Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (722 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.07Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
PanTt.ai.v aToSeitrrfv avru h-u Oecfi) ^avcZo-Odi, pj E-TI rivuv a^apTd’^uv wapaTriaei %pu^e.vuv, d/U’ s(j)’ ayveia rov o&ya-oc, are. Sfj Kal rr^ ^v^
SiKaioavvg •npwKKenaQapy.svr^. We might here be led to the supposition that tlie words for the remission of sins, ei? d^eaiv af.i.ap-Mv, as in Acts ii. 38. and other passages, was commonly used in relation
* Winer, ut sup. S. G31.f Paulus, ut sup. S. 301.t Scliiieckenburger, uher das Alter der Jii]|isi:lii;a l’rosi;lytentaut’c.§. Sanhcdr. f. xcvii. 3 : R. Elleser d’uit: si Isra’elitm vamttntiam anunf. tune un- Co’eirm Uberitntu.r; sin vero, noil liberantur.
 
Schottgen,
RELATIONS BETWEEN JiSSUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.
 
to Christian baptism, and was thence transferred unhistorically to that of John; but as in the passages quoted from Ezekiel the washing typified not only reformation but forgiveness, the probabilities are in favour of the evangelical statement. Moreover, it is possible to reconcile Josephus and tlie Evangelists, by understanding the words of the former to mean that the baptism of John was intended to effect a purification, not from particular or merely Levitical transgressions, but of the entire man, not immediately and mysteriously through the agency of water, but by means of tlie moral acts of reformation.*
 
The several accounts concerning John are farther at variance, as to the relation in which they place his baptism to the kingdom of heaven, ftawrjeia TUV ovpavuv. According to Matthew, the concise purport of the appeal with which he accompanied his baptism was, JSepent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, p-eravoelTe rjyyuce yap T[ paoiXsia r&v ovpavwv (iii. 2.) ; according to Luke, the Baptist in the first instance mentions only repentance and remission of sins, but no kingdom of heaven; and it is the conjecture of the people, that he might be the Messiah, by which he is first led to direct them to one wlio was coming after him (iii. 15 ft.). In Josephus, there is no trace of a relation between the ministry of John and the Messianic idea. Yet. we must not therefore conclude that the Baptist himself recognized no such relation, and that its only source was the Christian legend. Tor the baptism of John, waiving the opinion that it was derived from tlie baptism of proselytes, is not quite explicable without a reference to the above-mentioned expiatory lustrations of the people-lustrations which were to usher in tlie times of the Messiah ; moreover, the appearance of Jesus is made more comprehensible by the supposition, that John had introduced the idea of the proximity of the Messiah’s kingdom. That Josephus should keep back the Messianic aspect of tlie fact, is in accordance with his general practice, which is explained by the position of his people with respect to the Romans. Besides, in the expression, to assemble for baptism, pcnTTia{zu avvieval, in his mention of popular assemblages, avarpe^eiyOal, and in the fear of Antipas lest John should excite a revolt, dTroorao-t?, there lies an intimation of precisely such a religious and political movement as the liopc of the Messiah was calculated to produce. That the Baptist should so distinctly foretell the immediate appearance of the Messiah’s kingdom must create surprise, and (Luke’s reference to a divine call and revelation being held unsatisfactory) might lead to the supposition that the Christian narrator, believing that the true Messiah was actually manifested in the person of Jesus, the cotemporary of John, gave to the language of the latter a definiteness which did not belong to it originally; and wliile tlie Baptist merely said, consonantly with tlie Jewish notion already mentioned: Repent, that the kingdom of heaven may come, ueravoelTe, ‘iya ^6y T] f3aa. r. ovp., a later edition of bis words gave
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
yap (for) instead of Iva (thaf). But such a supposition is needless.
In tliose times of commotion, John’might easily believe that he discerned signs, which certified to him the proximity of the Messiah’s kingdom ; the exact degree of its proximity he left undecided.
 
According to tlie Evangelists, the coming of the kingdom of heaven, paai^sia r&v ovpavuv, -was associated by John with a Messianic individual to whom he ascribed, in distinction from his own baptism with water, a baptism with the Holy Ghost and with fire, ftaTTT^eiv TTvev^art. dyw nal -n-vpl (Matt. iii. 11. paralL), the outpouring of the Holy Spirit being regarded as a leading feature of the Messianic times (Joel ii. 28; Acts ii. 16 ff.) Of this personage lie farther predicted, in imagery akin to that used by the prophets on the same subject, that he would winnow the people as wheat (Mal.
iii. 2, 3. Zecli. xiii. 9.).The Synoptical Gospels state tlie case as if John expressly understood this Messianic individual to be Jesus of Nazareth. According to Luke, indeed, the mothers of these two men were cousins, and aware of the destination of their sons.
The Baptist while yet unborn acknowledged the divinity of Jesus, and all the circumstances imply that both were early acquainted with their relative position, predetermined by a lieavenly communication. Mattliew, it is true, says nothing of such a family connexion between John and Jesus; but when the latter presents himself for baptism, lie puts into the mouth of John words which seem to presuppose an earlier acquaintance. His expression of astonishment that Jesus should come to him for baptism, when he had need to be baptized of Jesus, could only arise from a previous knowledge or instantaneous revelation of his character. Of the latter there is no intimation ; for the first visible sign of the Messiahship of Jesus did not occur till afterwards. While in the first and third Gospels (in the second, tlie facts are so epitomized that the writers view on the subject is not evident), John and Jesus seem to have been no strangers to each other prior to the baptism; in the fourth, the Baptist pointedly asserts that he knew not Jesus before the heavenly appearance, which, according to the Synoptical Gospels, was coincident with l)is baptism (i. 31, 33.).
 
Simply considered, this looks like a contradiction. By Luke, the previous acquaintance of tlie two is stated objectively, as an external matter of fact; by Mattliew, it is betrayed in the involuntary confession of the astonished Baptist; in tlie fourth Gospel, on tlie contrary, their previous unacqnaintance is attested subjectively, by his premeditated assertion. It was not, therefore, a ve’“‘ farfetched idea of the Wolfenbiittel fragmentist, to put down the contradiction to tlie account of John and Jesus, and to presume that they had in fact long known and consulted each other, but tliat in public (in order better to play into one another’s hands) they demeaned themselves as if they had hitherto been mutual strangers, and each delivered an unbiassed testimony to the other’s excellence.*
 
* T^r.-li-rmpTit vnn ^PTTI Zwprltfl .Tftan nnd apinor Jfinnw hornnawoCT
 
EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.219
 
That such premeditated dissimulation might not be imputed to John, and indirectly to Jesus, it has been sought to disprove the existence of the contradiction in question exegetically. What John learned from the heavenly sign was the Messiahship of Jesus; to this therefore, and not to his person, refer the words, I knew him not, aayu OVK •y6eiv avrbv* But it may be questioned whether sucli an acquaintance as John must have had with Jesus, presupposing the narrative of Matthew and Luke, was separable from a knowledge of his Messiahship. The connexion and intercourse of the two families, as described by Luke, would render it impossible for John not to be early informed how solemnly Jesus had been announced as the Messiah, before and at his birth: he could not therefore say at a later period that, prior to the sign from heaven, he liad not known, but only that he had not believed, the story of former wonders, one of which relates to himself.f It being thus unavoidable to acknowledge that by the above declaration in tlie fourth Gospel, the Baptist is excluded, not only from a knowledge of tlie Messiahship of Jesus,. but also from a personal acquaintance with him ; it has been attempted to reconcile the first chapter of Luke with this ignorance, by appealing to the distance of residence between the two families, as a preventive to tlie continuance of their intercourse. :j: But if the journey from Nazareth to the hill country of Judea was not too formidable for the betrothed Mary, how could it be so for tlie two sons when ripening to maturity? What culpable indifference is hereby supposed in both families to tlie heavenly communications they had received! nay, what could be the object of those communications, if they had no influence on the early life and intercourse of the two sons?§
 
Let it be granted that the fourth gospel excludes an acquaintance witli the Messiahship only of Jesus, and tliat the tliird presupposes an acquaintance with his person only, on the part of John; still the contradiction is not removed. For in Matthew, John, when required to baptize Jesus, addresses him as if he knew him, not generally and personally alone, but specially, in his character of Messiah. It is true that the words: I have need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me ? (iii. 14.) have been interpreted, in the true spirit of harmonizing, as referring to the general superior excellence of Jesus, and not to his Messiahship. || But the right to undertake the baptism which was to prepare the way for the Messiali’s king
* So thinks Semler in his answer to the above Fragments, in ‘oc.; t3 think most of the moderns; Plank, Geschichte des Christenthums in der Periode seiner Einfuhrang, 1, K. 7. Winer, bibl. Kealworterb., 1, S, 691. f Let the reader judge for himself whether NeAnder’s arguments be not forced : “Even if the Baptist could have expected” (say rather must necessarily have known) “from the circumstances of the birth of Jesus, that he was the Messiah, the divine witness in his own mind would eclipse all external testimony, and compared with this divine illumination, all previous knowledge would seem ignorance.” p. 68.t Lucke, Commentar zum Evang. Johannis 1, S. 362.§ Osiander, in despair, answers, that the heavenly communications themselves might contain directions for-keeping the two youths apart! S. 127. || Hess, Geschichte Jesu, 1, S. 117 f. Pau
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
 
dom, was not to be obtained by moral superiority in general, but was conferred by a special call, such as Jolin himself had received, and such as could belong only to a prophet, or to the Messiah and his Forerunner (John i. 19 ff.) If then John attributed to Jesus authority to baptize, he must have regarded him not merely as an excellent man, but as indubitably a prophet, nay, since he lield him worthy to baptize himself, as his own superior; that is, since John conceived himself to be the Messiah’s Forerunner, no other than the Messiah himself. Add to this, that Matthew had just cited a discourse of tlie Baptist, in which he ascribes to the coming Messiah a baptism more powerful than his own; how then can we understand his subsequent language towards Jesus otherwise than thus : “Of what use is my water baptism to tliee, 0 Messiah? Far more do I need thy baptism of the Spirit !”*
 
The contradiction cannot be cleared away; we must therefore, if we would not lay the burthen of intentional deception on the agents, let the narrators bear the blame; and there will be the less hindrance to our doing so, the more obvious it is how one or both of them might be led into an erroneous statement. There is in the present case no obstacle to the reconciliation of Matthew with the fourth evangelist, farther than the words by which the Baptist seeks to deter Jesus from receiving baptism; words wliicli, if uttered before the occurence of any thing supernatural, presuppose a knowledge of Jesus in his character of Messiah. Now the Gospel of the Hebrews, according to Epiplianius, places the entreaty of Jolin that Jesus would baptize him, as a sequel to the sign from heaven ;f and this account has been recently regarded as tlie original one, abridged by the writer of our first Gospel, who, for tlie sake of effect, made the refusal and confession of the Baptist coincident with tlie first approach of Jesus. ^ But that we have not in the Gospel of the Hebrews the. original form of the narrative, is sufficiently proved by its very tedious repetition of tlie heavenly voice and the diffuse style of the whole. It is rather a very traditional record, and tlie insertion of John’s refusal after tlie sign and voice from heaven, was not made with the view of avoiding a contradiction of tlie fourth Gospel, which cannot be supposed to have been recognized in the circle of the Ebionite Christians, but from the very motive erroneously attributed to Matthew in his alleged transposition, namely, to give greater effect to the scene. A simple refusal on the part of the
* Comp. the Fragmcntist, ut sup.•i” HaBres.xxx.l3: Ka; u{ u.vfi\9ev inro TOV
VOQ.TOC, ^wi^ijcav o[ ovpavoc, Kai el^e TO Trvcv^a TOV QEOV TO uyLov ev elSei TTFptOTi.^uc K. T. /..

Other books

Fatal Venture by Freeman Wills Crofts
Honeycote by Henry, Veronica
Fatal Divide by Jamie Jeffries
Bull Head by John Vigna