Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (762 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
13.78Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THEEE FIEST GOSPELS.393
instance evidently had Matthew before him, enriched his account with the dramatic expression Moyrec; while Luke, independent of botli, has added a repast, Sel-nvov, whether presented to him by a more developed tradition, or invented by Ills own more fertile imagination. Together with this unhistorical position, the proportions themselves seem to be disfigured in Luke (xi. 39-4:1, 49.), and the observation of tlie lawyer, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also (xi. 45), too much resembles an artificial transition from the pliilippic against the Pharisees, to that against the doctors of tlie law.*
Another passage in this discourse lias been tlie subject of much discussion. It is that (v. 35) in which Jesus threatens his cotemporaries, tliat all tlie innocent blood shed from that of Abel to tliat of Zacharias, the son of Baracliias, slain in the temple, will be required of their generation.
Tlie Zacharias of whom sucli an end is narrated 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 ft’, was a son, not of Baracliias, but of Jehoiada.
On tlie oilier hand, there was a Zacliarias, the son of Barucli, who came to a similar end in tlie Jewish war.’)’ Moreover, it appears unlikely tliat Jesus would refer to a murder which took place 850 B. c. as tlie last. Hence it was at first supposed tliat we have in v. 35 a prophecy, and afterwards, a confusion of tlie earlier with tlie later event; and the latter notion lias been used as an accessory proof that the first gospel is a posterior compilation.^ It is, however, equally probable, tliat tlie Zacliarias, son of Jehoiada, whose death is narrated in tlie Chronicles, lias been confounded witli tlie prophet Zachariah, wlio -was a son of Baracliias (Zacli. i. 1; LXX.;
Tlie Zacharias of whom sucli an end is narrated 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 ft’, was a son, not of Baracliias, but of Jehoiada.
On tlie oilier hand, there was a Zacliarias, the son of Barucli, who came to a similar end in tlie Jewish war.’)’ Moreover, it appears unlikely tliat Jesus would refer to a murder which took place 850 B. c. as tlie last. Hence it was at first supposed tliat we have in v. 35 a prophecy, and afterwards, a confusion of tlie earlier with tlie later event; and the latter notion lias been used as an accessory proof that the first gospel is a posterior compilation.^ It is, however, equally probable, tliat tlie Zacliarias, son of Jehoiada, whose death is narrated in tlie Chronicles, lias been confounded witli tlie prophet Zachariah, wlio -was a son of Baracliias (Zacli. i. 1; LXX.;
Baruch, in Josephus, is not tlie same name) ;§ especially as a Targum, evidently in consequence of a like confusion with tlie prophet who was a grandson oflddo, calls tlie murdered Zachariah a son of Iddo.|]
The murder of a prophet, mentioned by Jeremiah (xxvi. 23.), was doubtless subsequent to tliat of Zachariah, but in tlie Jewisli order of tlie canonical books, Jeremiah precedes tlie Chronicles; and to oppose a murder revealed in the first canonical book, to one recorded in the last, was entirely in the style of Jewisli parlance.’lT
After having considered all tlie discourses of Jesus given by Mattliew, and compared them witli their parallels, with tlie exception of tliose wliicli had come before us in previous discussions, or which have yet to come before us in our examination of single incidents in the public ministry, or of the history of tlie passion: it might appealrequisite to tlie completeness of our criticism, tliat we sliould also give a separate investigation to tlie connexion in which tlie two otiier synoptists give tlie discourses of Jesus, and from this point review the parallels in Mattliew. But we have already cast a comparative glance over the most remarkable discourses in Luke and Mark, and
* Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 1, S. IS’J. 1, 2, S. G7, 76.•i- Joseph b. j. iv.
v. 4t Eichhorn, Einleitung in das N. T., 1, S. 510 ff.; Hug, Einl. in das N. T., 2, S.
10 ff.; Credner, Eiul., 1, S. 207.^ Vid. Theile, fiber Zacharias Barachias Sohn, in’
Winer’s und Engcllinrdt’s neuem krit. Journ., 2, S. 401 tf.; De Wette, in loc. || Targum TIiren- ii- 20 in Wiit^pii-i ^ l
394 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
gone through the parables which are peculiar to each ; and as to the remainder of -what they offer in the form of discourses, it will either come under our future consideration, or if not, the point of view from which it is to be criticised, has been sufficiently indicated in the foregoing investigations.
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
§ 80. COXVEESATION OF JESUS WITH NICODEMUS.
THE first considerable specimen wliicli tlic fourth Gospel gives of tlic tcacliing of Jesua, is his conversation with Nicodemus (iii.
1-21.). In the previous chapter (23-25.) it is narrated, that during the first passovcr attended by Jesus after his entrance on his public ministry, he liad won many to faith in him by tlic miracles, cr]iis~ia, which lie performed, but tliat he did not commit himself to them because lie saw through them: lie was aware, that is, of the uncertainty and impurity of their faith. Then follows in our present chapter, as an example, not only of tlie adherents whom Jesus liad found even tlius early, but also of tlie wariness witli wliicli lie tested and received them, a more detailed account how Nicodemus, a ruler of tlie Jews and a Pharisee, applied to him, and how lie was treated by Jesus.
It is through tlie Gospel of John alone tliat we learn anything of this Nicodemus, wlio in vii. 50 f. appears as the advocate of Jesus, so far as to protest against his being condemned without a hearing, and in xix. 39. as tlie partaker witli Joseph of Arimathca of tlie care of interring Jesus. Modern criticism, witli reason, considers it surprising tliat Matthew (witli tlic other synoptists) does not even mention tlie name of tills remarkable adherent of Jesus, and tliat we have to gather all our knowledge of him from tlie fourth Gospel; since the peculiar relation in wliicli Nicodemus stood to Jesus, and Ills participation in tlic care of his interment, must have been as well known to Matthew as to John.
This difficulty lias been numbered among tlic arguments wliicli are thought to prove tliat tlic first Gospel was not written by tlie apostle Mattlicw, but was tlie product of a tradition considerably more remote from tlie time and locality of Jesus.* But tlic fact is tliat tlic common fund of tradition on which
This difficulty lias been numbered among tlic arguments wliicli are thought to prove tliat tlic first Gospel was not written by tlie apostle Mattlicw, but was tlie product of a tradition considerably more remote from tlie time and locality of Jesus.* But tlic fact is tliat tlic common fund of tradition on which
DISCOUESES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
all tlie synoptists drew had preserved no notice of this Nicodemus.
With touching piety tlic Christian legend has recorded in tlic tablets of her memory, tlie names of all tlie others wlio helped to render the last honours to their murdered master-of Joseph of Arhnathea and tlie two Marys (Matt. xxvii. 56-61 parall.); wliy then was Nicodemus tile only neglected one-he who was especially distinguished among those who tended tlie remains of Jesus, by his nocturnal interview witli the teacher sent from God, and by his advocacy of him among tlic chief priests and Pharisees ? It is so difficult to conceive that the name of this man, if lie had really assumed such a position, would have vanished from the popular evangelical tradition, without leaving a single trace, that one is induced to inquire whether tlie contrary supposition be not more capable of explanation : namelv, that such a relation between Nicodemus and Jesus might have hccn fabricated by tradition, and adopted by the author of the fourth Gospel without having really subsisted.
John xii. 42, it is expressly said tliat many among the chief rulers believed on Jesus, but concealed their faitli from dread of excommunication by tlie Pharisees, because they loved the praise, of inen more than the praise of God* Tliat towards the end of his career many people of rank believed in Jesus, even in secret only, is not very probable, since no indication of it appears in tlic Acts of tlie Apostles; for tliat the advice of Gamaliel (Acts v. 34 ff.) did not originate in a positively favourable disposition towards tlie cause of Jesus, seems to be sufficiently demonstrated by the spirit of his disciple Saul. Moreover tlic synoptists make Jesus declare in plain terms tliat tlie secret of his Mcssiahship liad been revealed only to babes, and hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21.), and Joseph ofArimathea is tlie only individual of tlie ruling class whom they mention as an adherent of Jesus.
How, then, if Jesus did not really attach to himself any from tlie upper ranks, canic tlie case to be represented differently at a later period ? In John vii. 48 f. we read tliat the Pharisees sought to disparage Jesus by tlie remark that none of tlic rulers or of the Pharisees, but only the ignorant populace, believed on him ; and even later adversaries of Christianity, for example, Celsus, laid great stress on tlie circumstance tliat Jesus liad liad as his disciples e-r(pp/;-ovc dvOpuTrovf;, reA6va<; KO.I vavraq -w^ -Tovr]po-d~ovc.1[
Tills reproach was a thorn in tlie side of tlie early church, and though as long as licr members were drawn only from the people, slic might reflect with satisfaction on tlie declarations of Jesus, in wliicli he liad pronounced the poor, -r-u^ov^, and simple, vi]’nlov(;, blessed: yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and education, these would lean to the idea. tliat con
How, then, if Jesus did not really attach to himself any from tlie upper ranks, canic tlie case to be represented differently at a later period ? In John vii. 48 f. we read tliat the Pharisees sought to disparage Jesus by tlie remark that none of tlic rulers or of the Pharisees, but only the ignorant populace, believed on him ; and even later adversaries of Christianity, for example, Celsus, laid great stress on tlie circumstance tliat Jesus liad liad as his disciples e-r(pp/;-ovc dvOpuTrovf;, reA6va<; KO.I vavraq -w^ -Tovr]po-d~ovc.1[
Tills reproach was a thorn in tlie side of tlie early church, and though as long as licr members were drawn only from the people, slic might reflect with satisfaction on tlie declarations of Jesus, in wliicli he liad pronounced the poor, -r-u^ov^, and simple, vi]’nlov(;, blessed: yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and education, these would lean to the idea. tliat con
* This “secret information” is very welcome to Dr. Paulas, because it gives a useful hint “as to many occurrences in the life of Jesus, tlie causes of which are not obvious”
(L. J. 1. B. S. 141): that is, Paulus, like Bahrdt and Venturini, thous-a less openly, is fond of using such secret and influential allies as dws ex machina^ for the explanation of much that is miraculous in tlie life of Jesus (the transli^uration, residence after the resur
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
verts like themselves had not been wanting to Jesus during his life.
But, it would be objected, nothing had been liitlierto known of such converts. Naturally enough, it might be answered; since fear of tlieir equals would induce them to conceal their relations with Jesus.
Thus a door was opened for the admission of any number of secret adherents among tlie higher class (John xil. 42 f.). But, it would be farther urged, how could they have intercourse with Jesus, unobserved ? Under the veil of the night, would be the answer; and thus the scene was laid for tlie interviews of such men witli Jesus (xix. 39.). This, however, would not suffice; a representative of this class must actually appear on the scene: Josepli of Arimathea might have been chosen, his name being still extant in the synoptical tradition; but the idea of him was too definite, and it was tlie interest of the legend to name more than one eminent friend of Jesus. Hence a new personage was devised, whose Greek name NtKod^o? seems to point him out significantly as tlie representative of tlie dominant class.* That tills development of tlie legend is confined to tlie fourth Gospel, is to be explained, partly by tlie generally admitted lateness of its origin, and partly on tlie ground that in tlie evidently more cultivated circle in which it arose, the limitation of the adherents of Jesus to tlie common people would be more offensive, than in the circle in which tlie synoptical tradition was formed. Thus tlie reproach which modern criticism lias cast on the first Gospel, on the score of its silence respecting Nicodemus, is turned upon tlie fourth, on tlie score of its information on the same subject.
Tliese considerations, however, should not create any prejudice against tlie ensuing conversation, which is the proper object of our investigations. This may still be in the main genuine; Jesus may have held such a conversation with one of his adherents, and our evangelist may have embellished it no further than by making this interlocutor a man of rank. Neither will we, with the author of tlie Probabilia, take umbrage at tlie opening address of Nicodemus, nor complain, with him, that there is a want of connexion between that address and the answer of Jesus.f Tlie requisition of a new birth (‘yevvrjOrjval avuOevY as a condition of entrance into tlie kingdom of heaven, does not differ essentially from tlie summons with wliicli Jesus opens his ministry in the synoptical gospels, liepent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. New birth, or new creation, was a current image among tlie Jews, especially as denoting the conversion of an idolater into a worshipper of Jehovah. It was
* Let the reader bear in mind the kindred names Kicolans and Nicolaitans.
•{• Prob. p. 44. Bretsclmcider is right, however, in declaring against KuiiK’il’s method of supplying a connexion between tlie discourses in John, by the insertion of propositions and intermediate discourses supposed to have been omitted. Liicke judiciously admits (1, p. 446) tliat if, in John, something appears to be wanting between two consecutive expressions of Jesus, we are yet to suppose that there was an immediate connexion between them in the mind of the evangelist, and it is this connexion which it is tlie task of exegesis to ascertain. In truth the discourses in tlie 4th Gospel are never entirely wanting in connexion (apart from the exceptions to be noticed § 81), though that connexion is some
DISCOUKSES OF JESUS IN THE FOUETH GOSPEL.
customary to say of Abraham, that when, according to the Jewish supposition, lie renounced idolatry for the worship of the true God, he became a new creature (t-ttmn n”i”)S)-* The proselyte, too, in allusion to his relinquishing all his previous associations, was compared to a new-born child, f Tliat such phraseology was common among the Jews at tliat period, is shown by the confidence with wliicli Paul applies, as if it required no explanation, the term new creation, naiv’q /ci-tfftc, to tliose truly converted to Christ. Now, if Jesus required, even from tlie Jews, aa a condition of entrance into tlie messianic kingdom, the new birth which they ascribed to thenheathen proselytes, Nicodemus might naturally wonder at tlie requisition, since the Israelite thought himself, as such, unconditionally entitled to tliat kingdom: and tills is the construction which has been put upon his question v. 44 But Nicodemus does not ask, How canst thou say tliat a Jew, or a child of Abraham, must be born again ? His ground of wonder is that Jesus appears to suppose it possible for a man to be born again, and tliat when he is old.
It docs not, therefore, astonish him that spiritual new birth should be expected in a Jew, but corporeal new birth in a man. How an oriental, to whom figurative speecli in general-how a Jew, to whom tlie image of tlie new birth in particular must have been familiarliow especially a master of Israel, in whom tlie misconstruction of figurative phrases cannot, as in tlie Apostles (e. g. Matt. xv. 15 f. ;
xvi. 7.), be ascribed to want of education-could understand this expression literally, has been matter of extreme surprise to expositors of all parties, as well as to Jesus (v. 10). Hence some have supposed that the Pharisee really understood Jesus, and only intended by his question to test tlie ability of Jesus to interpret his figurative expression into a simple proposition :§ but Jesus does not treat him as a hypocrite, as in tliat case lie must have done-he continues to instruct him, as one really ignorant ov ‘yivwaKovra (v. 10). Others give tlie question the following turn: This cannot be meant in a physical sense, how then otherwise ? || But the true drift of the question is rather the contrary: By these words I can only understand physical new birth, but how is this possible ? Our wonder at tlie ignorance of the Jewisli doctor, therefore, returns upon us ; and it is heightened when, after tlie copious explanation ot Jesus (v. 5-8.), tliat tlie new birth which he required was a spiritual birth, ysvv^Ofjval KK. ~ov wei^ua-oc, Nicodemus lias made no advance in comprehension, but asks with tlie same obtuseness as before (v. 9.), llow can these, things be ? By this last difficulty Liicke is so straitened, that, contrary to his ‘ordinary exegetical tact, he refers tlie continued amazement of Nicodemus, (as other expositors liad referred his original question,) to tlie circumstance
* Bcreschith E. sect. 30 f. xxxviii.
2. Bamimdbar E. S. 11 f. ccxi.
2 Tanchuma f. v.
2. Bamimdbar E. S. 11 f. ccxi.
2 Tanchuma f. v.
2, in Schottgen, i. S. 704. Something similar is said of Moses, from Schemoth E. ib.
t Jevamoth f. Ixii. 1. xcii.
1, in Lighttbot, p. 984,f. E. g. Knapp, Comm. in colloq.
1, in Lighttbot, p. 984,f. E. g. Knapp, Comm. in colloq.
Christi cum Nicod. in loc. g Paulus, Comm. 4, S. 183. L. J. 1, a. S. 176. |1 Lucke and
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
tliat Jesus maintained tlie necessity of new birth even for Israelites.
But, in tliat case, Nicodomus would have inquired concerning the necessity, not the possibility, of tliat Lirtli; instead of asking, How can these tilings be ? lie would have asked, W/’u/ mvst these thing’s be? Tills inconcclvaLle mistake in a Jewish doctor is not tlion to be explained away, and our surprise must become strong suspicion so soon as it can be shown, tliat legend or tlie evangelist Iiad inducements to represent tills individual as more simple than lie really was.
First, tlicn, it must occur to us, tliat in all descriptions and recitals, contrasts are eagerly exhibited; hence in the representation of a colloquy in which one party is the teacher, tlie oilier tlic taught, there is a strong temptation to create a contrast to tlie wisdom of tlic former, by exaggerating tlie simplicity of tlie latter.
Further, we must remember tlie satisfaction it must give to a Christian mind of tliat age, to place a master of Israel in tlie position of an unintelllo-ent person, bv tlic side of tlic Master of tlie Christians. Lastly it is, as we sliall presently see. more clearly, tlie constant method of the fourth evangelist in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form tlie knot and tlie progress of tlie discussion, by making tlie interlocutors understand literally wliat Jesus intended figuratively.
First, tlicn, it must occur to us, tliat in all descriptions and recitals, contrasts are eagerly exhibited; hence in the representation of a colloquy in which one party is the teacher, tlie oilier tlic taught, there is a strong temptation to create a contrast to tlie wisdom of tlic former, by exaggerating tlie simplicity of tlie latter.
Further, we must remember tlie satisfaction it must give to a Christian mind of tliat age, to place a master of Israel in tlie position of an unintelllo-ent person, bv tlic side of tlic Master of tlie Christians. Lastly it is, as we sliall presently see. more clearly, tlie constant method of the fourth evangelist in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form tlie knot and tlie progress of tlie discussion, by making tlie interlocutors understand literally wliat Jesus intended figuratively.
Other books
Replace Me by Jennifer Foor
Up In Flames by Lori Foster
Alberto's Lost Birthday by Diana Rosie
To Honor and Cherish by Kari Trumbo
Love Finds You in Mackinac Island, Michigan by Melanie Dobson
Bestial by Carl, William D.
Rules of Conflict by Kristine Smith
Lover Be Mine: A Legendary Lovers Novel by Nicole Jordan
Spirit by Ashe Barker
Cairo Modern by Naguib Mahfouz