Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (726 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
8.11Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
2, and Luke vii. 18, John despatches two disciples to Jesus witli the dubitativc 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, d[zvbc;
Qeov; as Jesus in the former case gives to the disciples, after the delivery of their message, tlie direction: “Go and tell John the.
things ye, haw seen and heard,” a eiSe-e nal rjnovaaTe : so in the latter, he gives to the inquiry concerning Ids abode, tlie answer:
come and see, ^p^eaOe nal ISs-e. But wliilc in the synoptical gospels tlie two disciples return to John, in the fourth, they permanently
attach themselves to Jesus.
From the foregoing considerations, it is inconceivable tliat John should ever liave 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, tliat John baptized elg TOV ep’^o[ievov, and this coming Messiali, adds Paul, to whom John pointed was Jesus (rov-es-iv eic; Xpiorbv ITJCTOW). This was an interpretation of the Baptist’s words by the issue; for Jesua 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 tlie ep^o^ievo?, understood the individual Jesus,-had himself the TOV-KOTIV, K. r. /I. in his mind;
According to Acts xix. 4, the apostle Paul declares what seems sufficiently guaranteed by history, tliat John baptized elg TOV ep’^o[ievov, and this coming Messiali, adds Paul, to whom John pointed was Jesus (rov-es-iv eic; Xpiorbv ITJCTOW). This was an interpretation of the Baptist’s words by the issue; for Jesua 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 tlie ep^o^ievo?, understood the individual Jesus,-had himself the TOV-KOTIV, K. r. /I. in his mind;
a view which, however unhistorical, would be inviting to tlie early Christians, in proportion to their wisli to sustain the dignity of Jesus by tlie authority of the Baptist, then very influential in the Jewisli world, f
There was yet another reason, gathered from the
There was yet another reason, gathered from the
* Commentar, S. 330.•(• The passage above quoted from the Acts gives us also some explanation, why the fourth evangelist of all others should he solicitous to place the Baptist in a more favourable relation to Jesus, than history allows us to conceive. According to v. 1 ff. there were persons in Ephesus who knew only of John’s baptism, and were therefore rebaptizcd by the apoatle Paul in tlie name of Jesus. Now an old tradition represents the fourth gospel to have been written in Ephcsus (Irsencus adv. hasr. iii, ].). If •we accept this, (and it is certainly correct in assigning a Greek locality for tlie composition of this Gospel,) and presuppose, in accordance with the intimation in the Acts, that Ephesus was the seat of a number of the Baptist’s followers, all of whom Paul could hardly have converted; tlie endeavour to draw them over to Jesus would explain the remarkable
RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.233
<
Old Testament. The ancestor of tlie Messiah, David, had likewise in the old Hebrew legend a kind of forerunner in the person of Samuel, wlio by order from Jehovah anointed him to be king over Israel (1 Sam. xvi.), and aftenvards stood in the relation of a witness to liis claims. If tlien it behoved the Messiali to liave a forerunner, who, besides, was more closely characterized in the prophecy of Malaclii as a second Elias, and if, historically, Jesus was preceded by John, wliose baptism as a consecration corresponded to an anointing; tlie idea was not remote of conforming tlie relation between John and Jesus to tliat between Samuel and David.
We might have decided witli tolerable certainty which of the two incompatible statements concerning tlie relation between the Baptist and Jesus is to be renounced as unhistorical, by tlie universal canon of interpretation, tliat where, in narratives having a tendency to aggrandize a person or a fact, (a tendency which the Gospels evince at every step,) two contradictory statements are found, tliat which best corresponds to tills aim is tlie least historical; because if, in accordance with it, tlie original fact had been so dazzling, it is inconceivable tliat 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, wliicli reports him to have been in doubt on tlie same subject at a very late period.
We have, however, by a separate examination of tlie narrative in the fourth gospel, ascertained tliat it is self-contradictory and contains its own solution; hence our result, found independently of tlie above canon, serves for its confirmation.
We have, however, by a separate examination of tlie narrative in the fourth gospel, ascertained tliat it is self-contradictory and contains its own solution; hence our result, found independently of tlie above canon, serves for its confirmation.
Meanwiiile tliat result is only tlie negative, tliat all which turns upon tlie early acknowledgment of Jesus by John has no claim to be received as historical; of tlie 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 tlie probability of an early and decided conviction on tlie part of tlie Baptist, to a mere conjecture awakened in him at a later period that Jesus was tlie Messiah; and therefore we leave uncontested tlie proper contents of tlie narrative. But as regards the form, it is not to be conceived witliout difficulty.
That tlie Baptist in prison, iv -n? 6eap.uTW”^, sliould liave information of tlie proceedings of Jesus; that he should from tliat locality send liis disciples to Jesus; and tliat tliese, as we are led to infer, sliould bring him an answer in liis imprisonment.
That tlie Baptist in prison, iv -n? 6eap.uTW”^, sliould liave information of tlie proceedings of Jesus; that he should from tliat locality send liis disciples to Jesus; and tliat tliese, as we are led to infer, sliould bring him an answer in liis imprisonment.
According to Josephus,* Herod imprisoned John from fear of disturbances; allowing tills to be merely a joint cause with that given by tlie evangelist, it is yet difficult to believe that to a man, one motive of wliose imprisonment was to seclude him from his followers, his disciples sliould liave retained free access; although we cannot
remarked and discussed this, uber den Zweck der Evangelischen Geschichte und der Briefa Joliannis S. 3 ff. 2-t f. Compare Hug. Einlcitung in das N. T. S. 190 3te Aiisg.
* Anti.i. win v o
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
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, witli Schleicrmacher,*
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, witli Schleicrmacher,*
consider Luke’s account the true one, and the ^sff^u-^p^u 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 tlie incident in its original, Luke in a revised fonn.t It would indeed be singular if Mattliew liad supplied the Seofzu-ripw when it was originally wanting; it is far more natural to suppose that. Luke, wlio in tlic whole paragraph appears as a reviser, expunged tlie original mention of tlie prison.
In judging of Luke’s motives for so doing, we are led to notice tlie difference in tlie dates given by the evangelists for tlie imprisonment of John. Mattliew, witli whom Mark agrees, places it before the public appearance of Jesus in Gahlee; for he gives it as tlie motive for tlie return of Jesus into that province (Matt. iv. 12; MaA
i, 14.).
Luke assigns no precise date to the arrest of the Baptist (iii. 19 f.), yet it is to be inferred from his silence about tlie prison, in connexion witli tlie sending of tlie two disciples, tliat he regarded it as a later occurrence; but John expressly says, tliat after tlie first passover attended by Jesus in Ills 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 tlie first evangelist, which has inclined many commentators to renounce it in favour of tlie two last. Tliat Jesus, on tlic report of John’s imprisonment in Galilee by Herod Antipas, should have returned into the dominions of tliat prince for the sake of safety, is, as Schneckcnburgerwell maintains,:}: highly improbable, since there, of all places, he was tlie least secure from a similar fate. But even if it be held impossible to dissociate the dve^wprfaev {fie withdrew) from tlie connate idea of seeking security, we may still ask whether, disregarding tlie mistake in tlie motive, tlie fact itself may not be maintained.
Luke assigns no precise date to the arrest of the Baptist (iii. 19 f.), yet it is to be inferred from his silence about tlie prison, in connexion witli tlie sending of tlie two disciples, tliat he regarded it as a later occurrence; but John expressly says, tliat after tlie first passover attended by Jesus in Ills 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 tlie first evangelist, which has inclined many commentators to renounce it in favour of tlie two last. Tliat Jesus, on tlic report of John’s imprisonment in Galilee by Herod Antipas, should have returned into the dominions of tliat prince for the sake of safety, is, as Schneckcnburgerwell maintains,:}: highly improbable, since there, of all places, he was tlie least secure from a similar fate. But even if it be held impossible to dissociate the dve^wprfaev {fie withdrew) from tlie connate idea of seeking security, we may still ask whether, disregarding tlie mistake in tlie motive, tlie fact itself may not be maintained.
Mattliew and Mark connect witli this journey into Galilee after John’s imprisonment, tlie commencement of tlie public ministry of Jesus; and tliat this was consequent on tlie removal of tlie Baptist, I am quite inclined to believe, For it is in itself tlie most natural that the exit of the Baptist should incite Jesus to carry on in his stead tlie preaching of ^iK~avoiEi-e ffyyute yap i] ftaaiXsia T&V ovpav&v ; and the canon cited above is entirely in favour of Matthew. Ym if it be asked which fiction best accords witli the aggrandizing spirit ot the^
Christian legend,-tliat of John’s removal before tlie appearance of Jesus, or tliat of tlicir having long laboured in conjunction ?-the answer must be, the latter.
If he to whom tlie hero of a narrative is superior disappears from the scene before tlie entrance of tlic latter, the crowning opportunity for tlic hero to demonstrate his ascendancy
If he to whom tlie hero of a narrative is superior disappears from the scene before tlie entrance of tlic latter, the crowning opportunity for tlic hero to demonstrate his ascendancy
-- - -
.„,.4. IT.].,,, ,]„„ TTranriin”- U. S. W. S. 79.
.„,.4. IT.].,,, ,]„„ TTranriin”- U. S. W. S. 79.
RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.235
is lost-tlie 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, wliilc Mattliew and Mark rest satisfied witli tlie less effective representation. Hence, as tlie least calculated to magnify Jesus, tlie account of Matthew lias the advantage in historical probability.
Such is the case in the Gospels of Luke and John, wliilc Mattliew and Mark rest satisfied witli tlie less effective representation. Hence, as tlie least calculated to magnify Jesus, tlie account of Matthew lias the advantage in historical probability.
Thus at the time wlicn tlie two disciples must have been sent to Jesus, tlie Baptist was already imprisoned, and we have remarked above, tliat lie could hardly, so situated, transmit and receive messages. But popular legend might be prompted to fabricate sucli a message tliat tlie Baptist might not depart without at least an incipient recognition of Jesus as the Messiali; so that neither the one nor tlie oilier of the two incompatible statements is to be regarded as historical.
§. 47. OPINION OF THE EVANGELISTS AND JESUS CONCERNING THE
BAPTIST, WITH HIS OWN JUDGMENT ON HIMSELF--RESULT OF
THE INQUIKY INTO THE EELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO
INDIVIDUALS.
THE Evangelists apply to John, as tlic prcparer of the Messiah’s kingdom, several passages of the Old Testament.
Tlie abode of tlie preacher of repentance in the wilderness, his activity in preparing tlie way for tlie Messiali, necessarily recalled the passage of Isaiah (xl. 3 ff. LXX.): if>uvfj ftouv-cx; ev Ep^w £TO(juaoa-e -i}v b6bv Kvpfti), K. r.
This might be thought a later and Christian application, but there is nothing to controvert the statement of tlie fourth evangelist, tliat the Baptist had himself characterized his destina-hon by those prophetic words.
As tlie synoptical gospels have unanimously borrowed tills passage from tlie Baptist himself, so Mark lias borrowed the application of another prophetic passage to tlie Baptist from Jesus. Jesus liad said (Matt. xi. 10. Luke vii. 27.): ovroc; yap ‘UTI mpl ov ‘yeypa’n-ac ISov drroff-e/l/lu Tbv ay-ye/lfiv uov npb •npoauTTDV mv 0(: ita~aoits.va.oei rrjv b66v aov ^-TpooOEv aov This is he of whom it is written, .Behold, I send, my messenger before thy face, to prepare thy n’ay before thee; and Mark, in tlie introduction to his Gospel, applies tlicse words of Malaclii (iii. 1.), together witli tlie above passage from Isaiali, witliout distinguishing their respective sources, to tlie forerunner, John. The text is a messianic one; Jehovah, however, does not therein speak of sendine a messenger before the Messiali, but
Other books
Burned by Sarah Morgan
The Gift of Shayla by N.J. Walters
The Best American Crime Writing by Otto Penzler
Eventful Day by Collier, Diane
Christian (Vampires in America: The Vampire Wars Book 10) by D.B. Reynolds
Riding the Storm by Heather Graves
Beloved Enemy by Jane Feather
Cyber Terror by Rose, Malcolm
Rausch & Donlon - Can Be Murder 02 - Love Can Be Murder by Marilyn Rausch, Mary Donlon