous and fantastic in its treatment of the Life of Jesus, and so superficial and often inaccurate, should have excited so much public attention.
[1413] But the latter must be firmly upheld.
[1414] St. Luke iii. 21.
[1415] The account by St. Luke seems to me to include both. The common objection on the score of the supposed divergence between St. John and the Synoptists is thus met.
[1416] The expression diekluen (St. Matt iii. 14: John forbade Him') implies earnest resistance (comp. Meyer ad locum).
[1417] St. Luke iii. 21.
[1418] It seems to me that the prayer which the Lord taught His disciples must have had its root in, and taken its start from, His own inner Life. At the same time it is adapted to our wants. Much in that prayer has, of course, no application to Him, but is His application of the doctrine of the Kingdom to our state and wants.
[1419] Whether or not we adopt the reading es atn in St. Mark i. 10, the remaining of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus is clearly expressed in St. John i. 32.
[1420] 1 St. Pet. iii. 21.
[1421] Here the Targum on Ps. ii. 7, which is evidently intended to weaken the Messianic interpretation, gives us welcome help. It paraphrases: Beloved as a son to his father art Thou to Me.' Keim regards the words, Thou art my beloved Son,' &c., as a mixture of Is. xlii. 1 and Ps. ii. 7. I cannot agree with this view, though this history is the fulfilment of the prediction in Isaiah.
[1422] St. John i. 34.