Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (728 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
7.02Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
• For a different explanation see Schaeckenburger, Beitrage, S. 48 S
240
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
§. 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,* he was executed, after a protracted imprisonment, by order of Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee ; and in the New Testament accounts lie is said to have-been beheaded.
(Matt. xiv. 3 ff.; Mark vi. 17 ff. ; Luke ix. 9.)
But Josephus and tlie evangelists are at variance as to tlie cause of his imprisonment and execution. According to the latter, tlie censure which John liad pronounced on the marriage of Herod with his (half) brother’s f wife, was tlie cause of his imprisonment, and tlie revengeful cunning of Herodias, at a court festival, of his death:
Josephus gives the fear of disturbances, which was awakened in Herod by tlie formidable train of the Baptist’s followers, as the cause at once of tlie imprisonment and the execution.:): If tliese two accounts be considered as distinct and irreconcileable, it may be doubted which of the two deserves tlie preference. It is not here as in the case of Herod Agrippa’s deatli. Acts xii. 23., viz., that tlie New Testament narrative, by intermixing a supernatural cause where Josephus has only a natural one, enables us to prejudge it as unhistorical; on tlie contrary, we might here give tlie palm to tlie evangelical narrative, for the particularity of its details. But on the other liand, it must be considered tliat tliat very particularity, and especially the conversion of a political into a personal motive, corresponds fully to tlie development of tlie legendary spirit among the people, whose imagination is more at home in domestic than in political circles.S Meanwhile it is quite possible to reconcile the two narratives. This has been attempted by conjecturing, that tho fear of insurrection was tlie proper cabinet motive for tlie imprisonment of the Baptist, wliile tlie irreverent censure passed on tlie ruler was thrust forward as tlie ostensible motive. || But I greatly doubt whether Herod would designedly expose tlie scandalous point touclicd on by John; it is more likely, if a distinction is to be here made between a private and ostensible cause, tliat the censure of tlie marriage was the secret reason, and the fear of insurrection disseminated as an excuse for extreme severity.^ Such a distinction, however, is not needed; for Antipas might well fear, tliat Jolm, by his strong censure of the marriage and the wliole 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 tills, tliat Mark gives the scene at the feast
* Antiq. xviii. v. 2. •I- This former husband of Herodias is named by the evangelist;.
Philip, by Josephus, Herod. He was the son of the high priest’s dangliter, Mariamne, and lived as a private person. V. Antiq.’xv. ix. 3: xviii. v. 1. 4. H. j. i. xxix.
2. xxx. 7.
2. xxx. 7.
t Antiq. xviii. v. 4.g Hase, Leiien Jesu, S. 88.||
Fritzsche, Comin. in Matth. in loc.
Fritzsche, Comin. in Matth. in loc.
Winer. bi’ul. Kealworterb. 1, S. 694..^ Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, a, S. 361 ; Schleier
EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.241
with the most graphic details, while Luke is satisfied witli a concise statement (iii. 18-20; ix. 9), and Matthew takes a middle course;
but Mark’s representation of the relation between Herod and tlie Baptist differs essentially from that of Matthew. Wliile according to the latter, Herod wished to kill Jolin, but was withheld by his dread of tlie people, wlio 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).* Here, again, tlie individualizing characteristic of Mark’s narrative lias induced commentators to prefer it to tliat of Matthcw.t But in tlie finishing touclies and alterations of Mark we may detect tlie hand of tradition; especially as Josephus merely says of tlie people, tliat they gave ear to the sound of his words, ‘/yQt\oa.v -y wpodaei rw ^oyw, wliile lie says of Herod, tliat having conceived/ears of John, he judged it erpedient to put him to death, SdacK; Kpe1~~ov fjyelrat (-bv ‘ludvvTjv\ dvaipelv.
How near lay the temptation to exalt the Baptist, by representing the prince against whom lie liad spoken, and by whom lie 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, tliat tlie account of Matthew is not inconsistent with the character of Antipas, as gathered from other sources. ^
How near lay the temptation to exalt the Baptist, by representing the prince against whom lie liad spoken, and by whom lie 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, tliat tlie account of Matthew is not inconsistent with the character of Antipas, as gathered from other sources. ^
Tlie close of the evangelical narratives leaves the impression tliat tlie dissevered head of Jolm was presented at table, and that the prison was consequently close at hand. But we learn from the passage in Joscplius above cited, tliat the Baptist was confined in Macha’rus, a fortress on the southern border of Persia, whereas the residence of Herod was in Tiberias,§ a day’s journey distant from Machairus. Hence tlie liead of Jolin the Baptist could only be presented to Herod after two day’s journey, and not while lie yet sat at table.
The contradiction here apparent is not to be removed by tlie consideration, tliat it is not expressly said in the Gospels tliat John’s head was brought in during tlie meat, for this is necessarily inferred from the entire narrative.
Not, only are tlie commission of tlie executioner and his return with tlie liead, .detailed in immediate connexion witli tlie incidents of tlie meal; but, only thus has tlie wliole dramatic scene its appropriate conclusion;-only thus is the contrast complete, wliicli is formed by tlie death-warrant and the feast: in fine, tlie Triraf, on which tlie dissevered head is presented, marks it as the costliest viand wliicli tlie unnatural revenge of a woman could desire at table. But we have, as a probable solution, the information of Josephus, || tliat Herod Antipas was tlien at war witli tlie Arabian king, Aretas, between whose kingdom and his own
The contradiction here apparent is not to be removed by tlie consideration, tliat it is not expressly said in the Gospels tliat John’s head was brought in during tlie meat, for this is necessarily inferred from the entire narrative.
Not, only are tlie commission of tlie executioner and his return with tlie liead, .detailed in immediate connexion witli tlie incidents of tlie meal; but, only thus has tlie wliole dramatic scene its appropriate conclusion;-only thus is the contrast complete, wliicli is formed by tlie death-warrant and the feast: in fine, tlie Triraf, on which tlie dissevered head is presented, marks it as the costliest viand wliicli tlie unnatural revenge of a woman could desire at table. But we have, as a probable solution, the information of Josephus, || tliat Herod Antipas was tlien at war witli tlie Arabian king, Aretas, between whose kingdom and his own
* Vergl. Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc. p. 223. •{• E. g. Schneckenbnrger, iiber den TJrEpning dus ersh.n kanonischen Evangeliums, S. 86 f. That the sivirffSil of Matthew, v.
.1, 13 not contradictory to his own narrative, see Fritzsche, in loc.t Winer, bibl. Eeal
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
lay tlie fortress of Machscrus ; and there Herod might possibly have resided with his court at tliat period.
Thus we see that the life of John in the evangelical narratives is, from easily conceived reasons, overspread with mythical lustre on the side which is turned toward Jesus, while on the other its historical lineaments, are more visible.
BAPTISM AND TEMPATION OF JESUS.
§. 49. WHY DID JESUS RECEIVE BAPTISM FEOM JOHN?
IN conformity with the evangelical view of the fact, the customary answer given by the orthodox to this question is, that Jesus, by his submission to John’s baptism, signified his consecration to tlie messianic office; an explanation which is supported by a passage in Justin, according to which it was the Jewish notion, that the Messiah would be unknown as sucli to himself and others, until Elias as his forerunner sliould anoint him, and thereby make him distinguishable by all.* Tlie Baptist himself, however, as he is represented by tlie first evangelist, could not have partaken of tins design;
for had lie regarded his baptism as a consecration which tlie Messiah must necessarily undergo, he would not have hesitated to perform it on tlie person of Jesus (iii. 14.).
Our former inquiries have shown that John’s baptism related partly e^? T’OV Ep^opsvov, its recipients promising a believing preparation for the expected Messiah; how then could Jesus, if he was conscious of being liimself the ep^ojiigvoc, submit himself to this baptism ? The usual answer from the orthodox point of view is, that Jesus, altliougli conscious of his Messiaship, yet, so long as it was not publicly attested by God, spoke and acted, not as tlie Messiah, but merely as an Israelite, who lield liimself bound to obey every divine ordinance relative to his nation.+ But, here, there is a distinction to be made.Negatively, it became Jesus to refrain from performing any messianic deeds, or using any of the Messiah’s prerogatives, before Ids title was solemnly attested; even positively, it became him to submit himself to tlie ordinances which were incumbent on every Israelite; but to ioin in a new rite, which symbolized tlie expectation of another and a future Messiah, could never, without dissimulation, be the act of one who was conscious of being the actual Messiah himself. More recent theologians liave
-
--- •
• --•L “„„ p-,,«,.h;,.),tB .Ti.au. 1. B. S.
--- •
• --•L “„„ p-,,«,.h;,.),tB .Ti.au. 1. B. S.
BAPTISM OF JESUS.243
therefore wisely admitted, that when Jesus came to John for baptism, he had not a decided conviction of his Messiahship.* They indeed regard this uncertainty as only the struggle of modesty.
Paulus, for instance, observes that Jesus, notwithstanding he had heard from his parents of Ills messianic destination, and had felt this first intimation confirmed by many external incidents, as well as by his own spiritual development, was yet not over eager to appropriate the honour, wliich had been as it were thrust upon him.
But, if the previous narratives concerning Jesus be regarded as a history, and therefore, of necessity, as a supernatural one; then must lie, who was heralded by angels, miraculously conceived, welcomed into tlie world by the homage of magi and prophets, and who in his twelfth year knew the temple to be his father’s house, have long held a conviction of his Messiahship, above all tlie scruples of a false modesty. If on the contrary it be thought possible, by criticism, to reduce the history of the childhood of Jesus to a merely natural one, there is no longer anything to account for his early belief tliat he was the Messiali; and tlie position wliicli lie adopted by tlie reception of John’s baptism becomes, instead of an affected diffidence, a real ignorance of his messianic destiny.
Too modest, continue these commentators, to declare himself Messiali on his own authority, Jesus fulfilled all that tlie strictest self-judgment could require, and wislicd to make the decisive experiment, whether tlie Deity would allow tliat lie, as well as every other, should dedicate liimself to the coming Messiali, or whether a sign would be granted, that lie himself was the ep^’o^evoc. But to do something seen to be inappropriate, merely to try wliether God will correct tlie mistake, is just such a challenging of the divine power as Jesus, shortly after his baptism, decidedly condemns. Thus it must be allowed that, the baptism of John being a baptism el<; T’OV ep^ofzEvov, if Jesus could submit liimself to it without dissimulation or presumption, he could not at the time liave held liimself to be tliat ep^o^eroc, and if lie really uttered ttie words o^ru Trpe-n-ov EO-I, a. T. X. Suffer it to be so no’w, &c. (wliicli, however, could only be called forth by the refusal of tlie Baptist-a refusal that stands or falls with his previous conviction of tlie Messiahship of Jesus,) he could only mean by them, tliat it became him, witli every pious Israelite, to devote liimself by anticipation to tlie expected Messiali, in baptism, although the evangelist, instructed by tlie issue, put on them a different construction.
Too modest, continue these commentators, to declare himself Messiali on his own authority, Jesus fulfilled all that tlie strictest self-judgment could require, and wislicd to make the decisive experiment, whether tlie Deity would allow tliat lie, as well as every other, should dedicate liimself to the coming Messiali, or whether a sign would be granted, that lie himself was the ep^’o^evoc. But to do something seen to be inappropriate, merely to try wliether God will correct tlie mistake, is just such a challenging of the divine power as Jesus, shortly after his baptism, decidedly condemns. Thus it must be allowed that, the baptism of John being a baptism el<; T’OV ep^ofzEvov, if Jesus could submit liimself to it without dissimulation or presumption, he could not at the time liave held liimself to be tliat ep^o^eroc, and if lie really uttered ttie words o^ru Trpe-n-ov EO-I, a. T. X. Suffer it to be so no’w, &c. (wliicli, however, could only be called forth by the refusal of tlie Baptist-a refusal that stands or falls with his previous conviction of tlie Messiahship of Jesus,) he could only mean by them, tliat it became him, witli every pious Israelite, to devote liimself by anticipation to tlie expected Messiali, in baptism, although the evangelist, instructed by tlie issue, put on them a different construction.
But the relation hitherto discussed is only one aspect of John’s baptism ; tlie other, wliicli is yet more strongly attested by history, shows it as a PaTrnaiia fiKravoiag, a baptism of repentance.
The Israelites, we are told Matt. iii. 6, were baptized of John, confessing weir sins: sliall we then suppose that Jesus made such a confession ? They received tlie command to repent: did Jesus acknowledge such a command ? This difficulty was felt even in the early church. In the gospel of tlie Hebrews, adopted by tlie Nazarenes,
The Israelites, we are told Matt. iii. 6, were baptized of John, confessing weir sins: sliall we then suppose that Jesus made such a confession ? They received tlie command to repent: did Jesus acknowledge such a command ? This difficulty was felt even in the early church. In the gospel of tlie Hebrews, adopted by tlie Nazarenes,
* Paulus. ut sun- S- S(i2 ff- S.17.
Hase. L. J. S. 48. erste Anss.
Hase. L. J. S. 48. erste Anss.
246 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
The narrations directly convey no other meaning, than that the
whole scene was externally visible and audible, and thus they have been always understood by tlic majority of commentators. But in endeavouring to conceive the incident as a real one, a cultivated and reflecting mind must stumble at no insignificant difficulties. First, that for the appearance of a divine being on earth, tlie visible heavens must divide themselves, to allow of his descent from Ins accustomed scat, is an idea tliat can liave no objective reality, but must be the entirely subjective creation of a time when tlic dwelling-place of Deity was imagined to be above the vault of licaven.
Further, how is it reconcileable with the true idea of tlie Holy Spirit as tlie divine, all-pervading Power, that lie sliould move from ons place to anotlier, like a finite being, and embody himself in tlie form of a dove ? Finally, tliat God should utter articulate tones in a national idiom, lias been justly lield extravagant.*
Even in the early church, tlie more enlightened fathers adopted the opinion, tliat tlie heavenly voices spoken of in tlie biblical history were not external sounds, tlic effect of vibrations in tlie air, but inward impressions produced by God in tlie minds of those to whom he willed to impart himself: thus of tlie appearance at tlie baptism of Jesus, Origen and Theodore of Mopsucstia maintain that it was a vision, and not a reality, on-aalo., ou ipvoi^.) To the simple indeed, says Origen, in their simplicity, it is a light thing to set the universe in motion, and to sever a solid mass like tlie heavens ; but those who search more deeply into such matters, will, lie flunks, refer to those higher revelations, by means of wliicli clioscn persons, even waking, and still more frequently in their dreams, arc led to suppose tliat they perceive something with their bodily senses, wliilc their minds only are affected : so tliat consequently, tlic wliole appearance in question sliould be understood, not as an external incident, but as an inward vision sent by God; an interpretation which has also met witli much approbation among modern tlicologians.
In tlie first two Gospels and in the fourth, tills interpretation is favoured by tlie expressions, were opened to /dm, dveu^Orjaav avru>, he saw, elSe, and I beheld, TeOea/tai, which seem to imply tliat the appearance was subjective, in tlie sense intended by Theodore, when he observes that tlie descent of tlie Holy Spirit VMS not seen by all •present, bid that, by a certain spiritual contemplation, it was visible to John alone, ov waiv wi^Oi-] rol<; Trapovoiv, d/l/lo iiard riva •nve.vfia-iiifjv Oewpiav ^OT] y.6vu> TU ‘ludvvy: to John however ^we must add Jesus, who, according to Mark, participated in tlie vision. But in opposition to this stands tlie statement of Luke: the expressions wliicli lie uses, eywe-ro-avw^Or^vcii-nal ica~a0Tjvai-KW. ipuvi’ivyevioOal, it came to pass-was opened-and descended-and a
* Bauer, hebr. Mythologie, 2 S. 223 f. Comp.
Gratz, Comm. zum Evang. Matth. i.
Gratz, Comm. zum Evang. Matth. i.
S. 172 ff.
+ Those are Theodore’s words, in Mimter’s Fragmenta patr. grixic. Fasc. 1, S. 142.
n-;~ „ ^..1. ; faIt.,.;] Af in «,,i..or’a •I’ln.an.irna C IV 117!).
BAPTISM OF JESUS.247
voice came, bear a character so totally objective and exterior,* especially if we add the words, in a bodily form, aui.ia.Ti.nu e’iSei, tliat (abiding by the notion of the perfect truthfulness of all the evangelical records,) tlic less explicit narratives must be interpreted by the unequivocal one of Luke, and the incident they recount must be understood as something more than an inward revelation to John and Jesus. Hence it is prudent in Olshausen to allow, in concession to Luke, that there was present on the occasion a crowd of persons, who saw and heard something, yet to maintain that tins was nothing distinct or comprehensible. By this means, on the one liand, the occurence is again transferred from the domain of subjective visions to tliat of objective phenomena; while on the other, the descending dove is supposed visible, not to tlie bodily eye, but only to the open spiritual one, and tlie words audible to the soul, not to tlie bodily car. Our understanding fails us in tills pneumatology of Olshausen, wherein there are sensible realities transcending the senses; and we hasten out of tills misty atmosphere into the clearer one of those, who simply tell us, that the appearance was an external incident, but one purely natural.
This party appeals to the custom of antiquity, to regard natural occurrences as divine intimations, and in momentous crises, where a bold resolution was to be taken, to adopt them as guides. To Jesus, spiritually matured into tlie Messiah, and only awaiting an external divine sanction, and to tlie Baptist who had already ceded the superiority to tlie friend of his youth, in their solemn frame of mind at the baptism of the former by tlie latter, every natural phenomenon that happened at tlic time, must have been pregnant with meaning, and have appeared as a sign of tlie divine will. But wliat the natural appearance actually was, is a point on which tlie commentators arc divided in opinon.
Some, with the synoptical writers, include a sound as well as an appearance ; others give, with John, an appearance only. They interpret the opening of the heavens, as a sudden parting of the clouds, or a flash of lightning; the dove they consider as a real bird of tliat species, wliicli by cliance hovered over the head of Jesus; or they assume tliat tlie lightning or some meteor was compared to a dove. from tlie manner of its descent. They wlio include a sound as a part of tlie machinery in tlic scene, suppose a clap of thunder, wliicli was imagined by tliose present to be a Bath Kol, and interpreted into the words given by tlie first evangelist. Others, on tlie contrary, understand what is said of audible words, merely as an explanation of the visible sign, which was regarded as an attestation tliat Jesus was the Son of God.
Tills last opinion sacrifices tlie synoptical writers, who undeniably speak of an audible voice, to John, and thus contains a critical doubt as to tlie historical character of tlie narratives, which, consistently followed out, leads to quite other ground than that of the naturalistic inter
Some, with the synoptical writers, include a sound as well as an appearance ; others give, with John, an appearance only. They interpret the opening of the heavens, as a sudden parting of the clouds, or a flash of lightning; the dove they consider as a real bird of tliat species, wliicli by cliance hovered over the head of Jesus; or they assume tliat tlie lightning or some meteor was compared to a dove. from tlie manner of its descent. They wlio include a sound as a part of tlie machinery in tlic scene, suppose a clap of thunder, wliicli was imagined by tliose present to be a Bath Kol, and interpreted into the words given by tlie first evangelist. Others, on tlie contrary, understand what is said of audible words, merely as an explanation of the visible sign, which was regarded as an attestation tliat Jesus was the Son of God.
Tills last opinion sacrifices tlie synoptical writers, who undeniably speak of an audible voice, to John, and thus contains a critical doubt as to tlie historical character of tlie narratives, which, consistently followed out, leads to quite other ground than that of the naturalistic inter
* As even Lticke confesses, Comm. zum Evang. Joh. i. S. 370, and Bleeh, lit sup. S.
248 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
pretation. If the sound was mere thunder, and the words only an interpretation put upon it bv tlie bystanders ; then, as in the synoptical accounts the words are evidently supposed to have been audibly articulated, we must allow that there is a traditional ingredient in these records.
So far as tlie appearance is concerned, it is not to be denied that tlie sudden parting ol’ clouds, or a flash of lightning, miglit be described as an opening of heaven ; but in nowise could tlie form of a dove be ascribed to lightning or a meteor.
So far as tlie appearance is concerned, it is not to be denied that tlie sudden parting ol’ clouds, or a flash of lightning, miglit be described as an opening of heaven ; but in nowise could tlie form of a dove be ascribed to lightning or a meteor.
Other books
Yazen (Ponith) by Nicole Sloan
Ink and Steel by Elizabeth Bear
The Tapestry by Wigmore, Paul
Stealing the Future by Max Hertzberg
The Confidential Agent by Graham Greene
The Lucky Lottery by Ron Roy
Cyborg Nation by Kaitlyn O'Connor
Crime Beat by Scott Nicholson
Love and Other Surprises by Robin Wells
Memoirs of an Emergency Nurse by Nicholl, Elizabeth