Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (752 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
11.54Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Luke ix. 49); and it was to this disposition, apparently, that they owed the surname Sons of Thunder, ^^-i i;Q viol jSpov^c (Mark iii.
17),f conferred on them by Jesus. So high did they stand among the twelve, that either they (Mark xi. 35 ff.), or tlicir mother for them (Matt. xx. 20 ff.), tliought they might claim tlie first place in the Messiah’s kingdom. It is worthy of notice tliat not only in the four catalogues, but elsewhere wlien the two brothers are named, as in Matt. iv. 21; xvii. 1; Mark i. 19, 29 ; v. 37 ; ix. 2 ; x. 35; xiii.
3; xiv. 33; Luke v. 10; ix. 54; with the exception of Luke viii.
51; ix. 28 ; James is always mentioned first, and John is appended
* Pninn Sn
rinn TW.1,.1.-,,.
S SS f
S SS f
+ r’nr,
i\a Wptt.p. in
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
to him as his brother (6 dde/l^&c avro’v). This is surprising; because, while we know nothing remarkable of James, John is memorable as the favourite disciple of Jesus. Hence it is supposed that this precedence cannot possibly denote a superiority of James to John, and an explanation has been sought in Ills seniority.* Nevertheless, it remains a doubt whether so constant a precedence do not intimate a pre-eminence on tlie part of James; at least, if, in the apprehension of the synoptists, John liad been as decidedly preferred as he is represented to have been in the fourth gospel, we are inclined to think that they would have named him before his brother James, even allowing him to be the younger. This leads us to a difference between the first, three evangelists and. the fourth which requires a closer
examination.
In the synoptical gospels, as we have observed, Peter, James,
and Jolm, form the select circle of disciples whom Jesus admits to certain scenes, which the rest of the twelve were not spiritually mature enough to comprehend; as the transfiguration, the conflict in Gethsemane, and, according’to Mark (v. 37), the raising of the daughter of Jairus.f After tlie death of Jesus, also, a James, Peter and John appear as the pillars of the church (Gal. ii. 9); tins James, however, is not, the son of Zebedee, who had been early put to death (Acts xii. 2), but James, the brother of the Lord (Gal. i.
19), who even in the first apostolic council appears to have possessed a predominant authority, and whom many hold to be tlie second James of the apostolic catalogue given in Acts i.^ It is observable from tlie beginning of the Acts, that James the son of Zebedee, is eclipsed by Peter and Jolm. As, then, this James the elder was not enough distinguished or even known in the primitive cliurch, for his early martyrdom to have drawn much lustre on his name, tradition had no inducement from subsequent events, to reflect an unhistorical splendour on Ids relation to Jesus; there is therefore no reason to doubt the statement as to the prominent position held by James, in conjunction with Peter and John, among the twelve
apostles.
So much tlie more must it excite surprise to find, in the fourth
gospel the triumvirate almost converted into a monarchy: James, like another Lepidus, is wholly cast out, wliile Peter and Jolm are in tlie position of Antony and Octavius, the latter having nearly stripped Ills rival of all pretensions to an equal rank witli himself, to say nothing- of a higher. James is not even named in the fourth gospel; only in tlie appendix (xxi. 2) is there any mention of the sons of Zebedee ,’ wliile several narratives of the vocations of different apostles are given, apparently including that of John himself,
* Paulus, exeg. Handli. 1. B. S. 5GG. •)• This is probably a mere inference of Mark.
Because Jesus excluded the multitude, and forbade the publication of the evangelist saw in it one of those secret scenes, to which Jesus was accustomed to admit only the three fnvnnvpd anostles. t In the ancient church is was thought that Jesus had communicated
THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.
no James appears in them, neither is there any speech of his, as of many other apostles, throughout this gospel.
Quite differently does the fourth evangelist treat Peter. He makes him one of the first who enter the society of. Jesus, and gives him a prominent importance not less often than the synoptistg;
he does not conceal that Jesus bestowed on him an honourable surname (i. 43); he puts in his mouth (vi. 68 f.) a confession which seems but a new version of the celebrated one in Matt. xvi. 16;
according to him, Peter once throws himself into the sea that he may more quickly reach Jesus (xxi. 7); at tlie last supper, and in the garden of Getlisemane, he makes Peter more active than even the synoptists represent him (xiii. 6 ff. ; xviii. 10 f.); lie accords him the honour of following Jesus into tlie high priest’s palace (xviii. 15), and of being one of the first to visit the grave of Jesus after the resurrection (xx. 3 ff.); nay, he even details a special conversation between the risen Jesus and Peter (xxi. 15 ff.). But these advantages of Peter are in the fourth gospel invalidated in a peculiar manner, and put into the shade, in favour of John. The synoptists tell us that Peter and John were called to tlie apostleship in the same way, and the former somewhat before the latter; the fourth evangelist prefers associating Andrew with tlie nameless disciple wlio is taken for John, and makes Peter come to him through the instrumentality of his brother.* He also admits the honourable interpretation of the surname Peter, and the panegyric on Peter’s confession; but this he does in common with Mark and Luke, while tlie speeclies and the action attributed in the fourth gospel to Peter during tlie last supper and in the garden, are to be classed as only so many mistakes.
The more we approach the catastrophe, tlie more marked is the subordination of Peter to John. At the last supper indeed, Peter is particularly anxious for the discovery of the traitor: lie cannot, however, apply immediately to Jesus (xiii. 23 ff.), but is obliged to make John, who was leaning on ,7’es’w’1 bosom, his medium of communication. While, according to the synoptists, Peter alone followed Jesus into the palace of tlie high priest; according to tlie fourth evangelist, John accompanied him, and under such circumstances, that without him Peter could not have entered,-John, as one known to the high priest, having to obtain admission for him (xviii. 15 f.). In tlie synoptical gospels, not one of tlie disciples is bold enough to venture to the cross ; but in tlie fourth, John is placed under it, and is there established in a new relation to tlie mother of his dying master: a relation of which we elsewhere find no trace (xix. 26 f.). On tlie appearance of the risen Jesus at the Galilcan sea (xxi.), Peter, as tlie Oepizorepo?, casts himself into the sea; but it is not, until after John, as the 6t,opa.riK.u-epo<; (Euthymius), has recognized the Lord in tlie person standing on the shore. In tlie ensuing conversation, Peter is indeed honoured with
The more we approach the catastrophe, tlie more marked is the subordination of Peter to John. At the last supper indeed, Peter is particularly anxious for the discovery of the traitor: lie cannot, however, apply immediately to Jesus (xiii. 23 ff.), but is obliged to make John, who was leaning on ,7’es’w’1 bosom, his medium of communication. While, according to the synoptists, Peter alone followed Jesus into the palace of tlie high priest; according to tlie fourth evangelist, John accompanied him, and under such circumstances, that without him Peter could not have entered,-John, as one known to the high priest, having to obtain admission for him (xviii. 15 f.). In tlie synoptical gospels, not one of tlie disciples is bold enough to venture to the cross ; but in tlie fourth, John is placed under it, and is there established in a new relation to tlie mother of his dying master: a relation of which we elsewhere find no trace (xix. 26 f.). On tlie appearance of the risen Jesus at the Galilcan sea (xxi.), Peter, as tlie Oepizorepo?, casts himself into the sea; but it is not, until after John, as the 6t,opa.riK.u-epo<; (Euthymius), has recognized the Lord in tlie person standing on the shore. In tlie ensuing conversation, Peter is indeed honoured with
* Even Piulus. L. J. 1, a. S. 1C7 f., remarks that the fourth evangelist seem* to hava
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
the commission, Feed my sheep ; but this honour is overshadowed by tlie dubitative question, Lovest thou ins ? and while tlie prospect of martyrdom is lield up to him, John is promised the distinction of tarrying till Jesus came again, an advantage which Peter is warned not to’’envy. Lastly, wliile, according to Luke (xxiv.
12), Peter, first among the apostles, and alone, comes to tlie vacant grave of Ills risen master, the fourth gospel (xx. 3), gives him a companion in John, wlio outruns Peter and arrives first at. tlie grave.
Peter goes into the grave before John, it is true; but it is the latter in wliose honour it is recorded, that he saio and believed, almost in contradiction to the statement of Luke, that Peter went home zcondermg in himself at that which was come to pass. Thus in tlie fourth gospel, John, both literally and figuratively, outruns Peter, for the entire impression which the attentive reader must receive from the representation there given of the relative position of Peter and John, is that the writer wislied a comparison to be drawn in favour of the latter.*
But John is moreover especially distinguished in the gospel which bears his name, by tlie constant epithet, the beloved disciple, the, disciple whom Jesus loved, o paO?]-^ 6v ^yo-ra, or e^t/Let o ‘IT/OTVC, (xiii. 23; xix. 26; xx. 2 ; xxi. 7, 20). It is true that we have no absolute proof from the contents of tlie fourth gospel, whether intrinsically or comparatively considered, that by tlie above formula, or the more indeterminate one, the other b a/l/lo?, or another disciple, d’/l/Lo? fi,a.6rj-q(; (x. 15 f.; xx. 3, 4, 8), which, as it appears from xx. 2 f., is its equivalent, we are to understand tlie apostle John. For neither is tlie designation in question anywhere used interchangeably w^ith tlie name of tlie apostle, nor is there anything narrated in tlie fourth gospel of the favourite disciple, which in the three first is ascribed to John. Because in xxi. 2. the sons of Zebcdec are named among tlie assistants, it does not follow that the disciple mentioned v. 7 as the one whom Jesus loved must be John; James, or one of the two other disciples mentioned in v. 2, might be meant.
Nevertheless, it is the immemorial tradition of tlie church tliat the disciple whom Jesus loved was John, nor are all reasons for such a belief extinct even to us; for in the Greek circle from which tlie fourth gospel sprang, there could scarcely be among the apostles whom it leaves unnamed, one so well known as to be recognized under tliat description unless it were John, whose residence at Ephesus is hardly to be rejected as a mere fable.
Nevertheless, it is the immemorial tradition of tlie church tliat the disciple whom Jesus loved was John, nor are all reasons for such a belief extinct even to us; for in the Greek circle from which tlie fourth gospel sprang, there could scarcely be among the apostles whom it leaves unnamed, one so well known as to be recognized under tliat description unless it were John, whose residence at Ephesus is hardly to be rejected as a mere fable.
It may appear more doubtful whether tlie author intended by
• This has not escaped the acumen of Dr. Paulus. In a review of the first volume of the second ed. of Lucke’s Comm. zum Johannes, im Lit. Bl. zur allg, Kirchenzeitung, Febr, 1834, no. 18, S. 137 t’,, he says ; “The gospel of John has only preserved the less advantageous circumstances connected with Peter (excepting vi, 68), sack as place him in marbd subordination to John [here the passages above considered are cited], An adherent of Peter can hardly have had a hand in the gospel of John.” We may add that it seems
THE DISCIPLES OP JESUS.
this title to designate himself, and thus to announce himself as tlie apostle John. Tlie conclusion of the twenty-first chapter, v. 24, does certainly make tlie favourite disciple the testifier and writer of tlie preceding history; but we may assume it as granted tliat this passage is an addition by a strange hand.* When, however, in the genuine text of the gospel, (xix. 35), the writer says of the effect produced by the piercing of the side of Jesus, he that saw bare record, 6 eupait^ fis{iap-vp->]K.s; no other than the favourite disciple can be intended, because lie alone among all tlie disciples (the only parties eligible as witnesses in the case), is supposed to be present at the cross. The probability that tlie author here speaks of himself is not at all affected by his use of the tliird person; but the preterite annexed to it may well excite a doubt whether an appeal be not here made to the testimony of John, as one distinct from the writer. f This mode of expression, however, may be explained also in accordance wdth the oilier supposition,:}: which is supported by tlie circumstance that the author in i. 14, 16, seems to announce liimself as the eye-witness of tlie history he narrates.
Was tliat author, then, really tlie apostle John, as he apparently wishes us to surmise ? This is another question, on whicli we can only pronounce when we shall have completed our investigation.
We will merely allude to the difficulty of supposing tliat the apostle John could give so unhistorical a sketch of the Baptist as that in the fourth gospel. But we ask, is it at aJl probable that the real John would so unbecomingly neglect the well-founded claims of his brother James to a special notice ? and is not such an omission rather indicative of a late Hellenistic author, wlio scarcely had heard tlie name of the brother so early martyred ? The designation, the.
disciple, -whom Jesus loved, which in xxi. 20 has tlie prolix addition, who also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, T^ord, whzch is he that betray eth thee? is not to be considered as an offence against modesty. § It is certainly far too laboured and embellished for one who, without any ulterior view, wislies to indicate liimself, for such an one would, at least sometimes, have simply employed his name: but a venerator of John, issuing perhaps from one ot Ins schools, miglit very naturally be induced to designate the revered apostle under whose name lie wished to write, in this half honourable, half mysterious manner. ||
Other books
The Drowning Girl by Caitlin R. Kiernan
High Demon 3 - Demon's King by Connie Suttle
Falling For You by Giselle Green
Battle of the Dum Diddys by R.L. Stine
Highlander in Her Bed by Allie Mackay
Dark Empress by S. J. A. Turney
Coffin Knows the Answer by Gwendoline Butler
14 Christmas Spirit by K.J. Emrick
My Fair Groom (The Sons of the Aristocracy) by Sande, Linda Rae
Red Angel by Helen Harper