Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (730 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
13Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
•i” Tilmll. Carni. L. 1, eleg. 8, v. 17 f. See tlie remark of Broeckhuis on this passage;
Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. S. 70 f.; Paulus, exeg.
Handb. 1, a, S. 3G9.
Handb. 1, a, S. 3G9.
\ Creuzer, Symbolik, ii. S. 80.
252 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
waters is expressly compared to a dove,* and tliat, apart from the narrative under examination, the dove is taken as a symbol of tlie Holy Spirit?! How near to this lay the association of the hovering dove with the Messiah, on whom the dove-like spirit was to descend, is evident, without our having recourse to the Jewish writings, which designate the Spirit hovering over tlie waters, Gen. 1. 2, as the Spirit of the Messiah,! and also connect with him its emblem, the Noachian dove.S
When, in tills manner, tlie heavenly voice, and tlie Divine Spirit down-hovering like a dove, gathered from tlie cotemporary Jewish ideas, had become integral parts of tlie Christian legend concerning the circumstances of the baptism of Jesus; it followed, of coarse, that the heavens should open themselves, for tlie Spirit, once embodied, must have a road, before it could descend through the vault of heaven. ||
The result of the preceding inquiries, viz., tliat tlie alleged miraculous circumstances of the baptism of Jesus have merely a mythical value, might have been miicli more readily obtained, in the way of inference from tlie preceding cliaptcr; for if, according to that, John liad not acknowledged Jesus to be tlie Messiah, tliere could have been no appearances at tlie baptism of Jesus, demonstrative •to Jolm of his Messiahsliip.
We have, however, establislied tlie mythical character of tlie baptismal phenomena, without presupposing tlie result of the previous cliapter; and thus the two independently obtained conclusions may serve to strengthen eacli other.
We have, however, establislied tlie mythical character of tlie baptismal phenomena, without presupposing tlie result of the previous cliapter; and thus the two independently obtained conclusions may serve to strengthen eacli other.
Supposing all the immediate circumstances of tlie baptism of Jesus unhistorical, the question occurs, whether the baptism itself be also a mere mythus. Fritzsche sfems not disinclined to tlie affirmative, for lie leaves it undecided whether the first Christians knew historically, or only supposed, in conformity witli their messianic expectations, that Jesus was consecrated to Ills messianic office by Jolm, as his Forerunner. This view may be supported by the observation, tliat in the Jewisli expectation, which originated in the history of David, combined witli tlie prophecy of Malaclii, there was
* Chagiga c. ii.:, Spiritus Dei J’ercbafv.1’ super aquas^ sicut columba, quce j’vrtw super pullos suos nee tangit illos. Ir Gibborim ad Genes. 1, 2, ap. Schdttgen, liora”, i. p. 9.
^ Torgum Koheleth, ii. 12, vox iu’rfuris is interpreted as vox ^pinii/.^ snncii. To regard tins, with Lucke, as an arbitrary interpretation, seems itself like arbitrariness, in the face of the above data. ^ Bereshith rabba, S. 2, f. 4, +, ad Genes. T. 2 (ap. ydnittgen ut sup.):
intelltgatur spir’Uus regis Mvssw3^ de quo dtcitnr Jes. xi. 2 ; et yuiescet St/pir Ulum fplritu?
Domini. § Sohar. Kumer. f. 68. col. 271 f. (in Schottgen, hora”, 2, p. 537 f.). The purport of this passage rests on the following cabalistic conclusion :
If David, according to 1’s. lii. 10, is the olive tree; the Messiah, a scion of David, is the olive leaf: and since it is said of Noah’s dove, Gen. viii. 11, tliat it carried an olive leaf in its mouth ; the Messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove.-Even Christian interpreters have compared the dove at the baptism of Jesus to tlie Noachian one ; see Suicer, Thesaurus, 2. Art. ireptOTtpu, p. 688. It has been customary to cite in this connexion, that the Samaritans paid divine honours to a dove under the name of Achiina, on Mount Gerizim ;
If David, according to 1’s. lii. 10, is the olive tree; the Messiah, a scion of David, is the olive leaf: and since it is said of Noah’s dove, Gen. viii. 11, tliat it carried an olive leaf in its mouth ; the Messiah will be ushered into the world by a dove.-Even Christian interpreters have compared the dove at the baptism of Jesus to tlie Noachian one ; see Suicer, Thesaurus, 2. Art. ireptOTtpu, p. 688. It has been customary to cite in this connexion, that the Samaritans paid divine honours to a dove under the name of Achiina, on Mount Gerizim ;
but this is a Jewish accusation, grounded on a wilful misconstruction. See fetaudlin’s and Tzschirner’s Arcliiv. fur K. G. 1,3, S. W. Lucke, 1, S. 367.|| See Fritzsche, Comm.
BAPTISM OF JESUS.253
adequate inducement to assume such a consecration of Jesus by the Baptist, even without historical warrant; and the mention of John’3
baptism in relation to Jesus (Acts i. 22,) in a narrative, itself traditional, proves notliing to the contrary. Yet, on tlie other hand, it is to be considered, tliat the baptism of Jesus by John furnishes the most natural basis for an explanation of the messianic project of Jesus. When we have two cotemporaries, one of whom announces the proximity of the Messiah’s kingdom, and the other subsequently assumes the character of Messiali; tlie conjecture arises, even without positive information, that they stood in a relation to each other,that the latter owed his idea to the former. If Jesus had the messianic idea excited in him by John, yet, as is natural, only so far that lie also looked forward to tlie advent of tlie messianic individual, whom he did not, in tlie first instance, identify with himself;
he would most likely submit himself to tlie baptism of John. Tills would probably take place without any striking occurrences; and Jesus, in no way announced by it as tlie Baptist’s superior, might, as above remarked, condnue for some time to demean himself as Ilia disciple.
If we take a comparative retrospect of our evangelical documents, tlie pre-eminence which has of late been sought for tlie fourth Gospel, appears totally unmerited.
The single historical fact, tlie baptism of Jesus by John, is not mentioned by the fourth evangelist, wlio is solicitous about tlie mythical adjuncts alone, and these he in reality gives no more simply than tlie synoptical writers, his omission of tlie opening heaven excepted; for the divine speech is not wanting in his narrative, if we read it impartially. In the words, i. 33 : lie that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which ta.ptizeth with the Holy Ghost, we have not only substantially the same purport as, that conveyed by the heavenly voice in tlie synoptical gospels, but also a divine declaration; tlie only difference being, that here John is addressed exclusively, and prior to tlie baptism of Jesus. This difference originated partly in the importance, which the fourth evangelist attached to tlie relation between the Baptist and Jesus, and wliich required that tlie criteria of the messianic individual, as well as tlie proximity of his kingdom, should have been revealed to John at his call to baptize ; and it. might be partly suggested by tlie narrative, in 1 Sam.
The single historical fact, tlie baptism of Jesus by John, is not mentioned by the fourth evangelist, wlio is solicitous about tlie mythical adjuncts alone, and these he in reality gives no more simply than tlie synoptical writers, his omission of tlie opening heaven excepted; for the divine speech is not wanting in his narrative, if we read it impartially. In the words, i. 33 : lie that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which ta.ptizeth with the Holy Ghost, we have not only substantially the same purport as, that conveyed by the heavenly voice in tlie synoptical gospels, but also a divine declaration; tlie only difference being, that here John is addressed exclusively, and prior to tlie baptism of Jesus. This difference originated partly in the importance, which the fourth evangelist attached to tlie relation between the Baptist and Jesus, and wliich required that tlie criteria of the messianic individual, as well as tlie proximity of his kingdom, should have been revealed to John at his call to baptize ; and it. might be partly suggested by tlie narrative, in 1 Sam.
xvi., according to which Samuel, being sent by Jehovah to anoint a king selected from the sons of Jesse, is thus admonished by Jehovah, on the entrance of David ; Arise and anoint him, for this is he (v. 12.). The descent of the Spirit, which in David’s case follows his consecration, is, by the fourth evangelist, made an antecedent sign of the Messiahsliip of Jesus.
254 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
§ 52. GELATION OF THE SUPEENATUEAL AT THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
TO THE SUPEENATUEAL IN HIS CONCEPTION.
AT the commencement of tlilg chapter, we inquired into tlie subjective views of Jesus in his reception of John’s baptism, or the idea which lie entertained of its relation to his own diameter. We close this discussion with an inquiry into the objective purpose of tlie miracles at the baptism of Jesus, or tlie mode in which they were to subserve the manifestation of his niessiahsliip.
Tlie common answer to sucli an inquiry is, tliat Jesus was thereby inducted to his public office, and declared to be the Messiah,*
i. e. tliat nothing was conferred on him, and that simply tlie character which he already possessed was manifested to others. But, it may be asked, is such an abstraction intended by our narrators? A
consecration to an office, effected by divine, co-operation, was ever considered by antiquity as a delegation of divine powers for its fulfilment ; hence, in tlie Old Testament, the kings, as soon as they are anointed, arc filled with tlie spirit of God (1 Sam. x. 6, 10, xvi. 13);
and in the New Testament also, tlie apostles, before entering on their vocation, are furnished with supernatural gifts (Acts ii.).
It may, therefore, be beforehand conjectured, tliat according to tlie original sense of the Gospels, tlie consecration of Jesus at Ills baptism was attended witli a supply of higher powers; and tills is connrmed by an examination of our narratives.
For the synoptical writers all state, tliat after the baptism, tlie Spirit led Jesus into tlie wilderness, obviously marking this journey as the first effect of tlie higher principle infused at his baptism: and in Jolm, tlie words pivsiv err’ avTOV, applied to tlie descending Spirit, seem to intimate, tliat from the time of tlie baptism there was a relation not previously subsisting, between tlie irvevfta aywv and Jesus.
It may, therefore, be beforehand conjectured, tliat according to tlie original sense of the Gospels, tlie consecration of Jesus at Ills baptism was attended witli a supply of higher powers; and tills is connrmed by an examination of our narratives.
For the synoptical writers all state, tliat after the baptism, tlie Spirit led Jesus into tlie wilderness, obviously marking this journey as the first effect of tlie higher principle infused at his baptism: and in Jolm, tlie words pivsiv err’ avTOV, applied to tlie descending Spirit, seem to intimate, tliat from the time of tlie baptism there was a relation not previously subsisting, between tlie irvevfta aywv and Jesus.
This interpretation of tlie marvels at the baptism of Jesus, seems in contradiction with tlie narratives of Ills conception. If Jesus, as Matthew and Luke state, was conceived by tlie Holy Gliost; or it, as Jolin propounds, tlie divine -^oyo?, the word, was made flesh in him, from the beginning of his earthly existence; why did he yet need, at his baptism, a special intromission of the n-vev^a ayiov ?
Several modern expositors have seen, and sought to solve, tills difficulty. Olshausen’s explanation consists in tlie distinction between the potential and the actual; but it is self-contradictory, f Vov if the character of tlie Xp(ffrbc which was manifested actu, with the ripened manhood of Jesus, at his baptism, was already present potentia in tlie child and youth; there must have also been an inward principle of development, by means of which his powers would gradually unfold themselves from within, instead of being first awakened by a sudden illapse of tlie Spirit from without. Tills, however, does not preclude the possibility tliat tlie divine principle, existing in Jesus, as supernaturally conceived, from tlie moment ot Ins birth,
BAPTISM OF JESUS.
might need, owing to the human form of its development, some impulse from without; and Luke* has more justly proceeded on this contrast between external impulse and inward development. The /loyo;-, present in Jesus from his birth, needed, he thinks, however strong might be the inward bent, some external stiniulud and vivitication, in order to arrive at fall activity and manifestation in the world ; and that which awakens and guides the divine life-germ in the world is, on apostolic sliowing, the Trvevjia ayiov. Allowing this, yet the inward disposition and the requisite force of the outward stimulus stand in an inverse relation to each other; so that the stronger the outward stimulus required, the weaker is the inward disposition; but in a case wliere the inward disposition is consummate,-as it must be supposed in Jesus, engendered by the Spirit, or animated by the /toyoc,-the exterior impulse ought to be a minimum, that is, every circumstance, even the most common, might serve as a determination of the inward tendency. But at the baptism of Jesus we see the maximum of exterior impulse, in the visible descent of the divine Spirit; and although we allow for the special nature of the messianic task, for the fulfilment of which he must be qualified,! yet the maximum of inward disposition, which fitted him to be the vl’oq Qeov, cannot at the same time be supposed as existing in him from his birth: a consequence which Lucke only escapes, by reducing tlie baptismal scene to a mere inauguration, thus, as lias been already sliown, contradicting the evangelical records.
We must here give a similar decision to that at which we arrived concerning tlie genealogies ; viz., that, in that circle of the early Christian church, in which tlie narrative of the descent of tlie “rvevfia on Jesus at his baptism was formed, the idea that Jesus was generated by the same Trvevfta cannot have prevailed; and while, at the present day, the communication of tlie divine nature to Jesus is thouglit of as cotemporary with his conception, those Christians must have regarded his baptism as tlie epoch of such communication.
Other books
Maybe Forever (Missing Pieces Book 1) by Keyanna Butler
Submarine! by Edward L. Beach
Billionaire Season 3: Summer Ablaze (Billionaire Season Trilogy) by Lee, Kimball
Family Secrets by Ruth Barrett
Operation Underworld by Paddy Kelly
Rex Stout_Tecumseh Fox 03 by The Broken Vase
Not After Everything by Michelle Levy
Losing Control by Summer Mackenzie