Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (725 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
7.39Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Thus much then is certain, and lias been acknowledged by the majority of modern commentators: tlie 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.”|’ 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 tlie 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 lie must, though himself tlie speaker, choose the third person.
Thus there is no definitive boundary, and tlie speech glides imperceptibly from those passages which might have been uttered by tlie Baptist, into those which are altogether incongruous with his position ; moreover from v. 30. Jesus is spoken of in tlie present tense, as the evangelist might represent tlie Baptist to speak daring tlie lifetime of Jesus, but could not in his own person have written after the death of Jesus. In other passages, when presenting his own, re
viaTcvuev els TO ovofia TOV fiovoyevovf vlov i,wiv, u.W ff opyi) TOD Qsw fisvel tn’ avrw.
TOV 9eou»
Comp. also the words of the Paptist v. 31, with Joh. iii. C. 12 f. viii. 23; V. 32 withviil.
26; T. 33 with vi. 27; Y, 34 with xii. 49, 60 ; v. 35 with v. 22, 27. x. 28 f. xvii. 2.
* Bibl. Comm. 2, p. 10.’“>.
•t’ Paulua, Olshausen, in loc.
RELATIONS BETWEEN JESL’S AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.229
flections concerning Jesus, lie uses the preterite.* Thus, grammatically, tlie Baptist continues to speak from v. 31, and yet, historically, it is impossible tliat lie should have uttered the sequel; a contradiction not to be solved, if it be added tliat, dogmatically, the evangelist cannot liave ascribed to tlie Baptist words wliich he never really pronounced. Now if we do not clioose to defy the clear rules of grammar, and tlie sure data of liistory, for the sake of the visionary dogma of inspiration, we sliall rather conclude from tlie given premises, witli tlie author of tlie Probabilia, that the evangelist falsely ascribes tlie language in question to tlie Baptist, putting into his mouth a Christology of his own, of wliich tlie latter could know nothing.
Tilis is no more than Luckef confesses, though not quite so frankly, when he says that the reflections of the evangelist are here more tlian equally mixed witli tlie discourse of tlie Baptist, m 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 tlie Baptist there is no trace, unless they arc souglit for witli a good will wliich amounts to prejudice, and to wliicli therefore we make no pretension.
If tlien we have a proof in tlie passages just considered, that tlie fourth evangelist did not hesitate to lend to the Baptist messianic and other ideas which were never his; we may lience conclude retrospectively concerning the passages on wliich we formerly suspended our decision, that the ideas expressed in them of a suffering and pre-existcnt Messiah belonged, not to tlie Baptist, but to the evangelist.
Tilis is no more than Luckef confesses, though not quite so frankly, when he says that the reflections of the evangelist are here more tlian equally mixed witli tlie discourse of tlie Baptist, m 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 tlie Baptist there is no trace, unless they arc souglit for witli a good will wliich amounts to prejudice, and to wliicli therefore we make no pretension.
If tlien we have a proof in tlie passages just considered, that tlie fourth evangelist did not hesitate to lend to the Baptist messianic and other ideas which were never his; we may lience conclude retrospectively concerning the passages on wliich we formerly suspended our decision, that the ideas expressed in them of a suffering and pre-existcnt Messiah belonged, not to tlie Baptist, but to the evangelist.
In giving the above reply to our first question, we have, in strictness, answered tlie remaining one; for if the Baptist had no such messianic ideas, he could not refer them to the person of Jesus.
But to strengthen tlie evidence for the result already obtained, we will make tlie second question the object of a special examination. According to tlie fourth evangelist tlie Baptist ascribed to Jesus all the messianic attributes above discussed. If he did this so enthusiastically, publicly, and repeatedly, as we road in John, he could not have been excluded by Jesus from tlie kingdom of heaven (Matt.
xi. 11.), nor have been placed below tlie least of its citizens. For such a confession as tliat of tlie Baptist, when lie calls Jesus the vi6g TOV Qeov, who was before him,-such refined insight into the messianic economy, as is sliown by his designating Jesus 6 ay.v’b^
TOV QEOV, b aipw rijv dfiapTlav rov Koaflov, Peter himself had not to produce, though Jesus not only receives him into tlie kingdom of heaven for his confession, Matt. xvi. 16., but constitutes him the rock on wliich that kingdom was to be founded.But we have something yet more incomprehensible. John, in tlie fourth Gospel, gives it as tlie object of his baptism, ‘iva ipavepuOy (Jesus as Messiah) TU ‘I(Tpar)/l (i. 31.), and acknowledges it to be the divine ordinance, that by the side of the increasing Jesus, lie must decrease
rock on wliich that kingdom was to be founded.
* E. g. here, v. 32, it is said: rf/v fiapTvpiav avrov ouoeif ^afifim’ci, but in the Pro
THE LIFE OF JESU8.
(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 tlie introduction of Jesus, and if he directed his followers to him as the Messiah ? (i. 36 f.).* The continuance of his baptism would be to no purpose; for Liikc’s supposition, tliat John’s baptism was still of effect in those places where Jesus had not appeared, lie himself overthrows by tlie observation, that at least at tlie period treated of in John iii. 22 ft., Jesus and John must have been baptizing near to each other, since tlie disciples of Jolin were jealous of the concourse to tlie baptism of Jesus. But tlie continuance of Jolin’s baptism appears even to counteract his aim, if tliat aim were merely to point out Jesus as the Messiah.
He thereby detained a circle of individuals on tlie borders of tlie Messiah’s kingdom, and retarded or hindered their going over to Jesus (and tliat tlirougli his own fault, not theirs alonc,t for lie nullified Ills verbal direction to Jesus by his contradictory example). Accordingly we find tlie party of John’s disciples still existing in the time of the Apostle Paul (Acts xvlii. 24 f. xix. 1 ft.); and, if tlie Sabeeans are to be credited concerning their own history, tlie sect remains to this day.} Certainly, presupposing tlie averred conviction of tlie Baptist relative to Jesus, it would seem most natural for him to have attached himself to tlie latter; this, however, did not liappen, and lience we condude tliat lie cannot have liad that conviction.S
He thereby detained a circle of individuals on tlie borders of tlie Messiah’s kingdom, and retarded or hindered their going over to Jesus (and tliat tlirougli his own fault, not theirs alonc,t for lie nullified Ills verbal direction to Jesus by his contradictory example). Accordingly we find tlie party of John’s disciples still existing in the time of the Apostle Paul (Acts xvlii. 24 f. xix. 1 ft.); and, if tlie Sabeeans are to be credited concerning their own history, tlie sect remains to this day.} Certainly, presupposing tlie averred conviction of tlie Baptist relative to Jesus, it would seem most natural for him to have attached himself to tlie latter; this, however, did not liappen, and lience we condude tliat lie cannot have liad that conviction.S
But chiefly the character and entire demeanour of tlie Baptist render it impossible to believe tliat he placed himself on tliat footing with Jesus, described by tlie fourth evangelist. How could the man of tlie wilderness, tlie stern ascetic, wlio fed on locusts and wild honey, and prescribed severe fasts to his disciples, tlie gloomy, threatening preacher of repentance, animated with tlie spirit of Elias-liow could lie form a friendship with Jesus, in every tiling his opposite ? He must assuredly, with his disciples, have stumbled at :thc liberal manners of Jesus, and have been hindered by them from recognizing him as tlie Messiah. Notliing is more unbending tlian ascetic prejudice; lie wlio, like the Baptist, esteems it piety to fast and mortify the body, will never assign a higli grade in tilings divine to him wlio disregards such asceticism. A mind witli narrow views can never comprehend one whose vision takes a wider range, al
* De Wette, de morte Christi expiatoria, in s. Opusc. theol. p. 81 ; biblische Dogmatik, § 209 ; Winer, bilil. Kealworterlmch 1, S. 692.f Neander, p. 7]’). This author erroneously supposes thai. there is an indication of the Baptist having directed his disciples to Jesus in Acts xviii. 25, wlu’re it is said of Apollos: iSlSaaKCV unpifSut: TU. Trep/ rov K.vpiou, imaru.u£VO(; TO ^aTTTiaint ^luuvvov. For on comparing the following chapter, we find that raul had to teach the disciples of John, that Ly the Ep^o^evof announced by their master, they were to understand Jesus ; whence it is clear that the things of the Lord expounded by Apollos, consisted only in the messianic doctrine, purified by John into an expectation of one who was to come, and that the more accurate instruction which lie received from the Christians, Aqiiila and Priscilla, was the doctrine of its fullilment in the person of Jesus. t Gesenius, I’robeheft der Gruber’schen Encyclopiidie, d. A. Zabier. § Bretschnei
EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AM> JOHN THE BAPTIST.231
though 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 tlie noblest and sublimcst resignation.* The beauty of this representation we grant; but not its truth. The instance would be a solitary one, if a man wliose life liad its influence on the world’s history, had so readily yielded tlie ascendant, in his own sera, 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 tliat an exception miglit be presumed (though not without prejudice) in the case of a man like the Baptist; it is a consequence of tliat 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 tlie inferior individual is, like John, of a coarse, rugged nature. Only from tlie divine point of view, or from tliat of an historian, bent on establishing religious doctrines, could sucli tilings be spoken, and the fourth evangelist has in fact put into the mouth of tlie Baptist the very same thoughts concerning tlie relation between him and Jesus, that the compiler of tlie 2nd book of Samuel has communicated, as his own observation, on the corresponding relation between Saul and David, f Competent judges have recently acknowledged that there exists a discrepancy between tlie Synoptical Gospels and tlie fourth, tlie blame of wliicli must be imputed to the latter:} and this opinion is confirmed and strengthened by tlie fact, that tlie fourth evangelist transforms tlie Baptist, into a totally different character from tliat in wliicli lie appears in the Synoptical Gospels and in Joseplius; out of a practical preacher lie makes a speculative christologist; out of a hard and unbending, a yielding and self-renunciating nature.
Tlie style in which the scenes between John and Jesus (John i.
29 ff. 35 ff.) arc 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 tlie glorification of Jesus.
With respect to tlie former : Jesus is walking, v. 35, near to John;
in v. 29 lie is said to come directly to him ; yet on neither occasion is there any account of an interview between tlie two. Could Jesus really have avoided contact with the Baptist, tliat, there miglit be no appearance of preconcerted action? This is Lampc’s conjecture;
but it is tlie product of modern reflections, foreign to the time and circumstances of Jesus. Or shall we suppose that the narrator,
* Greiling, Leben Jcsu von Nazaret, S. 132 f.
•)• 2 yam. iii. 1.
pini T^h TW
! t3’’i”n la’s’ph “b^’s f^ai
John iii. 80.
inslvov Scl avfuvciv.
^UE St i\aTTOvs9ai.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
whether fortuitously or purposely, omitted known details ?But the meetings of Jesus and John must liave furnished him with peculiarly interesting matter, so that, as Lucke allows,* 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 tlie Messiah.This, understood as a visible pointing, required that Jesus should pass by or approach John; hence this feature was inserted in tlie narrative : but the particulars of an actual meeting being unnecessary, were, though very awkwardly, omitted. Tlie 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.
Other books
Enemy Camp by Hill, David
Skinhead by Richard Allen
Murder in the Title by Simon Brett
Rock with You (Risking It All) by Rachel Lacey
Thai Die by FERRIS, MONICA
Married for Christmas (Willow Park) by Adams, Noelle
The Brat by Gil Brewer
The Junkyard Boys by SH Richardson
Room With a Clue (Pennyfoot Hotel Mystery) by Kingsbury, Kate
The Newsmakers by Lis Wiehl