Ebooks File in Situ Electron Microscopy Applications in Physics Chemistry and Materials Science 1st Edition Gerhard Dehm All Chapters

Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.
com
In situ Electron Microscopy Applications in

Physics Chemistry and Materials Science 1st
Edition Gerhard Dehm
https://textbookfull.com/product/in-situ-electron-
microscopy-applications-in-physics-chemistry-and-
materials-science-1st-edition-gerhard-dehm/
Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
Time resolved electron diffraction for chemistry biology

and materials science 1st Edition Anatoli A Ischenko
https://textbookfull.com/product/time-resolved-electron-diffraction-
for-chemistry-biology-and-materials-science-1st-edition-anatoli-a-
ischenko/
textbookfull.com
Ultrasonic Spectroscopy Applications in Condensed Matter

Physics and Materials Science 1st Edition Robert G.
Leisure
https://textbookfull.com/product/ultrasonic-spectroscopy-applications-
in-condensed-matter-physics-and-materials-science-1st-edition-robert-
g-leisure/
textbookfull.com
Physics and Chemistry of Carbon-Based Materials: Basics

and Applications Yoshihiro Kubozono
https://textbookfull.com/product/physics-and-chemistry-of-carbon-
based-materials-basics-and-applications-yoshihiro-kubozono/
textbookfull.com
Information Theoretic Security 8th International

Conference ICITS 2015 Lugano Switzerland May 2 5 2015
Proceedings 1st Edition Anja Lehmann
https://textbookfull.com/product/information-theoretic-security-8th-
international-conference-icits-2015-lugano-switzerland-
may-2-5-2015-proceedings-1st-edition-anja-lehmann/
textbookfull.com
Writing the Holy Land: The Franciscans of Mount Zion and
the Construction of a Cultural Memory, 1300–1550 Michele
Campopiano
https://textbookfull.com/product/writing-the-holy-land-the-
franciscans-of-mount-zion-and-the-construction-of-a-cultural-
memory-1300-1550-michele-campopiano/
textbookfull.com
Modeling and Simulation of Invasive Applications and

Architectures Sascha Roloff
https://textbookfull.com/product/modeling-and-simulation-of-invasive-
applications-and-architectures-sascha-roloff/
textbookfull.com
How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the

Big Screen Brian C. Baer
https://textbookfull.com/product/how-he-man-mastered-the-universe-toy-
to-television-to-the-big-screen-brian-c-baer/
textbookfull.com
Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering Future

Information Technology Volume 2 1st Edition James J. (Jong
Hyuk) Park
https://textbookfull.com/product/advanced-multimedia-and-ubiquitous-
engineering-future-information-technology-volume-2-1st-edition-james-
j-jong-hyuk-park/
textbookfull.com
Building Tools with GitHub Customize Your Workflow 1st

Edition Chris Dawson
https://textbookfull.com/product/building-tools-with-github-customize-
your-workflow-1st-edition-chris-dawson/
textbookfull.com
Shotgun's (B)Ride (Men of Valor MC) 1st Edition Frankie
Love [Love
https://textbookfull.com/product/shotguns-bride-men-of-valor-mc-1st-
edition-frankie-love-love/
textbookfull.com
Edited by
Gerhard Dehm, James M. Howe,
and Josef Zweck
In-situ Electron Microscopy

Related Titles
Van Tendeloo, G., Van Dyck, D.,

García, R.
Pennycook, S. J. (Eds.)
Amplitude Modulation Atomic
Handbook of Nanoscopy
Force Microscopy
2012
2010
Hardcover
Hardcover
ISBN: 978-3-527-31706-6
ISBN: 978-3-527-40834-4
Tsukruk, V. V., Singamaneni, S.

Codd, S., Seymour, J. D. (Eds.)
Scanning Probe Microscopy
Magnetic Resonance Microscopy
of Soft Matter
Spatially Resolved NMR Techniques
Fundamentals and Practices
and Applications
2012
2009
Hardcover
Hardcover
ISBN: 978-3-527-32743-0
ISBN: 978-3-527-32008-0
Baró, A. M., Reifenberger, R. G. (Eds.)

Stokes, D.
Atomic Force Microscopy in Liquid
Principles and Practice of
Biological Applications Variable Pressure
2012
Environmental Scanning Electron
Hardcover Microscopy (VP-ESEM)
2009
ISBN: 978-3-527-32758-4
Hardcover
Bowker, M., Davies, P. R. (Eds.) ISBN: 978-0-470-06540-2
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy

in Surface Science
2010
Hardcover
ISBN: 978-3-527-31982-4
Edited by
Gerhard Dehm, James M. Howe,
and Josef Zweck
In-situ Electron Microscopy
Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science

The Editors All books published by Wiley-VCH are carefully
produced. Nevertheless, authors, editors, and pub-
Prof. Dr. Gerhard Dehm lisher do not warrant the information contained in
Montanuniversität Leoben these books, including this book, to be free of errors.
Dept. Materialphysik Readers are advised to keep in mind that statements,
Jahnstr. 12 data, illustrations, procedural details or other items
8700 Leoben may inadvertently be inaccurate.
Austria
Library of Congress Card No.: applied for
Prof. Dr. James M. Howe British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

University of Virginia A catalogue record for this book is available from the
Dept. of Mat. Science & Engin. British Library.
116 Engineer's Way
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4745 Bibliographic information published by
USA the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publica-
Prof. Dr. Josef Zweck tion in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed
Universität Regensburg bibliographic data are available on the Internet at
Fak. für Physik http://dnb.d-nb.de.
93040 Regensburg
Germany # 2012 Wiley-VCH Verlag & Co. KGaA,
Boschstr. 12, 69469 Weinheim, Germany
All rights reserved (including those of translation

into other languages). No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form – by photoprinting, micro-
film, or any other means – nor transmitted or trans-
lated into a machine language without written
permission from the publishers. Registered names,
trademarks, etc. used in this book, even when not
specifically marked as such, are not to be considered
unprotected by law.
Cover Design Adam-Design, Weinheim

Typesetting Thomson Digital, Noida, India
Printing and Binding Strauss GmbH, Mörlenbach
Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany

Printed on acid-free paper
Print ISBN: 978-3-527-31973-2

ePDF ISBN: 978-3-527-65219-8
ePub ISBN: 978-3-527-65218-1
mobi ISBN: 978-3-527-65217-4
oBook ISBN: 978-3-527-65216-7
V
Contents
List of Contributors XIII

Preface XVII
Part I Basics and Methods 1
1 Introduction to Scanning Electron Microscopy 3

Christina Scheu and Wayne D. Kaplan
1.1 Components of the Scanning Electron Microscope 4
1.1.1 Electron Guns 6
1.1.2 Electromagnetic Lenses 9
1.1.3 Deflection System 13
1.1.4 Electron Detectors 13
1.1.4.1 Everhart–Thornley Detector 13
1.1.4.2 Scintillator Detector 15
1.1.4.3 Solid-State Detector 16
1.1.4.4 In-Lens or Through-the-Lens Detectors 16
1.2 Electron–Matter Interaction 16
1.2.1 Backscattered Electrons (BSEs) 20
1.2.2 Secondary Electrons (SEs) 22
1.2.3 Auger Electrons (AEs) 25
1.2.4 Emission of Photons 25
1.2.4.1 Emission of X-Rays 25
1.2.4.2 Emission of Visible Light 26
1.2.5 Interaction Volume and Resolution 26
1.2.5.1 Secondary Electrons 27
1.2.5.2 Backscattered Electrons 27
1.2.5.3 X-Rays 27
1.3 Contrast Mechanisms 28
1.3.1 Topographic Contrast 28
1.3.2 Composition Contrast 31
1.3.3 Channeling Contrast 31
VI Contents
1.4 Electron Backscattered Diffraction (EBSD) 31

1.5 Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy 34
1.6 Other Signals 36
1.7 Summary 36
References 37
2 Conventional and Advanced Electron Transmission Microscopy 39

Christoph Koch
2.1 Introduction 39
2.1.1 Introductory Remarks 39
2.1.2 Instrumentation and Basic Electron Optics 40
2.1.3 Theory of Electron–Specimen Interaction 42
2.2 High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy 48
2.3 Conventional TEM of Defects in Crystals 54
2.4 Lorentz Microscopy 55
2.5 Off-Axis and Inline Electron Holography 57
2.6 Electron Diffraction Techniques 59
2.6.1 Fundamentals of Electron Diffraction 59
2.7 Convergent Beam Electron Diffraction 61
2.7.1 Large-Angle Convergent Beam Electron Diffraction 63
2.7.2 Characterization of Amorphous Structures by Diffraction 63
2.8 Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy and Z-Contrast 63
2.9 Analytical TEM 66
References 67
3 Dynamic Transmission Electron Microscopy 71

Thomas LaGrange, Bryan W. Reed, Wayne E. King,
Judy S. Kim, and Geoffrey H. Campbell
3.1 Introduction 71
3.2 How Does Single-Shot DTEM Work? 72
3.2.1 Current Performance 74
3.2.2 Electron Sources and Optics 75
3.2.3 Arbitrary Waveform Generation Laser System 80
3.2.4 Acquiring High Time Resolution Movies 81
3.3 Experimental Applications of DTEM 82
3.3.1 Diffusionless First-Order Phase Transformations 82
3.3.2 Observing Transient Phenomena in Reactive Multilayer Foils 85
3.4 Crystallization Under Far-from-Equilibrium Conditions 88
3.5 Space Charge Effects in Single-Shot DTEM 90
3.5.1 Global Space Charge 90
3.5.2 Stochastic Blurring 91
3.6 Next-Generation DTEM 91
3.6.1 Novel Electron Sources 91
3.6.2 Relativistic Beams 92
3.6.3 Pulse Compression 93
Contents VII
3.6.4 Aberration Correction 93

3.7 Conclusions 94
References 95
4 Formation of Surface Patterns Observed with Reflection

Electron Microscopy 99
Alexander V. Latyshev
4.1 Introduction 99
4.2 Reflection Electron Microscopy 102
4.3 Silicon Substrate Preparation 107
4.4 Monatomic Steps 109
4.5 Step Bunching 111
4.6 Surface Reconstructions 114
4.7 Epitaxial Growth 115
4.8 Thermal Oxygen Etching 116
4.9 Conclusions 119
References 119
Part II Growth and Interactions 123
5 Electron and Ion Irradiation 125

Florian Banhart
5.1 Introduction 125
5.2 The Physics of Irradiation 126
5.2.1 Scattering of Energetic Particles in Solids 126
5.2.2 Scattering of Electrons 128
5.2.3 Scattering of Ions 129
5.3 Radiation Defects in Solids 129
5.3.1 The Formation of Defects 129
5.3.2 The Migration of Defects 130
5.4 The Setup in the Electron Microscope 131
5.4.1 Electron Irradiation 131
5.4.2 Ion Irradiation 132
5.5 Experiments 132
5.5.1 Electron Irradiation 133
5.5.2 Ion Irradiation 140
5.6 Outlook 141
References 142
6 Observing Chemical Reactions Using Transmission Electron

Microscopy 145
Renu Sharma
6.2 Instrumentation 146
6.3 Types of Chemical Reaction Suitable for TEM Observation 150
VIII Contents
6.3.1 Oxidation and Reduction (Redox) Reactions 150

6.3.2 Phase Transformations 151
6.3.3 Polymerization 151
6.3.4 Nitridation 152
6.3.5 Hydroxylation and Dehydroxylation 152
6.3.6 Nucleation and Growth of Nanostructures 153
6.4 Experimental Setup 154
6.4.1 Reaction of Ambient Environment with Various TEM Components 154
6.4.2 Reaction of Grid/Support Materials with the Sample or with
Each Other 154
6.4.3 Temperature and Pressure Considerations 155
6.4.4 Selecting Appropriate Characterization Technique(s) 156
6.4.5 Recording Media 156
6.4.6 Independent Verification of the Results, and the Effects of the
Electron Beam 157
6.5 Available Information Under Reaction Conditions 157
6.5.1 Structural Modification 158
6.5.1.1 Electron Diffraction 158
6.5.1.2 High-Resolution Imaging 158
6.5.2 Chemical Changes 161
6.5.3 Reaction Rates (Kinetics) 164
6.6 Limitations and Future Developments 164
References 165
7 In-Situ TEM Studies of Vapor- and Liquid-Phase Crystal Growth 171

Frances M. Ross
7.2 Experimental Considerations 172
7.2.1 What Crystal Growth Experiments are Possible? 172
7.2.2 How Can These Experiments be Made Quantitative? 173
7.2.3 How Relevant Can These Experiments Be? 175
7.3 Vapor-Phase Growth Processes 175
7.3.1 Quantum Dot Growth Kinetics 176
7.3.2 Vapor–Liquid–Solid Growth of Nanowires 177
7.3.3 Nucleation Kinetics in Nanostructures 180
7.4 Liquid-Phase Growth Processes 183
7.4.1 Observing Liquid Samples Using TEM 183
7.4.2 Electrochemical Nucleation and Growth in the TEM System 184
7.5 Summary 187
References 188
8 In-Situ TEM Studies of Oxidation 191

Guangwen Zhou and Judith C. Yang
8.2 Experimental Approach 192
Contents IX
8.2.1 Environmental Cells 192

8.2.2 Surface and Environmental Conditions 193
8.2.3 Gas-Handling System 194
8.2.4 Limitations 195
8.3 Oxidation Phenomena 196
8.3.1 Surface Reconstruction 196
8.3.2 Nucleation and Initial Oxide Growth 197
8.3.3 Role of Surface Defects on Surface Oxidation 198
8.3.4 Shape Transition During Oxide Growth in Alloy Oxidation 199
8.3.5 Effect of Oxygen Pressure on the Orientations of Oxide Nuclei 202
8.3.6 Oxidation Pathways Revealed by High-Resolution TEM Studies
of Oxidation 203
8.4 Future Developments 205
8.5 Summary 206
References 206
Part III Mechanical Properties 209
9 Mechanical Testing with the Scanning Electron Microscope 211

Christian Motz
9.2 Technical Requirements and Specimen Preparation 212
9.3 In-Situ Loading of Macroscopic Samples 214
9.3.1 Static Loading in Tension, Compression, and Bending 214
9.3.2 Dynamic Loading in Tension, Compression, and Bending 216
9.3.3 Applications of In-Situ Testing 216
9.4 In-Situ Loading of Micron-Sized Samples 217
9.4.1 Static Loading of Micron-Sized Samples in Tension, Compression,
and Bending 218
9.4.2 Applications of In-Situ Testing of Small-Scale Samples 220
9.4.3 In-Situ Microindentation and Nanoindentation 222
9.5 Summary and Outlook 223
References 223
10 In-Situ TEM Straining Experiments: Recent Progress in Stages

and Small-Scale Mechanics 227
Gerhard Dehm, Marc Legros, and Daniel Kiener
10.2 Available Straining Techniques 228
10.2.1 Thermal Straining 228
10.2.2 Mechanical Straining 229
10.2.3 Instrumented Stages and MEMS/NEMS Devices 230
10.3 Dislocation Mechanisms in Thermally Strained Metallic Films 233
10.3.1 Basic Concepts 233
10.3.2 Dislocation Motion in Single Crystalline Films and Near Interfaces 235
X Contents
10.3.3 Dislocation Nucleation and Multiplication in Thin Films 236

10.3.4 Diffusion-Induced Dislocation Plasticity in Polycrystalline
Cu Films 239
10.4 Size-Dependent Dislocation Plasticity in Metals 239
10.4.1 Plasticity in Geometrically Confined Single Crystal
fcc Metals 241
10.4.2 Size-Dependent Transitions in Dislocation Plasticity 243
10.4.3 Plasticity by Motion of Grain Boundaries 244
10.4.4 Influence of Grain Size Heterogeneities 245
10.5 Conclusions and Future Directions 247
References 248
11 In-Situ Nanoindentation in the Transmission Electron Microscope 255

Andrew M. Minor
11.1.1 The Evolution of In-Situ Mechanical Probing in a TEM 255
11.1.2 Introduction to Nanoindentation 256
11.2 Experimental Methodology 260
11.3 Example Studies 263
11.3.1 In-Situ TEM Nanoindentation of Silicon 263
11.3.2 In-Situ TEM Nanoindentation of Al Thin Films 269
11.4 Conclusions 272
References 274
Part IV Physical Properties 279
12 Current-Induced Transport: Electromigration 281

Ralph Spolenak
12.1 Principles 281
12.2 Transmission Electron Microscopy 283
12.2.1 Imaging 283
12.2.2 Diffraction 288
12.2.3 Convergent Beam Electron Diffraction (CBED):
Measurements of Elastic Strain 288
12.3 Secondary Electron Microscopy 289
12.3.1 Imaging 289
12.3.2 Elemental Analysis 291
12.3.3 Electron Backscatter Diffraction (EBSD) 292
12.4 X-Radiography Studies 292
12.4.1 Microscopy and Tomography 292
12.4.2 Spectroscopy 293
12.4.3 Topography 294
12.4.4 Microdiffraction 294
12.5 Specialized Techniques 295
12.5.1 Focused Ion Beams 295
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
Contents XI
12.5.2 Reflective High-Energy Electron Diffraction (RHEED) 296

12.5.3 Scanning Probe Methods 296
12.6 Comparison of In-Situ Methods 297
References 299
13 Cathodoluminescence in Scanning and Transmission

Electron Microscopies 303
Yutaka Ohno and Seiji Takeda
13.2 Principles of Cathodoluminsecence 304
13.2.1 The Generation and Recombination of Electron-Hole Pairs 304
13.2.2 Characteristic of CL Spectroscopy 305
13.2.3 CL Imaging and Contrast Analysis 306
13.2.4 Spatial Resolution of CL Imaging and Spectroscopy 306
13.2.5 CL Detection Systems 307
13.3 Applications of CL in Scanning and Transmission Electron
Microscopies 307
13.3.1 Assessments of Group III–V Compounds 308
13.3.1.1 Nitrides 308
13.3.1.2 III–V Compounds Except Nitrides 309
13.3.2 Group II–VI Compounds and Related Materials 310
13.3.2.1 Oxides 310
13.3.2.2 Group II–VI Compounds, Except Oxides 312
13.3.3 Group IV and Related Materials 313
13.4 Concluding Remarks 313
References 313
14 In-Situ TEM with Electrical Bias on Ferroelectric Oxides 321

Xiaoli Tan
14.2 Experimental Details 323
14.3 Domain Polarization Switching 324
14.4 Grain Boundary Cavitation 326
14.5 Domain Wall Fracture 331
14.6 Antiferroelectric-to-Ferroelectric Phase Transition 335
14.7 Relaxor-to-Ferroelectric Phase Transition 341
References 345
15 Lorentz Microscopy 347

Josef Zweck
15.2 The In-Situ Creation of Magnetic Fields 350
15.2.1 Combining the Objective Lens Field with Specimen Tilt 351
15.2.2 Magnetizing Stages Using Coils and Pole-Pieces 352
15.2.3 Magnetizing Stages Without Coils 356
XII Contents
15.2.3.1 Oersted Fields 356

15.2.3.2 Spin Torque Applications 358
15.2.3.3 Self-Driven Devices 361
15.3 Examples 362
15.3.1 Demagnetization and Magnetization of Ring Structures 362
15.3.2 Determination of Wall Velocities 364
15.3.3 Determination of Stray Fields 365
15.4 Problems 366
15.5 Conclusions 367
References 367
Index 371
XIII
List of Contributors
Florian Banhart and

Université de Strasbourg Montanuniversität Leoben
Institut de Physique et Chimie des Department Materials Physics
Matériaux, UMR 7504 Franz-Josef-Str. 18
23 rue du Loess 8700 Leoben
67034 Strasbourg Austria
France
Wayne D. Kaplan
Nigel D. Browning Technion - Israel Institute of Technology
Lawrence Livermore National Department of Materials Engineering
Laboratory Haifa 32000
Physical and Life Sciences Directorate Israel
7000 East Avenue
Livermore Daniel Kiener
California 94550 Montanuniversität Leoben
USA Department Materials Physics
Franz-Josef-Str. 18
Geoffrey H. Campbell 8700 Leoben
Lawrence Livermore National Austria
Laboratory
Physical and Life Sciences Directorate Judy S. Kim
7000 East Avenue Lawrence Livermore National
Livermore Laboratory
California 94550 Physical and Life Sciences Directorate
USA 7000 East Avenue
Livermore
Gerhard Dehm California 94550
Austrian Academy of Sciences USA
Erich Schmid Institute of Materials
Science
Jahnstr. 12
8700 Leoben
Austria
XIV List of Contributors
and Marc Legros

University of California CEMES-CNRS
Department of Chemical Engineering 29 Rue Jeanne Marvig
and Materials Science 31055 Toulouse
One Shields Avenue France
Davis
California 95616 Andrew M. Minor
USA University of California, Berkeley and
National Center for Electron Microscopy
Wayne E. King Department of Materials Science and
Lawrence Livermore National Engineering, Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory National Laboratory
Physical and Life Sciences Directorate One Cyclotron Road, MS 72
7000 East Avenue Berkeley
Livermore CA 94720
California 94550 USA
USA
Christian Motz
Christoph Koch Österreichische Akademie der
Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaften
Metallforschung Erich Schmid Institut für
Heisenbergstr. 3 Materialwissenschaft
70569 Stuttgart Jahnstr. 12
Germany 8700 Leoben
Austria
Thomas LaGrange
Lawrence Livermore National Yutaka Ohno
Laboratory Tohoku University
Physical and Life Sciences Directorate Institute for Materials Research
7000 East Avenue Katahira 2-1-1
Livermore Aoba-ku
California 94550 Sendai 980-8577
USA Japan
Alexander V. Latyshev Bryan W. Reed

Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Lawrence Livermore National
Sciences Laboratory
Institute of Semiconductor Physics Physical and Life Sciences Directorate
Prospect Lavrent’eva 13 7000 East Avenue
630090 Novosibirsk Livermore
Russia California 94550
USA
List of Contributors XV
Frances M. Ross Seiji Takeda

IBM T. J. Watson Research Center Osaka University
1101 Kitchawan Road The Institute of Scientific and Industrial
Yorktown Heights Research
NY 10598 Mihogaoka 8-1
USA Ibaraki
Osaka 567-0047
Christina Scheu Japan
1Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
München Xiaoli Tan
Department Chemie & Center for Iowa State University
NanoScience (CeNS) Department of Materials Science and
Butenandstr. 5-13, Gerhard-Ertl- Engineering
Gebäude (Haus E) 2220 Hoover Hall
81377 München Ames
Germany IA 50011
USA
Renu Sharma
National Institute of Science and Judith C. Yang
Technology University of Pittsburgh
Center for Nanoscale Science and Department of Chemical and Petroleum
Technology Engineering
100 Bureau Drive 1249 Benedum Hall
Gaithersburg Pittsburgh
MD 20899-6201 PA 15261
USA USA
Ralph Spolenak Guangwen Zhou

ETH Zurich P. O. Box 6000
Laboratory of Nanometallurgy, 85 Murray Hill Road
Department of Material Binghampton
Wolfgang-Pauli-Str. 10 NY 13902
8093 Zurich USA
Switzerland
Josef Zweck
University of Regensburg
Physics Faculty
Physics Building Office Phy 7.3.05
93040 Regensburg
Germany
XVII
Preface
Today, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) represents one of the most impor-
tant tools used to characterize materials. Electron diffraction provides information
on the crystallographic structure of materials, conventional TEM with bright-field
and dark-field imaging on their microstructure, high-resolution TEM on their
atomic structure, scanning TEM on their elemental distributions, and analytical
TEM on their chemical composition and bonding mechanisms. Each of these
techniques is explained in detail in various textbooks on TEM techniques, including
Transmission Electron Microscopy: A Textbook for Materials Science (D.B. Williams and
C.B. Carter, Plenum Press, New York, 1996), and Transmission Electron Microscopy
and Diffractometry of Materials (3rd edition, B. Fultz and J. M. Howe, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008).
Most interestingly, however, TEM also enables dynamical processes in materials
to be studied through dedicated in-situ experiments. To watch changes occurring in a
material of interest allows not only the development but also the refinement of
models, so as to explain the underlying physics and chemistry of materials pro-
cesses. The possibilities for in-situ experiments span from thermodynamics and
kinetics (including chemical reactions, oxidation, and phase transformations) to
mechanical, electrical, ferroelectric, and magnetic material properties, as well as
materials synthesis.
The present book is focused on the state-of-the-art possibilities for performing
dynamic experiments inside the electron microscope, with attention centered on
TEM but including scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Whilst seeing is believing is
one aspect of in-situ experiments in electron microscopy, the possibility to obtain
quantitative data is of almost equal importance when accessing critical data in
relation to physics, chemistry, and the materials sciences. The equipment needed
to obtain quantitative data on various stimuli – such as temperature and gas flow for
materials synthesis, load and displacement for mechanical properties, and electrical
current and voltage for electrical properties, to name but a few examples – are
described in the individual sections that relate to Growth and Interactions (Part Two),
Mechanical Properties (Part Three), and Physical Properties (Part Four).
XVIII Preface
During the past decade, interest in in-situ electron microscopy experiments has
grown considerably, due mainly to new developments in quantitative stages and
micro-/nano-electromechanical systems (MEMS/NEMS) that provide a ‘‘lab on chip’’
platform which can fit inside the narrow space of the pole-pieces in the transmission
electron microscope. In addition, the advent of imaging correctors that compensate
for the spherical and, more recently, the chromatic aberration of electromagnetic
lenses has not only increased the resolution of TEM but has also permitted the use of
larger pole-piece gaps (and thus more space for stages inside the microscope), even
when designed for imaging at atomic resolution. Another driving force of in-situ
experimentation using electron probes has been the small length-scales that are
accessible with focused ion beam/SEM platforms and TEM instruments. These are
of direct relevance for nanocrystalline materials and thin-film structures with
micrometer and nanometer dimensions, as well as for structural defects such as
interfaces in materials.
This book provides an overview of dynamic experiments in electron microscopy,
and is especially targeted at students, scientists, and engineers working in the fields
of chemistry, physics, and the materials sciences. Although experience in electron
microscopy techniques is not a prerequisite for readers, as the basic information on
these techniques is summarized in the first two chapters of Part One, Basics and
Methods, some basic knowledge would help to use the book to its full extent. Details
of specialized in-situ methods, such as Dynamic TEM and Reflection Electron Micro-
scopy are also included in Part One, to highlight the science which emanates from
these fields.
Gerhard Dehm, Leoben, Austria

James M. Howe, Charlottesville, USA
Josef Zweck, Regensburg, Germany
January 2012
j1
Part I
Basics and Methods
In-situ Electron Microscopy: Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science, First Edition.
Edited by Gerhard Dehm, James M. Howe, and Josef Zweck.
Ó 2012 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Published 2012 by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
j3
1
Introduction to Scanning Electron Microscopy
Christina Scheu and Wayne D. Kaplan
The scanning electron microscope is without doubt one of the most widely used
characterization tools available to materials scientists and materials engineers. Today,
modern instruments achieve amazing levels of resolution, and can be equipped with
various accessories that provide information on local chemistry and crystallography.
These data, together with the morphological information derived from the sample,
are important when characterizing the microstructure of materials used in a wide
number of applications. A schematic overview of the signals that are generated when
an electron beam interacts with a solid sample, and which are used in the scanning
electron microscope for microstructural characterization, is shown in Figure 1.1. The
most frequently detected signals are high-energy backscattered electrons, low-energy
secondary electrons and X-rays, while less common signals include Auger electrons,
cathodoluminescence, and measurements of beam-induced current. The origin of
these signals will be discussed in detail later in the chapter.
Due to the mechanisms by which the image is formed in the scanning electron
microscope, the micrographs acquired often appear to be directly interpretable; that
is, the contrast in the image is often directly associated with the microstructural
features of the sample. Unfortunately, however, this may often lead to gross errors in
the measurement of microstructural features, and in the interpretation of the
microstructure of a material. At the same time, the fundamental mechanisms by
which the images are formed in the scanning electron microscope are reasonably
straightforward, and a little effort from the materials scientist or engineer in
correlating the microstructural features detected by the imaging mechanisms makes
the technique of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) being extremely powerful.
Unlike conventional optical microscopy or conventional transmission electron
microscopy (TEM), in SEM a focused beam of electrons is rastered across the
specimen, and the signals emitted from the specimen are collected as a function
of position of the incident focused electron beam. As such, the final image is collected
in a sequential manner across the surface of the sample. As the image in SEM is
formed from signals emitted due to the interaction of a focused incident electron
probe with the sample, two critical issues are involved in understanding SEM images,
as well as in the correlated analytical techniques: (i) the nature of the incident electron
probe; and (ii) the manner by which incident electrons interact with matter.
In-situ Electron Microscopy: Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science, First Edition.
Edited by Gerhard Dehm, James M. Howe, and Josef Zweck.
Ó 2012 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Published 2012 by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA.
4 j 1 Introduction to Scanning Electron Microscopy
Figure 1.1 Schematic drawing of possible signals created when an incident electron beam interacts
with a solid sample. Reproduced with permission from Ref. [4]; Ó 2008, John Wiley & Sons.
The electron–optical system in a scanning electron microscope is actually designed

to demagnify rather than to magnify, in order to form the small incident electron
probe which is then rastered across the specimen. As such, the size of the incident
probe depends on the electron source (or gun), and the electromagnetic lens system
which focuses the emitted electrons into a fine beam that then interacts with the
sample. The probe size is the first parameter involved in defining the spatial resolution
of the image, or of the analytical measurements. However, the signals (e.g., secondary
electrons, backscattered electrons, X-rays) that are used to form the image emanate
from regions in the sample that may be significantly larger than the diameter of the
incident electron beam. Thus, electron–matter interaction must be understood,
together with the diameter of the incident electron probe, to understand both the
resolution and the contrast in the acquired image.
The aim of this chapter is to provide a fundamental introduction to SEM and its
associated analytical techniques (further details are available in Refs [1–5]).
1.1
Components of the Scanning Electron Microscope
It is convenient to consider the major components of a scanning electron microscope

as divided into four major sections (see Figure 1.2):
. The electron source (or electron gun).
Visit https://textbookfull.com
now to explore a rich
collection of eBooks, textbook
and enjoy exciting offers!
1.1 Components of the Scanning Electron Microscope j5
. The electromagnetic lenses, which are used to focus the electron beam and
demagnify it into a small electron probe.
. The deflection system.
. The detectors, which are used to collect signals emitted from the sample.
Before discussing these major components, a few words should be mentioned
regarding the vacuum system. Within the microscope, different levels of vacuum are
required for three main reasons. First, the electron source must be protected against
Figure 1.2 Schematic drawing of the major probe, and to control the beam current density.
components of a scanning electron The demagnified beam is than scanned across
microscope. The electron lenses and apertures the sample. Various detectors are used to
are used to demagnify the electron beam that is register the signals arising from various
emitted from the electron source into a small electron–matter interactions.
oxidation, which would limit the lifetime of the gun and may cause instabilities in the
intensity of the emitted electrons. Second, a high level of vacuum is required to
prevent the scattering of electrons as they traverse the column from the gun to the
specimen. Third, it is important to reduce the partial pressure of water and carbon in
the vicinity of the sample, as any interaction of the incident electron beam with such
molecules on the surface of the sample may lead to the formation of what is
commonly termed a carbonaceous (or contamination) layer, which can obscure
the sample itself. The prevention of carbonaceous layer formation depends both on
the partial pressure of water and carbon in the vacuum near the sample, and the
amount of carbon and water molecules that are adsorbed onto the surface of the
sample prior to its introduction into the microscope. Thus, while a minimum level of
vacuum is always required to prevent the scattering of electrons by molecules (the
concentration of which in the vacuum is determined from a measure of partial
pressure), it is the partial pressure of oxygen in the region of the electron gun, and the
partial pressure of carbon and water in the region of the specimen, that are in fact
critical to operation of the microscope. Unfortunately, most scanning electron
microscopes do not provide such measures of partial pressure, but rather maintain
different levels of vacuum in the different regions of the instrument. Normally, the
highest vacuum (i.e., the lowest pressure) is in the vicinity of the electron gun and,
depending on the type of electron source, an ultra-high-vacuum (UHV) level
(pressure <108 Pa) may be attained. The nominal pressure in the vicinity of the
specimen is normally in the range of 103 Pa. Some scanning electron microscopes
that have been designed for the characterization of low-vapor pressure liquids,
moist biological specimens or nonconducting materials, have differential
apertures between the regions of the microscope. This allows a base vacuum as
high as approximately 0.3 Pa close to the sample. These instruments, which
are often referred to as environmental scanning electron microscopes, offer
unique possibilities, but their detailed description is beyond the scope of the present
chapter.
1.1.1
Electron Guns
The role of the electron gun is to produce a high-intensity source of electrons which
can be focused into a fine electron beam. In principle, free electrons can be generated
by thermal emission or field emission from a metal surface (Figure 1.3). In thermal
emission, the energy necessary to overcome the work function is supplied by heating
the tip. In order to reduce the work function an electric field is applied (Schottky
effect). If the electric field is of the order of 10 V nm1, the height and width of the
potential barrier is strongly reduced, such that the electrons may leave the metal via
field emission.
Although several different electron sources have been developed, their basic
design is rather similar (see Figure 1.4). In a thermionic source, the electrons are
extracted from a heated filament at a low bias voltage that is applied between the
source and a cylindrical cap (the Wehnelt cylinder). This beam of thermionic
Figure 1.3 Schematic drawing of the The work function can be lowered by applying an
electrostatic potential barrier at a metal surface. electric field (Schottky effect). If the field is very
In order to remove an electron from the metal high, the electrons can tunnel through the
surface, the work function must be overcome. potential barrier. Redrawn from Ref. [1].
electrons is brought to a focus by the electrostatic field and then accelerated by an

anode beneath the Wehnelt cylinder.
The beam that enters the microscope column is characterized by the effective
source size dgun, the divergence angle of the beam a0, the energy of the electrons E0,
and the energy spread of the electron beam DE.
An important quantity here is the axial gun brightness (b), which is defined as the
current DI passing through an area DS into a solid angle DV ¼ pa2, where a is the
angular spread of the electrons. With j ¼ DI/DS being the current density in A cm2,
the following is obtained:
DI j
b¼ ¼ ¼ const: ð1:1Þ
DSDV pa2
The brightness is a conserved quantity, which means that its value is the same for
all points along the optical axis, independent of which apertures are inserted, or how
many lenses are present.
Currently, three different types of electron sources are in common use (Figure 1.4);
the characteristics of these are summarized in Table 1.1. A heated tungsten filament
is capable of generating a brightness of the order of 104 A cm2 sr1, from an effective
source size, defined by the first cross-over of the electron beam, approximately 15 mm
across. The thermionic emission temperatures are high, which explains the selection
of tungsten as the filament material. A lanthanum hexaboride LaB6 crystal can
generate a brightness of about 105 A cm2 sr1, but this requires a significantly
higher vacuum level in the vicinity of the source, and is now infrequently used in SEM
instruments. The limited effective source size of thermionic electron guns, which
must be demagnified by the electromagnetic lens system before impinging on the
sample, leads to microscopes equipped with thermionic sources being defined as
conventional scanning electron microscopes.
Figure 1.4 Schematic drawings of (a) a Wehnelt cylinder). (e) In FEGs, the electrons are
tungsten filament and (b) a LaB6 tip for extracted by a high electric field applied to the
thermionic electron sources. (c) For a field- sharp tip by a counterelectrode aperture, and
emission gun (FEG) source, a sharp tungsten then focused by an anode to image the
tip is used. (d) In thermionic sources the source. Reproduced with permission from
filament or tip is heated to eject electrons, which Ref. [4]; Ó 2008, John Wiley & Sons.
are then focused with an electrostatic lens (the
The effective source size can be significantly reduced (leading to the term high-
resolution SEM) by using a cold field emission gun (FEG), in which the electrons
tunnel out of a sharp tip under the influence of a high electric field (Figures 1.3
and 1.4). Cold FEG sources can generate a brightness of the order of 107 A cm2 sr1,
and the sharp tip of the tungsten needle that emits the electrons is of the order of
0.2 mm in diameter; hence, the effective source size is less than 5 nm. More often, a
hot source replaces the cold source, in which case a sharp tungsten needle is
heated to enhance the emission (this is termed a thermal field emitter, or TFE). The
heating of the tip leads to a self-cleaning process; this has proved to be another benefit
of TFEs in that they can be operated at a lower vacuum level (higher pressures). In the
Table 1.1 A comparison of the properties of different electron sources.
Source type Thermionic Thermionic Schottky Cold FEG
Cathode material W LaB6 W(100) þ ZrO W(310)

Work function [eV] 4.5 2.7 2.7 4.5
Tip radius [mm] 50–100 10–20 0.5–1 <0.1
Operating temperature [K] 2800 1900 1800 300
Emission current density [A cm2] 1–3 20–50 500–5000 104–106
Total emission current [mA] 200 80 200 5
Maximum probe current [nA] 1000 1000 >20 0.2
Normalized brightness [A cm2 sr1] 104 105 107 2 107
Energy spread at gun exit [eV] 1.5–2.5 1.3–2.5 0.4–0.7 0.3–0.7
so-called Schottky emitters, the electrostatic field is mainly used to reduce the work
function, such that electrons leave the tip via thermal emission (see Figure 1.3). A
zirconium-coated tip is often used to reduce the work function even further.
Although Schottky emitters have a slightly larger effective source size than cold
field emission sources, they are more stable and require less stringent vacuum
requirements than cold FEG sources. Equally important, the probe current at
the specimen is significantly larger than for cold FEG sources; this is important
for other analytical techniques used with SEM, such as energy dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDS).
1.1.2
Electromagnetic Lenses
Within the scanning electron microscope, the role of the general lens system is to
demagnify an image of the initial crossover of the electron probe to the final size of
the electron probe on the sample surface (1–50 nm), and to raster the probe across
the surface of the specimen. As a rule, this system provides demagnifications in the
range of 1000- to 10 000-fold. Since one is dealing with electrons rather than photons
the lenses may be either electrostatic or electromagnetic. The simplest example of
these is the electrostatic lens that is used in the electron gun.
Electromagnetic lenses are more commonly encountered, and consist of a large
number of turns of a copper wire wound around an iron core (the pole-piece). A small
gap located at the center of the core separates the upper and lower pole-pieces. The
magnetic flux of the lens is concentrated within a small volume by the pole-pieces,
and the stray field at the gap forms the magnetic field. The magnetic field distribution
is inhomogeneous in order to focus electrons traveling parallel to the optical axis onto
a point on the optical axis; otherwise, they would be unaffected. Thereby, the radial
component of the field will force these electrons to change their direction in such a
way that they possess a velocity component normal to the optical axis; the longitudinal
component of the field would then force them towards the optical axis. Accordingly,
the electrons move within the lens along screw trajectories about the optical axis due
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
must presume that the Baptist gave credence to this sign; according
to the fourth Gospel, he expressly attested his belief (i. 34 ), and
moreover uttered words which evince the deepest insight into the
higher nature and office of Jesus (i. 29 ff. 36 ; iii. 27 ff. );
according to the first Gospel, he was already convinced of these
before the baptism of Jesus. On the other hand, Matthew (xi. 2 ff. )
and Luke (vii. 18 ff. ) tell us that at a later period, the Baptist, on
hearing of the ministry of Jesus, despatched some of his disciples to
him with the inquiry, whether he (Jesus) was the promised Messiah,
or whether another must be expected.
The first impression from this is, that the question denoted an
uncertainty on the part of the Baptist whether Jesus were really the
Messiah; and so it was early understood. 37 But such a doubt is in
direct contradiction with all the other circumstances reported by the
Evangelists. It is justly regarded as [220]psychologically impossible
that he whose belief was originated or confirmed by the baptismal
sign, which he held to be a divine revelation, and who afterwards
pronounced so decidedly on the Messianic call and the superior
nature of Jesus, should all at once have become unsteady in his
conviction; he must then indeed have been like a reed shaken by the
wind, a comparison which Jesus abnegates on this very occasion
(Matt. xi. 7 ). A cause for such vacillation is in vain sought in the
conduct or fortunes of Jesus at the time; for the rumour of the
works of Christ, ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, which in Luke’s idea were
miracles, could not awaken doubt in the Baptist, and it was on this
rumour that he sent his message. Lastly, how could Jesus
subsequently (John v. 33 ff. ) so confidently appeal to the testimony
of the Baptist concerning him, when it was known that John himself
was at last perplexed about his Messiahship? 38
Hence it has been attempted to give a different turn to the facts,
and to show that John’s inquiry was not made on his own account,
but for the sake of his disciples, to overcome in them the doubt with
which he was himself untainted. 39 Hereby it is true, the above-
named difficulties are removed; in particular it is explained why the
Baptist should contrive to send this message precisely on hearing of
the miracles of Jesus; he plainly hoping that his disciples, who had
not believed his testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, would be
convinced of its truth by beholding the marvellous works of the
latter. But how could John hope that his envoys would chance to find
Jesus in the act of working miracles? According to Matthew, indeed,
they did not so find him, and Jesus appeals (v. 4 ) only to his
former works, many of which they had seen, and of which they
might hear wherever he had presented himself. Luke alone, in giving
his evidently second-hand narrative, 40 misconstrues the words of
Jesus to require that the disciples of John should have found him in
the exercise of his supernatural power. Further, if it had been the
object of the Baptist to persuade his disciples by a sight of the works
of Jesus, he would not have charged them with a question which
could be answered by the mere words, the authentic declaration of
Jesus. For he could not hope by the assertion of the person whose
Messiahship was the very point in debate, to convince the disciples
whom his own declaration, in other cases authoritative, had failed to
satisfy. On the whole, it would have been a singular course in the
Baptist to lend his own words to the doubts of others, and thereby,
as Schleiermacher well observes, to compromise his early and
repeated testimony in favour of Jesus. It is clear that Jesus
understood the question proposed to him by the messengers as
proceeding from John himself; (ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰωάννῃ, Matt. xi. 4 ;)
and he indirectly complained of the want of faith in the latter by
pronouncing those blessed who were not offended in him (ver.
6 ). 41
If then it must be granted that John made his inquiry on his own
behalf, and not on that of his disciples, and if nevertheless we
cannot impute to him a sudden lapse into doubt after his previous
confidence; nothing remains but to take the positive instead of the
negative side of the question, and to consider its scepticism as the
mere garb of substantial encouragement. 42 On this
[221]interpretation, the time which Jesus allowed to escape without
publicly manifesting himself as the Messiah, seemed too tedious to
John in his imprisonment; he sent therefore to inquire how long
Jesus would allow himself to be waited for, how long he would delay
winning to himself the better part of the people by a declaration of
his Messiahship, and striking a decisive blow against the enemies of
his cause—a blow that might even liberate the Baptist from his
prison. But if the Baptist, on the strength of his belief that Jesus was
the Messiah, hoped and sued for a deliverance, perhaps miraculous,
by him from prison, he would not clothe in the language of doubt an
entreaty which sprang out of his faith. Now the inquiry in our
evangelical text is one of unmixed doubt, and encouragement must
be foisted in, before it can be found there. How great a violence
must be done to the words is seen by the way in which
Schleiermacher handles them in accordance with this interpretation.
The dubitative question, σὺ εἶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος; he changes into the
positive assumption, thou art he who was to come; the other still
more embarrassing interrogatory, ἢ ἕτερον προσδοκῶμεν; he
completely transfigures thus: wherefore (seeing that thou
performest so great works) do we yet await thee?—shall not John
with all his authority command, through us, all those who have
partaken of his baptism to obey thee as the Messiah, and be
attentive to thy signs? Even if we allow, with Neander, the possibility
of truth to this interpretation, a mere summons to action will not
accord with the earlier representation of Jesus given by the Baptist.
The two enunciations are at issue as to form; for if John doubted not
the Messiahship of Jesus, neither could he doubt his better
knowledge of the fitting time and manner of his appearance: still
farther are they at issue as to matter; for the Baptist could not take
offence at what is termed the delay of Jesus in manifesting himself
as the Messiah, or wish to animate him to bolder conduct, if he
retained his early view of the destination of Jesus. If he still, as
formerly, conceived Jesus to be the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sins of the world, ὁ ἀμνὸς τοῦ Τεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ
κόσμοῦ, no thought could occur to him of a blow to be struck by
Jesus against his enemies, or in general, of a violent procedure to be
crowned by external conquest; rather, the quiet path which Jesus
trod must appear to him the right one—the path befitting the
destination of the Lamb of God. Thus if the question of John
conveyed a mere summons to action, it contradicted his previous
views.
These expedients failing, the original explanation returns upon us;

namely, that the inquiry was an expression of uncertainty respecting
the messianic dignity of Jesus, which had arisen in the Baptist’s own
mind; an explanation which even Neander allows to be the most
natural. This writer seeks to account for the transient apostacy of
the Baptist from the strong faith in which he gave his earlier
testimony, by the supposition that a dark hour of doubt had
overtaken the man of God in his dismal prison; and he cites
instances of men who, persecuted for their Christian faith or other
convictions, after having long borne witness to the truth in the face
of death, at length yielded to human weakness and recanted. But on
a closer examination, he has given a false analogy. Persecuted
Christians of the first centuries, and, later, a Berengarius or a Galileo,
were false to the convictions for which they were imprisoned, and by
abjuring which they hoped to save themselves: the Baptist, to be
compared with them, should have retracted his censure of Herod,
and not have shaken his testimony in favour of Christ, which had no
relation to his imprisonment. However that may be, it is evident here
that these doubts cannot have been preceded by a state of certainty.
We come again to the difficulty arising from the statement of

Matthew that John sent his two disciples on hearing of the works of
Christ, ἀκούσας τὰ [222]ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, or as Luke has it, because
his disciples showed him of all these things, ἀπήγγειλαν περὶ πάντων
τούτων. The latter evangelist has narrated, immediately before, the
raising of the widow’s son, and the healing of the centurion’s
servant. Could John, then, believe Jesus to be the Messiah before he
had performed any messianic works, and be seized with doubt when
he began to legitimatize his claim by miracles such as were expected
from the Messiah 43? This is so opposed to all psychological
probability, that I wonder Dr. Paulus, or some other expositor versed
in psychology and not timid in verbal criticism, has not started the
conjecture that a negative has slipped out of Matt. xi. 2 , and that
its proper reading is, ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης οὐκ ἀκούσας ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ
τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, κ.τ.λ. It might then be conceived, that John
had indeed been convinced, at a former period, of the Messiahship
o£ Jesus; now, however, in his imprisonment, the works of Jesus
came no longer to his ears, and imagining him inactive, he was
assailed with doubt. But had John been previously satisfied of the
Messiahship of Jesus, the mere want of acquaintance with his
miracles could not have unhinged his faith. The actual cause of
John’s doubt, however, was the report of these miracles;—a state of
the case which is irreconcilable with any previous confidence.
But how could he become uncertain about the Messiahship of Jesus,

if he had never recognised it? Not indeed in the sense of beginning
to suspect that Jesus was not the Messiah; but quite possibly in the
sense of beginning to conjecture that a man of such deeds was the
Messiah.
We have here, not a decaying, but a growing certainty, and this

discrimination throws light on the whole purport of the passages in
question. John knew nothing of Jesus before, but that he had, like
many others, partaken of his baptism, and perhaps frequented the
circle of his disciples; and not until after the imprisonment of the
Baptist did Jesus appear as a teacher, and worker of miracles. Of this
John heard, and then arose in his mind a conjecture, fraught with
hope, that as he had announced the proximity of the Messiah’s
kingdom, this Jesus might be he who would verify his idea. 44 So
interpreted, this message of the Baptist excludes his previous
testimony; if he had so spoken formerly, he could not have so
inquired latterly, and vice versâ. It is our task, therefore, to compare
the two contradictory statements, that we may ascertain which has
more traces than the other, of truth or untruth.
The most definite expressions of John’s conviction that Jesus was

the Messiah are found in the fourth Gospel, and these suggest two
distinct questions: first, whether it be conceivable that John had
such a notion of the Messiah as is therein contained; and, secondly,
whether it be probable that he believed it realized in the person of
Jesus.
With respect to the former, the fourth Gospel makes the Baptist’s
idea of the Messiah include the characteristics of expiatory suffering,
and of a premundane, heavenly existence. It has been attempted,
indeed, so to interpret the expressions with which he directs his
disciples to Jesus, as to efface the notion of expiatory suffering.
Jesus, we are told, is compared to a lamb on account of his
meekness and patience; αἴρειν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, is to
[223]be understood either of a patient endurance of the world’s
malice, or of an endeavour to remove the sins of the world by
reforming it; and the sense of the Baptist’s words is this: “How
moving is it that this meek and gentle Jesus should have undertaken
so difficult and painful an office 45!” But the best critics have shown
that even if αἴρειν by itself might bear this interpretation, still ἀμνὸς,
not merely with the article but with the addition τοῦ Θεοῦ, must
signify, not a lamb in general, but a special, holy Lamb; and if, as is
most probable, this designation has reference to Isa. liii. 7. , αἴρειν
τὴν ἁμαρτίαν can only be expounded by what is there predicated of
the lamb-like servant of God, that he τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει, καὶ
περὶ ἡμῶν ὀδυνᾶται (V. 4, LXX.), words which must signify vicarious
suffering. 46 Now that the Baptist should have referred the above
prophetic passage to the Messiah, and hence have thought of him as
suffering, has been recently held more than doubtful. 47
For so foreign to the current opinion, at least, was this notion of the
Messiah, that the disciples of Jesus, during the whole period of their
intercourse with him, could not reconcile themselves to it; and when
his death had actually resulted, their trust in him as the Messiah was
utterly confounded (Luke xxiv. 20 ff. ). How, then, could the Baptist,
who, according to the solemn declaration of Jesus, Matt. xi. 11 ,
confirmed by the allusions in the Gospels to his strict ascetic life,
ranked below the least in the kingdom of heaven, to which the
apostles already belonged—how could this alien discern, long before
the sufferings of Jesus, that they pertained to the character of the
Messiah, when the denizens were only taught the same lesson by
the issue? Or, if the Baptist really had such insight, and
communicated it to his disciples, why did it not, by means of those
who left his circle for that of Jesus, win an entrance into the latter—
nay, why did it not, by means of the great credit which John
enjoyed, mitigate the offence caused by the death of Jesus, in the
public at large 48? Add to this, that in none of our accounts of the
Baptist, with the exception of the fourth Gospel, do we find that he
entertained such views of the Messiah’s character; for, not to
mention Josephus, the Synoptical Gospels confine his representation
of the Messianic office to the spiritual baptism and winnowing of the
people. Still it remains possible that a penetrating mind, like that of
the Baptist, might, even before the death of Jesus, gather from Old
Testament phrases and types the notion of a suffering Messiah, and
that his obscure hints on the subject might not be comprehended by
his disciples and cotemporaries.
Thus the above considerations are not decisive, and we therefore

turn to the expressions concerning the premundane existence and
heavenly origin of the Messiah, with the question: Could the Baptist
have really held such tenets? That from the words, John i. 15 , 27 ,
30 : He that cometh after me is preferred before me; for he was
before me, ὁ ὀπίσω μοῦ ἐρχόμενος ἔμπροσθέν μοῦ γέγονεν, ὄτι
πρῶτος μου ἦν, nothing but dogmatical obstinacy can banish the
notion of pre-existence, is seen by a mere glance at such expositions
as this of Paulus: “He who in the course of time comes after me; has
so appeared in my eyes, ἔμπροσθέν μοῦ, that he (ὅτι—ὥστε,
premiss—conclusion!) deserves rather from his rank and character to
be called the first.” 49 With preponderating arguments more
unprejudiced commentators have [224]maintained, that the reason
here given why Jesus, who appeared after the Baptist in point of
time, had the precedence of him in dignity, is the pre-existence of
the former. 50 We have here obviously the favourite dogma of the
fourth Evangelist, the eternal pre-existence of the λόγος, present
indeed to the mind of that writer, who had just been inditing his
proem, but that it was also present to the mind of the Baptist is
another question. The most recent expositor allows that the sense in
which the Evangelist intends πρῶτος μοῦ, must have been very
remote from the Baptist’s point of view, at least so far as the λόγος
is concerned. The Baptist, he thinks, held the popular Jewish notion
of the pre-existence of the Messiah, as the subject of the Old
Testament theophanies. 51 There are traces of this Jewish notion in
the writings of Paul (e.g. 1 Cor. x. 4 . Col. i. 15 f. ) and the
rabbins 52; and allowing that it was of Alexandrian origin, as
Bretschneider argues, 53 we may yet ask whether even before the
time of Christ, the Alexandrian-judaic theology may not have
modified the opinions of the mother country? 54 Even these
expressions then, taken alone, are not conclusive, although it begins
to appear suspicious that the Baptist, otherwise conspicuous for
exhibiting the practical side of the idea of the Messiah’s kingdom,
should have ascribed to him by the fourth Evangelist solely, two
notions which at that time undoubtedly belonged only to the deepest
messianic speculations; and that the form in which those notions are
expressed is too peculiarly that of the writer, not to be put to his
account.
We arrive at a more decisive result by taking into examination the

passage John iii. 27–36 , where John replies to the complaints of his
disciples at the rival baptism of Jesus, in a way that reduces all
commentators to perplexity. After showing how it lay at the
foundation of their respective destinies, which he desired not to
overstep, that he must decrease, while Jesus must increase, he
proceeds (ver. 31 ) to use forms of expression precisely similar to
those in which the Evangelist makes Jesus speak of himself, and in
which he delivers his own thoughts concerning Jesus. Our most
recent commentator 55 allows that this discourse of John seems the
echo of the foregoing conversation between Jesus and Nicodemus. 56
The expressions in the speech lent to the Baptist are peculiarly those
of the apostle John; for instance, σφραγίζω (to seal), μαρτυρία
(testimony), the antithesis of ἄνωθεν and ἐκ τῆς γῆς (from above
and of the earth), the phrase ἔχειν ζωὴν αἰώνιον (to have eternal
life); and the question presents itself: Is it more probable that the
Evangelist, as well as Jesus, in whose mouth these expressions are
so often put, borrowed them from the Baptist, or that the Evangelist
lent them (I will only at present say) to the latter? This must be
decided by the fact that the [225]ideas, to which the Baptist here
gives utterance, lie entirely within the domain of Christianity, and
belong specially to the Christianity of the Apostle John. Take for
example that antithesis of ἄνω (from above), and ἐκ τῆς γῆς (of the
earth), the designation of Jesus as ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος (he that
cometh from above), as ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ὁ Θεὸς (he whom God hath
sent), who consequently τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ (speaketh the
words of God), the relation of Jesus to God as the υἱὸς (son), whom
ὁ πατὲρ ἀγαπᾷ (the Father loveth):—what can be characteristic of
Christianity, and of the Apostle John’s mode of presenting it, if these
ideas are not so? and could they belong to the Baptist?
Christianismus ante Christum! And then, as Olshausen well
observes, 57 is it consistent for John, who, even on the fourth
Evangelist’s own showing, remained separate from Jesus, to speak
of the blessedness of a believing union with him? (v. 33 and 36 ).
Thus much then is certain, and has been acknowledged by the
majority of modern commentators: the words v. 31–36 cannot
have been spoken by the Baptist. Hence theologians have
concluded, that the Evangelist cannot have intended to ascribe them
to him, but from v. 31 speaks in his own person. 58 This sounds
plausible, if they can only point out any mark of division between the
discourse of the Baptist and the addenda of the Evangelist. But none
such is to be found. It is true that the speaker from v. 31 uses the
third person, and not the first as in v. 30 , when referring to the
Baptist: but in the former passage the Baptist is no longer alluded to
directly and individually, but as one of a class, in which case he
must, though himself the speaker, choose the third person. Thus
there is no definitive boundary, and the speech glides imperceptibly
from those passages which might have been uttered by the Baptist,
into those which are altogether incongruous with his position;
moreover from v. 30 Jesus is spoken of in the present tense, as the
Evangelist might represent the Baptist to speak during the lifetime of
Jesus, but could not in his own person have written after the death
of Jesus. In other passages, when presenting his own reflections
concerning Jesus, he uses the preterite. 59 Thus, grammatically, the
Baptist continues to speak from v. 31 , and yet, historically, it is
impossible that he should have uttered the sequel; a contradiction
not to be solved, if it be added that, dogmatically, the Evangelist
cannot have ascribed to the Baptist words which he never really
pronounced. Now if we do not choose to defy the clear rules of
grammar, and the sure data of history, for the sake of the visionary
dogma of inspiration, we shall rather conclude from the given
premises, with the author of the Probabilia, that the Evangelist
falsely ascribes the language in question to the Baptist, putting into
his mouth a Christology of his own, of which the latter could know
nothing. This is no more than Lücke 60 confesses, though not quite so
frankly, when he says that the reflections of the Evangelist are here
more than equally mixed with the discourse of the Baptist, in such a
way as to be undistinguishable. In point of fact, however, the
reflections of the Evangelist are easily to be recognized; but of the
fundamental ideas of the Baptist there is no trace, unless they are
sought for with a good will which amounts to prejudice, and to
which therefore we make no pretension. If then we have a proof in
the passages just considered, that the fourth Evangelist did not
hesitate to lend to the Baptist messianic and other ideas which were
never his; we may hence conclude retrospectively [226]concerning
the passages on which we formerly suspended our decision, that the
ideas expressed in them of a suffering and pre-existent Messiah
belonged, not to the Baptist, but to the Evangelist.
In giving the above reply to our first question, we have, in strictness,

answered the remaining one; for if the Baptist had no such
messianic ideas, he could not refer them to the person of Jesus. But
to strengthen the evidence for the result already obtained, we will
make the second question the object of a special examination.
According to the fourth Evangelist the Baptist ascribed to Jesus all
the messianic attributes above discussed. If he did this so
enthusiastically, publicly, and repeatedly, as we read in John, he
could not have been excluded by Jesus from the kingdom of heaven
(Matt. xi. 11 ), nor have been placed below the least of its citizens.
For such a confession as that of the Baptist, when he calls Jesus the
υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, who was before him,—such refined insight into the
messianic economy, as is shown by his designating Jesus ὁ ἀμνὸς
τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου, Peter himself had not
to produce, though Jesus not only receives him into the kingdom of
heaven for his confession, Matt. xvi. 16 , but constitutes him the
rock on which that kingdom was to be founded. But we have
something yet more incomprehensible. John, in the fourth gospel,
gives it as the object of his baptism, ἵνα φανερωθῆ (Jesus as
Messiah) τῷ Ἰσραὴλ (i. 31 ), and acknowledges it to be the divine
ordinance, that by the side of the increasing Jesus, he must
decrease (iii. 30 ); nevertheless after Jesus had begun to baptize by
the instrumentality of his disciples, John continues to practise his
baptism (iii. 32 ). Why so, if he knew the object of his baptism to be
fulfilled by the introduction of Jesus, and if he directed his followers
to him as the Messiah? (i. 36 f. ). 61 The continuance of his baptism
would be to no purpose; for Lücke’s supposition that John’s baptism
was still of effect in those places where Jesus had not appeared, he
himself overthrows by the observation, that at least at the period
treated of in John iii. 22 ff. , Jesus and John must have been
baptizing near to each other, since the disciples of John were jealous
of the concourse to the baptism of Jesus. But the continuance of
John’s baptism appears even to counteract his aim, if that aim were
merely to point out Jesus as the Messiah. He thereby detained a
circle of individuals on the borders of the Messiah’s kingdom, and
retarded or hindered their going over to Jesus (and that through his
own fault, not theirs alone, 62 for he nullified his verbal direction to
Jesus by his contradictory example). Accordingly we find the party of
John’s disciples still existing in the time of the Apostle Paul (Acts
xviii. 24 f. , xix. 1 ff. ); and, if the Sabæans are to be credited
concerning their own history, the sect remains to this day. 63
Certainly, presupposing the averred conviction of the Baptist relative
to Jesus, it would seem most natural for him to have attached
himself to the latter; this, however, did not happen, and hence we
conclude that he cannot have had that conviction. 64 [227]
But chiefly the character and entire demeanour of the Baptist render
it impossible to believe that he placed himself on that footing with
Jesus, described by the fourth evangelist. How could the man of the
wilderness, the stern ascetic, who fed on locusts and wild honey,
and prescribed severe fasts to his disciples, the gloomy, threatening
preacher of repentance, animated with the spirit of Elias—how could
he form a friendship with Jesus, in every thing his opposite? He must
assuredly, with his disciples, have stumbled at the liberal manners of
Jesus, and have been hindered by them from recognizing him as the
Messiah. Nothing is more unbending than ascetic prejudice; he who,
like the Baptist, esteems it piety to fast and mortify the body, will
never assign a high grade in things divine to him who disregards
such asceticism. A mind with narrow views can never comprehend
one whose vision takes a wider range, although the latter may know
how to do justice to its inferior; hence Jesus could value and
sanction John in his proper place, but the Baptist could never give
the precedence to Jesus, as he is reported to have done in the
fourth gospel. The declaration of the Baptist (John iii. 30 ), that he
must decrease, but Jesus must increase, is frequently praised as an
example of the noblest and sublimest resignation. 65 The beauty of
this representation we grant; but not its truth. The instance would
be a solitary one, if a man whose life had its influence on the world’s
history, had so readily yielded the ascendant, in his own æra, to one
who came to eclipse him and render him superfluous. Such a step is
not less difficult for individuals than for nations, and that not from
any vice, as egotism or ambition, so that an exception might be
presumed (though not without prejudice) in the case of a man like
the Baptist; it is a consequence of that blameless limitation which, as
we have already remarked, is proper to a low point of view in
relation to a higher, and which is all the more obstinately maintained
if the inferior individual is, like John, of a coarse, rugged nature.
Only from the divine point of view, or from that of an historian, bent
on establishing religious doctrines, could such things be spoken, and
the fourth Evangelist has in fact put into the mouth of the Baptist
the very same thoughts concerning the relation between him and
Jesus, that the compiler of the 2nd book of Samuel has
communicated, as his own observation, on the corresponding
relation between Saul and David. 66 Competent judges have recently
acknowledged that there exists a discrepancy between the
synoptical gospels and the fourth, the blame of which must be
imputed to the latter: 67 and this opinion is confirmed and
strengthened by the fact that the fourth Evangelist transforms the
Baptist into a totally different character from that in which he
appears in the Synoptical gospels and in Josephus; out of a practical
preacher he makes a speculative christologist; out of a hard and
unbending, a yielding and self-renunciating nature.
The style in which the scenes between John and Jesus (John i. 29
ff. 35 ff. ) are depicted, shows them to have originated partly in
the free composition of the imagination, partly in a remodelling of
the synoptical narratives with a view to the glorification of Jesus.
With respect to the former: Jesus is walking, v. 35 , near to John; in
v. 29 he is said to come directly to him; yet on neither occasion is
there any account of an interview between the two. Could Jesus
really have avoided contact with the Baptist, that there might be no
[228]appearance of preconcerted action? This is Lampe’s conjecture;
but it is the product of modern reflections, foreign to the time and
circumstances of Jesus. Or shall we suppose that the narrator,
whether fortuitously or purposely, omitted known details? But the
meetings of Jesus and John must have furnished him with peculiarly
interesting matter, so that, as Lücke allows, 68 his silence is
enigmatical. From our point of view the enigma is solved. The
Baptist had, in the Evangelist’s idea, pointed to Jesus as the
Messiah. This, understood as a visible pointing, required that Jesus
should pass by or approach John; hence this feature was inserted in
the narrative; but the particulars of an actual meeting being
unnecessary, were, though very awkwardly, omitted. The incident of
some disciples attaching themselves to Jesus in consequence of the
Baptist’s direction, seems to be a free version of the sending of two
disciples by John from his prison. Thus, as in Matthew xi. 2 , and
Luke vii. 18 , John despatches two disciples to Jesus with the
dubitative question, “Art thou he that should come?” so in the fourth
gospel he likewise sends two disciples to Jesus, but with the positive
assertion that he (Jesus) is the Lamb of God, ἀμνὸς Θεοῦ; as Jesus
in the former case gives to the disciples, after the delivery of their
message, the direction: “Go and tell John the things ye have seen
and heard,” ἂ εἴδετε καὶ ἠκοῦσατε: so in the latter, he gives to the
inquiry concerning his abode, the answer: Come and see, ἔρχεσθε
καὶ ἴδετε. But while in the synoptical gospels the two disciples return
to John, in the fourth, they permanently attach themselves to Jesus.
From the foregoing considerations, it is inconceivable that John

should ever have held and pronounced Jesus to be the Messiah: but
it is easy to show how a belief that he did so might obtain, without
historical foundation. According to Acts xix. 4 , the Apostle Paul
declares what seems sufficiently guaranteed by history, that John
baptized εἰς τὸν ἐρχόμενον, and this coming Messiah, adds Paul, to
whom John pointed was Jesus (τουτέστιν εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν). This
was an interpretation of the Baptist’s words by the issue; for Jesus
had approved himself to a great number of his cotemporaries, as the
Messiah announced by John. There was but a step to the notion that
the Baptist himself had, under the ἐρχόμενος, understood the
individual Jesus,—had himself the τουτέστιν, κ.τ.λ. in his mind; a
view which, however unhistorical, would be inviting to the early
Christians, in proportion to their wish to sustain the dignity of Jesus
by the authority of the Baptist, then very influential in the Jewish
world. 69 There was yet another reason, gathered from the Old
Testament. The ancestor of the Messiah, David, had likewise in the
old Hebrew legend a kind of forerunner in the person of Samuel,
who by order from Jehovah anointed him to be king over Israel (1
Sam. xvi .), and afterwards stood in the relation of a witness to his
claims. If then it behoved the Messiah to have a forerunner, who,
besides, was more closely characterized in the prophecy of Malachi
as a second Elias, and if, historically, Jesus was [229]preceded by
John, whose baptism as a consecration corresponded to an
anointing; the idea was not remote of conforming the relation
between John and Jesus to that between Samuel and David.
We might have decided with tolerable certainty which of the two

incompatible statements concerning the relation between the Baptist
and Jesus is to be renounced as unhistorical, by the universal canon
of interpretation, that where, in narratives having a tendency to
aggrandise a person or a fact (a tendency which the Gospels evince
at every step), two contradictory statements are found, that which
best corresponds to this aim is the least historical; because if, in
accordance with it, the original fact had been so dazzling, it is
inconceivable that the other less brilliant representation should
afterwards arise; as here, if John so early acknowledged Jesus, it is
inexplicable how a story could be fabricated, which reports him to
have been in doubt on the same subject at a very late period. We
have, however, by a separate examination of the narrative in the
fourth gospel, ascertained that it is self-contradictory and contains
its own solution; hence our result, found independently of the above
canon, serves for its confirmation.
Meanwhile that result is only the negative, that all which turns upon
the early acknowledgment of Jesus by John has no claim to be
received as historical; of the positive we know nothing, unless the
message out of prison may be regarded as a clue to the truth, and
we must therefore subject this side of the matter to a separate
examination. We will not extend our arguments against the
probability of an early and decided conviction on the part of the
Baptist, to a mere conjecture awakened in him at a later period that
Jesus was the Messiah; and therefore we leave uncontested the
proper contents of the narrative. But as regards the form, it is not to
be conceived without difficulty. That the Baptist in prison, ἐν τῷ
δεσμωτηρίῳ, should have information of the proceedings of Jesus;
that he should from that locality send his disciples to Jesus; and that
these as we are led to infer, should bring him an answer in his
imprisonment.
According to Josephus, 70 Herod imprisoned John from fear of

disturbances: allowing this to be merely a joint cause with that given
by the Evangelist, it is yet difficult to believe that to a man, one
motive of whose imprisonment was to seclude him from his
followers, his disciples should have retained free access; although
we cannot prove it an impossibility that circumstances might favour
the admission of certain individuals. Now that the message was sent
from prison we learn from Matthew alone; Luke says nothing of it,
although he tells of the message. We might hence, with
Schleiermacher, 71 consider Luke’s account the true one, and the
δεσμωτηρίῳ of Matthew an unhistorical addition. But that critic has
himself very convincingly shown, from the tedious amplifications,
partly betraying even misunderstanding, which the narrative of Luke
contains (vii. 20 , 21 , 29 , 30 ), that Matthew gives the incident
in its original, Luke in a revised form. 72 It would indeed be singular if
Matthew had supplied the δεσμωτηρίῳ when it was originally
wanting; it is far more natural to suppose that Luke, who in the
whole paragraph appears as a reviser, expunged the original mention
of the prison.
In judging of Luke’s motives for so doing, we are led to notice the

difference in the dates given by the evangelists for the imprisonment
of John. Matthew, with whom Mark agrees, places it before the
public appearance of Jesus in Galilee; for he gives it as the motive
for the return of Jesus into that province (Matt. iv. 12 ; Mark i.
14 ). Luke assigns no precise date to the [230]arrest of the Baptist
(iii. 19 f. ), yet it is to be inferred from his silence about the prison,
in connexion with the sending of the two disciples, that he regarded
it as a later occurrence; but John expressly says, that after the first
passover attended by Jesus in his public character, John was not yet
cast into prison (iii. 24 ). If it be asked, who is right? we answer
that there is something on the face of the account of the first
Evangelist, which has inclined many commentators to renounce it in
favour of the two last. That Jesus, on the report of John’s
imprisonment in Galilee by Herod Antipas, should have returned into
the dominions of that prince for the sake of safety, is, as
Schneckenburger well maintains, 73 highly improbable, since there, of
all places, he was the least secure from a similar fate. But even if it
be held impossible to dissociate the ἀνεχώρησεν (he withdrew) from
the cognate idea of seeking security, we may still ask whether,
disregarding the mistake in the motive, the fact itself may not be
maintained. Matthew and Mark connect with this journey into Galilee
after John’s imprisonment, the commencement of the public ministry
of Jesus; and that this was consequent on the removal of the
Baptist, I am quite inclined to believe. For it is in itself the most
natural that the exit of the Baptist should incite Jesus to carry on in
his stead the preaching of μετανοιεῖτἐ· ἦγγικε γὰρ ἡ βασιλεία τῶν
οὐρανῶν; and the canon cited above is entirely in favour of
Matthew. For if it be asked which fiction best accords with the
aggrandising spirit of the Christian legend,—that of John’s removal
before the appearance of Jesus, or that of their having long laboured
in conjunction?—the answer must be, the latter. If he to whom the
hero of a narrative is superior disappears from the scene before the
entrance of the latter, the crowning opportunity for the hero to
demonstrate his ascendancy is lost—the full splendour of the rising
sun can only be appreciated, when the waning moon is seen above
the horizon, growing paler and paler in the presence of the greater
luminary. Such is the case in the Gospels of Luke and John, while
Matthew and Mark rest satisfied with the less effective
representation. Hence, as the least calculated to magnify Jesus, the
account of Matthew has the advantage in historical probability.
Thus at the time when the two disciples must have been sent to
Jesus, the Baptist was already imprisoned, and we have remarked
above, that he could hardly, so situated, transmit and receive
messages. But popular legend might be prompted to fabricate such
a message, that the Baptist might not depart without at least an
incipient recognition of Jesus as the Messiah; so that neither the one
nor the other of the two incompatible statements is to be regarded
as historical.
[Contents]
§ 47.
OPINION OF THE EVANGELISTS AND JESUS

CONCERNING THE BAPTIST, WITH HIS OWN
JUDGMENT ON HIMSELF. RESULT OF THE INQUIRY
INTO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO
INDIVIDUALS.
The Evangelists apply to John, as the preparer of the Messiah’s

kingdom, several passages of the Old Testament.
The abode of the preacher of repentance in the wilderness, his

activity in preparing the way for the Messiah, necessarily recalled the
passage of Isaiah (xl. 3ff. LXX.): φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν ἐρήμῳ·
ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν Κυρίῳ κ.τ.λ. This passage, which in its original
connection related not to the Messiah and his forerunner, but to
Jehovah, for whom a way was to be prepared through [231]the
wilderness toward Judea, that he might return with his people from
exile, is quoted by the first three Evangelists as a prophecy fulfilled
by the appearance of the Baptist (Matt. iii. 3 ; Mark i. 3 ; Luke iii. 4
ff. ). This might be thought a later and Christian application, but
there is nothing to controvert the statement of the fourth Evangelist,
that the Baptist had himself characterized his destination by those
prophetic words.
As the synoptical gospels have unanimously borrowed this passage

from the Baptist himself, so Mark has borrowed the application of
another prophetic passage to the Baptist from Jesus. Jesus had said
(Matt. xi. 10 ; Luke vii. 27 ): οὗ τος γάρ ἐστι περὶ οὗ γέγραπται·
ἰδοὺ ἀποστέλλω τὸν ἄγγελόν μου πρὸ προσώπου σου, ὃς
κατασκευάσει τὴν ὁδόν σου ἔμπροσθέν σου·. This is he of whom it is
written, Behold I send my messenger before thy face, to prepare thy
way before thee; and Mark in the introduction to his Gospel, applies
these words of Malachi (iii. 1 ), together with the above passage
from Isaiah, without distinguishing their respective sources, to the
forerunner, John. The text is a messianic one; Jehovah, however,
does not therein speak of sending a messenger before the Messiah,
but before himself: and it is only in the New Testament citations in
all these instances that the second person (σου) is substituted for
the first (‫‏ְלָפַני‬‎).
Another notable passage of the same prophet (iii. 23 , LXX. iv. 4 :

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἀποστελῶ ὑμῖν Ἠλίαν τὸν Θεσβίτην, πρὶν ἐλθεῖν τὴν
ἡμέραν Κυρίου, κ.τ.λ.: Behold, I will send you Elijah the Tishbite
before the coming of the day of the Lord, etc.) suggested to the
Evangelists the assimilation of John the Baptist to Elias. That John,
labouring for the reformation of the people, in the spirit and power
of Elias, should prepare the way for the Divine visitation in the times
of the Messiah, was according to Luke i. 17 , predicted before his
birth. In John i. 21 , when the emissaries of the Sanhedrim ask, “Art
thou Elias?” the Baptist declines this dignity: according to the usual
explanation, he only extended his denial to the rude popular notion,
that he was the ancient seer corporeally resuscitated, whereas he
would have admitted the view of the synoptical gospels, that he had
the spirit of Elias. Nevertheless it appears improbable that if the
fourth Evangelist had been familiar with the idea of the Baptist as a
second Elias, he would have put into his mouth so direct a negative.
This scene, peculiar to the fourth gospel, in which John rejects the
title of Elias, with several others, demands a yet closer examination,
and must be compared with a narrative in Luke (iii. 15 ), to which it
has a striking similarity. In Luke, the crowd assembled round the
Baptist begin to think: Is not this the Christ? μήποτε αὐτὸς εἴη ὁ
Χριστός· in John, the deputies of the Sanhedrim 74 ask him, Who art
thou? σὺ τίς εἶ; which we infer from the Baptist’s answer to mean:
“Art thou, as is believed, the Messiah?” 75 According to Luke, the
Baptist answers, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier
than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to
unloose. According to John he gives a similar reply: I baptize with
water; but there standeth one among you whom ye know not; He it
is who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoes’ latchet
I am not worthy to unloose: the latter Evangelist adding his peculiar
propositions concerning the pre-existence of Jesus, and deferring to
another occasion (v. 33 ) the mention of the Messiah’s spiritual
baptism, which Luke gives in immediate connexion with the above
passage. In Luke, and still more decidedly in John, this whole scene
is introduced [232]with a design to establish the Messiahship of Jesus,
by showing that the Baptist had renounced that dignity, and
attributed it to one who should come after him. If at the foundation
of two narratives so similar, there can scarcely be more than one
fact, 76 the question is, which gives that fact the most faithfully? In
Luke’s account there is no intrinsic improbability; on the contrary it is
easy to imagine, that the people, congregated round the man who
announced the Messiah’s kingdom, and baptized with a view to it,
should, in moments of enthusiasm, believe him to be the Messiah.
But that the Sanhedrim should send from Jerusalem to John on the
banks of the Jordan, for the sake of asking him whether he were the
Messiah, seems less natural. Their object could only be what, on a
later occasion, it was with respect to Jesus (Matt. xxi. 23 ff. ),
namely, to challenge the authority of John to baptize, as appears
from v. 25 . Moreover, from the hostile position which John had
taken towards the sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. iii.
7 ), to whom the members of the Sanhedrim belonged, they must
have prejudged that he was not the Messiah, nor a prophet, and
consequently, that he had no right to undertake a βάπτισμα. But in
that case, they could not possibly have so put their questions as
they are reported to have done in the fourth gospel. In the passage
from Mathew above cited, they asked Jesus, quite consistently with
their impression that he had no prophetic authority: ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ
ταῦτα ποιεῖς; By what authority doest thou these things? but in
John, they question the Baptist precisely as if they pre-supposed him
to be the Messiah, and when he, apparently to their consternation,
has denied this, they tender him successively the dignities of Elias,
and of another prophetic forerunner, as if they earnestly wished him
to accept one of these titles. Searching opponents will not thus
thrust the highest honours on the man to whom they are inimical;—
this is the representation of a narrator who wishes to exhibit the
modesty of the man, and his subordination to Jesus, by his rejection
of those brilliant titles. To enable him to reject them, they must have
been offered; but this could in reality only be done by well-wishers,
as in Luke, where the conjecture that the Baptist was the Messiah is
attributed to the people.
Why then did not the fourth Evangelist attribute those questions
likewise to the people, from whom, with a slight alteration, they
would have seemed quite natural? Jesus, when addressing the
unbelieving Jews in Jerusalem, (John v. 33 ), appeals to their
message to the Baptist, and to the faithful testimony then given by
the latter. Had John given his declaration concerning his relation to
Jesus before the common people merely, such an appeal would have
been impossible; for if Jesus were to refer his enemies to the
testimony of John, that testimony must have been delivered before
his enemies; if the assertions of the Baptist were to have any
diplomatic value, they must have resulted from the official inquiry of
a magisterial deputation. Such a remodelling of the facts appears to
have been aided by the above-mentioned narrative from the
synoptical traditions, wherein the high priests and scribes ask Jesus,
by what authority he does such things (as the casting out of the
buyers and sellers). Here also Jesus refers to John, asking for their
opinion as to the authority of his baptism, only, it is true, with the
negative view of repressing their further inquiries (Matt. xxi. 23 ff.
parall.); but how easily might this reference be made to take an
affirmative sense, and instead of the argument, “If ye know not
what powers were entrusted to John, ye need not know whence
mine are given,”—the following be substituted: “Since ye know what
John has declared concerning me, ye must also know what power
and [233]dignity belong to me;” whereupon what was originally a
question addressed to Jesus, transformed itself into a message to
the Baptist. 77
The judgment of Jesus on the character of John is delivered on two

occasions in the synoptical gospels; first after the departure of
John’s messengers (Matt xi. 7 ff. ); secondly, after the appearance
of Elias at the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 12 ff. ), in reply to the
question of a disciple. In the fourth gospel, after an appeal to the
Baptist’s testimony, Jesus pronounces an eulogium on him in the
presence of the Jews (v. 35 ), after referring, as above remarked, to
their sending to John. In this passage he calls the Baptist a burning
and a shining light, in whose beams the fickle people were for a
season willing to rejoice. In one synoptical passage, he declares
John to be the promised Elias; in the other, there are three points to
be distinguished. First, with respect to the character and agency of
John,—the severity and firmness of his mind, and the pre-eminence
which as the messianic forerunner, who with forcible hand had
opened the kingdom of heaven, he maintained even over the
prophets, are extolled (v. 7–14 ); secondly, in relation to Jesus and
the citizens of the kingdom of heaven, the Baptist, though exalted
above all the members of the Old Testament economy, is declared to
be in the rear of every one on whom, through Jesus, the new light
had arisen (v. 11 ). We see how Jesus understood this from what
follows (v. 18 ), when we compare it with Matt. ix. 16 f. In the
former passage Jesus describes John as μήτε ἐσθίων μήτε πίνων,
neither eating nor drinking; and in the latter it is this very asceticism
which is said to liken him to the ἱματίοις and ἀσκοῖς παλαιοῖς, the old
garments and old bottles, with which the new, introduced by Jesus,
will not agree. What else then could it be, in which the Baptist was
beneath the children of the kingdom of Jesus, but (in connexion with
his non-recognition or only qualified acknowledgment of Jesus as
Messiah) the spirit of external observance, which still clung to fasting
and similar works, and his gloomy asceticism? And, in truth, freedom
from these is the test of transition from a religion of bondage, to one
of liberty and spirituality. 78 Thirdly, with respect to the relation in
which the agency of John and Jesus stood to their cotemporaries,
the same inaptitude to receive the ministrations of both is
complained of v. 16 ff. , although in v. 12 it is observed, that the
violent zeal of some βιασταὶ had, under the guidance of John,
wrested for them an entrance into the kingdom of the Messiah. 79
In conclusion, we must take a review of the steps by which tradition

has gradually annexed itself to the simple historical traits of the
relation between John and Jesus. Thus much seems to be historical:
that Jesus, attracted by the fame of the Baptist, put himself under
the tuition of that preacher, and that having remained some time
among his followers, and been initiated into his ideas of the
approaching messianic kingdom, he, after the imprisonment of John,
carried on, under certain modifications, the same work, never
ceasing, even when he had far surpassed his predecessor, to render
him due homage.
The first addition to this in the Christian legend, was, that John had
taken approving notice of Jesus. During his public ministry, it was
known that he had only indefinitely referred to one coming after
him; but it behoved him, [234]at least in a conjectural way, to point
out Jesus personally, as that successor. To this it was thought he
might have been moved by the fame of the works of Jesus, which,
loud as it was, might even penetrate the walls of his prison. Then
was formed Matthew’s narrative of the message from prison; the
first modest attempt to make the Baptist a witness for Jesus, and
hence clothed in an interrogation, because a categorical testimony
was too unprecedented.
But this late and qualified testimony was not enough. It was a late
one, for prior to it there was the baptism which Jesus received from
John, and by which he, in a certain degree, placed himself in
subordination to the Baptist; hence those scenes in Luke, by which
the Baptist was placed, even before his birth, in a subservient
relation to Jesus.
Not only was it a late testimony which that message contained; it

was but half a one; for the question implied uncertainty, and ὁ
ἐρχόμενος conveyed indecision. Hence in the fourth gospel there is
no longer a question about the Messiahship of Jesus, but the most
solemn asseverations on that head, and we have the most pointed
declarations of the eternal, divine nature of Jesus, and his character
as the suffering Messiah.
In a narrative aiming at unity, as does the fourth gospel, these very

pointed declarations could not stand by the side of the dubious
message, which is therefore only found in this Gospel under a totally
reorganized form. Neither does this message accord with that which
in the synoptical gospels is made to occur at the baptism of Jesus,
and even earlier in his intercourse with John; but the first three
Evangelists, in their loose compositions, admitted, along with the
more recent form of the tradition, the less complete one, because
they attached less importance to the question of John than to the
consequent discourse of Jesus.
[Contents]
§ 48.
THE EXECUTION OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
We here take under our examination, by way of appendix, all that

has been transmitted to us concerning the tragic end of the Baptist.
According to the unanimous testimony of the synoptical Evangelists
and Josephus, 80 he was executed, after a protracted imprisonment,
by order of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee; and in the New
Testament accounts he is said to have been beheaded. (Matt. xiv. 3
ff. ; Mark vi. 17 ff. ; Luke ix. 9 .)
But Josephus and the Evangelists are at variance as to the cause of
his imprisonment and execution. According to the latter, the censure
which John had pronounced on the marriage of Herod with his (half)
brother’s 81 wife, was the cause of his imprisonment, and the
revengeful cunning of Herodias, at a court festival, of his death:
Josephus gives the fear of disturbances, which was awakened in
Herod by the formidable train of the Baptist’s followers, as the cause
at once of the imprisonment and the execution. 82 If these two
accounts be considered as distinct and irreconcilable, it may be
doubted which of the two deserves the preference. It is not here as
in the case of Herod Agrippa’s death, Acts xii. 23 , viz., that the New
Testament narrative, by intermixing a supernatural cause where
Josephus has only a natural one, enables us to prejudge it as
unhistorical; on the contrary, we might here give [235]the palm to the
evangelical narrative, for the particularity of its details. But on the
other hand, it must be considered that that very particularity, and
especially the conversion of a political into a personal motive,
corresponds fully to the development of the legendary spirit among
the people, whose imagination is more at home in domestic than in
political circles. 83 Meanwhile it is quite possible to reconcile the two
narratives. This has been attempted by conjecturing, that the fear of
insurrection was the proper cabinet motive for the imprisonment of
the Baptist, while the irreverent censure passed on the ruler was
thrust forward as the ostensible motive. 84 But I greatly doubt
whether Herod would designedly expose the scandalous point
touched on by John; it is more likely, if a distinction is to be here
made between a private and ostensible cause, that the censure of
the marriage was the secret reason, and the fear of insurrection
disseminated as an excuse for extreme severity. 85 Such a distinction,
however, is not needed; for Antipas might well fear, that John, by his
strong censure of the marriage and the whole course of the
tetrarch’s life, might stir up the people into rebellion against him.
But there is a diversity even between the evangelical narratives

themselves, not only in this, that Mark gives the scene at the feast
with the most graphic details, while Luke is satisfied with a concise
statement (iii. 18–20 , ix. 9 ), and Matthew takes a middle course;
but Mark’s representation of the relation between Herod and the
Baptist differs essentially from that of Matthew. While according to
the latter, Herod wished to kill John, but was withheld by his dread
of the people, who looked on the Baptist as a prophet (v. 5 );
according to Mark, it was Herodias who conspired against his life,
but could not attain her object, because her husband was in awe of
John as a holy man, sometimes heard him gladly, and not seldom
followed his counsel (v. 19 ). 86 Here, again, the individualizing
characteristic of Mark’s narrative has induced commentators to
prefer it to that of Matthew. 87 But in the finishing touches and
alterations of Mark we may detect the hand of tradition; especially
as Josephus merely says of the people, that they gave ear to the
sound of his words, ἤρθησαν τῇ ἀκροάσει τῶν λόγων, while he says
of Herod, that having conceived fears of John, he judged it
expedient to put him to death, δείσας κρεῖττον ἡγεῖται (τὸν
Ἰωάννην) ἀναιρεῖν. How near lay the temptation to exalt the Baptist,
by representing the prince against whom he had spoken, and by
whom he was imprisoned, as feeling bound to venerate him, and
only, to his remorse, seduced into giving his death-warrant, by his
vindictive wife! It may be added, that the account of Matthew is not
inconsistent with the character of Antipas, as gathered from other
sources. 88

Ebooks File in Situ Electron Microscopy Applications in Physics Chemistry and Materials Science 1st Edition Gerhard Dehm All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebooks File in Situ Electron Microscopy Applications in Physics Chemistry and Materials Science 1st Edition Gerhard Dehm All Chapters

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebooks File in Situ Electron Microscopy Applications in Physics Chemistry and Materials Science 1st Edition Gerhard Dehm All Chapters

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the full version of the textbook now at textbookfull.

In situ Electron Microscopy Applications in

Explore and download more textbook at https://textbookfull.com

Time resolved electron diffraction for chemistry biology

Ultrasonic Spectroscopy Applications in Condensed Matter

Physics and Chemistry of Carbon-Based Materials: Basics

Information Theoretic Security 8th International

Modeling and Simulation of Invasive Applications and

How He-Man Mastered the Universe: Toy to Television to the

Advanced Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering Future

Building Tools with GitHub Customize Your Workflow 1st

In-situ Electron Microscopy

Van Tendeloo, G., Van Dyck, D.,

Tsukruk, V. V., Singamaneni, S.

Baró, A. M., Reifenberger, R. G. (Eds.)

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy

In-situ Electron Microscopy

Applications in Physics, Chemistry and Materials Science

Prof. Dr. James M. Howe British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

All rights reserved (including those of translation

Cover Design Adam-Design, Weinheim

Printed in the Federal Republic of Germany

Print ISBN: 978-3-527-31973-2

List of Contributors XIII

Part I Basics and Methods 1

1 Introduction to Scanning Electron Microscopy 3

1.4 Electron Backscattered Diffraction (EBSD) 31

2 Conventional and Advanced Electron Transmission Microscopy 39

3 Dynamic Transmission Electron Microscopy 71

3.6.4 Aberration Correction 93

4 Formation of Surface Patterns Observed with Reflection

Part II Growth and Interactions 123

5 Electron and Ion Irradiation 125

6 Observing Chemical Reactions Using Transmission Electron

6.3.1 Oxidation and Reduction (Redox) Reactions 150

7 In-Situ TEM Studies of Vapor- and Liquid-Phase Crystal Growth 171

8 In-Situ TEM Studies of Oxidation 191

8.2.1 Environmental Cells 192

Part III Mechanical Properties 209

9 Mechanical Testing with the Scanning Electron Microscope 211

10 In-Situ TEM Straining Experiments: Recent Progress in Stages

10.3.3 Dislocation Nucleation and Multiplication in Thin Films 236

11 In-Situ Nanoindentation in the Transmission Electron Microscope 255

Part IV Physical Properties 279

12 Current-Induced Transport: Electromigration 281

12.5.2 Reﬂective High-Energy Electron Diffraction (RHEED) 296

13 Cathodoluminescence in Scanning and Transmission

14 In-Situ TEM with Electrical Bias on Ferroelectric Oxides 321

15 Lorentz Microscopy 347

15.2.3.1 Oersted Fields 356

Florian Banhart and

and Marc Legros

Alexander V. Latyshev Bryan W. Reed

Frances M. Ross Seiji Takeda

Ralph Spolenak Guangwen Zhou

Gerhard Dehm, Leoben, Austria

The electron–optical system in a scanning electron microscope is actually designed

It is convenient to consider the major components of a scanning electron microscope

electrons is brought to a focus by the electrostatic ﬁeld and then accelerated by an