Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (763 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.42Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
In repiv to tlie second query of Nicodemus, Jesus takes entirely tlic tone of tlic fourth evangelist’s prologue (v. 11-13*).The Question hence arises, whether tlie evangelist Lorrowed from Jesus, or lent to him hid own style. A previous investigation lias decided in favour of tlie latter alternative, f But tills inquiry referred merely to the form of the discourses ; in relation to their matter, its analogy with tlic ideas of Pliilo, does not authorize us at once to conclude that the writer here puts his Alexandrian doctrine of tlic Logos into tlie mouth of Jesus 4 because the expressions, JF<3 speak that zee do know, &c. o oiSafiEv AO/.OV^EV ic. - /L, and, JVoman hath ascended up to heaven, &c. ovSei^ dvaft^’cev K. r. >,., have an analogy with Matt. xi. 27.; and tlic idea of the prc-existcncc of tlie Messiah which is here propounded, is, as we have seen, not foreign to the apostle Paul.
V. 14 and 15 Jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth, i-riyuol^ tlic communications concerning tlic new birth, to tlie more difficult tilings of heaven, e-rorpanotc, tlie announcement of the destination of tlie Mcssiali to a vicarious death.
The Son of Man, lie says, must be lifted vp {v^wOqvat, which, in John’s phraseology, signincs crucifixion, with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation)’, in tlic same way, and witli tlie same effect, as tlie brazen serpent .Numb. xxi. 8, 9. Here many questions press upon us.
The Son of Man, lie says, must be lifted vp {v^wOqvat, which, in John’s phraseology, signincs crucifixion, with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation)’, in tlic same way, and witli tlie same effect, as tlie brazen serpent .Numb. xxi. 8, 9. Here many questions press upon us.
Is it credible, tliat Jesus already, at tlic very commencement of his
* III. 11: 6 mpunap.FV izaprvpovfttv I. 18 : •9cbv oi(idf eupaKe TTUCTTC- b l^ovoica}. Tijv iiapruftiav r/^dv ov ‘/.a^uvtrs.13: yeviic vioc, o iiv el{ ruv noinuv TOV irarpof, Kal ovSeic: uvai-Sifh/KfV (•(f Tor tii-pavuv, cl w iKflvof c^riffiaaTO.
6 SK TOV ovpavov icara,3nf, o vlo{ TOV u.v9fiu- 11: -Kill ol Uwi avrov ov TfopsAafiw.
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IX THE FOURTH GOSPEL.399
public ministry, foresaw his death, and. in the specific form of
crucifixion ? and tliat long before he instructed his disciples on this point, he. made a communication on the subject to a Pharisee? Can it be held consistent with tlie wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that. he, should impart such knowledge to Nicodcmus ? Even Lucke* puts the question wliy, when Nicodemus Iiad not understood the more obvious doctrine, Jesus tormented him with the more recondite, and especially with the secret of tlie Messiah’s deatli, which was then so remote ? He answers: it accords perfectly witli the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, tliat lie should reveal tlie sufferings appointed for him by God as early as possible, because no instruction was better adapted to cast down false worldly liopes. But tlie more remote tlie idea of tlie Messiah’s deatli from tlie conceptions of his cotemporaries, owing to tlic worldliness of their expectations, the more impressively and unequivocally must Jesus express tliat idea, if he wished to promulgate it; not in an enigmatical form which he could not be sure tliat Nicodcmus would understand. Lucke continues : Nicodcmus was a man open to instruction; one of whom good might be expected. But in this very conversation, his dulncss of comprehension in earthly things, KTiyua, had evinced tliat he must have still less capacity for heavenly things, enovpdvia: and, according to v. 12, Jesus himself despaired of enlightening liirn with respect to them.
Lucke, however, observes, that it was a practice witli Jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not been comprehended, by difficult doctrine which was of course less comprehensible; thai he purposed thus to give a spur to tlie minds of his hearers, and by straining their attention, engage them to reflect.
Lucke, however, observes, that it was a practice witli Jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not been comprehended, by difficult doctrine which was of course less comprehensible; thai he purposed thus to give a spur to tlie minds of his hearers, and by straining their attention, engage them to reflect.
But tlie examples which Lucke adduces of such proceeding on the part of Jesus, are all drawn from tlie fourth gospel.
Now tlie very point in question is, whether tliat gospel correctly represents tlie teaching of Jesus; consequently Liicke argues in a circle. We have seen a similar procedure ascribed to Jesus in his conversation with tlie woman of Samaria, and we have already declared our opinion that such an overburthening of weak faculties witli enigma on enigma, does not accord with tlie wise rule as to the communication of doctrine, which tlie same gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, xvi. 12. It would not stimulate, but confuse, the mind of tlie hearer, who persisted in a misapprehension of tlie well-known figure of tlie new birth, to present to him the novel comparison of the Messiah and his deatli, to the brazen serpent and its effects ; a comparison quite incongruous witli Ills Jewish ideas.! In the first three gospels Jesus pursues an entirely different course. In tliese, where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part, of the disciples, Jesus (except where he breaks off altogether, or where it is evident that tlie evangelist unhistorically associates a number of metaphorical discourses) applies himself with tlie assiduity of an earnest teacher to tlie thorough explanation of tlie difficulty, and not until
Now tlie very point in question is, whether tliat gospel correctly represents tlie teaching of Jesus; consequently Liicke argues in a circle. We have seen a similar procedure ascribed to Jesus in his conversation with tlie woman of Samaria, and we have already declared our opinion that such an overburthening of weak faculties witli enigma on enigma, does not accord with tlie wise rule as to the communication of doctrine, which tlie same gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, xvi. 12. It would not stimulate, but confuse, the mind of tlie hearer, who persisted in a misapprehension of tlie well-known figure of tlie new birth, to present to him the novel comparison of the Messiah and his deatli, to the brazen serpent and its effects ; a comparison quite incongruous witli Ills Jewish ideas.! In the first three gospels Jesus pursues an entirely different course. In tliese, where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part, of the disciples, Jesus (except where he breaks off altogether, or where it is evident that tlie evangelist unhistorically associates a number of metaphorical discourses) applies himself with tlie assiduity of an earnest teacher to tlie thorough explanation of tlie difficulty, and not until
•* T-» „.„> „ i-r,+ p,,n,n Brplsfhiifiider. ut sun.
THE LIFE OF JESU9.
he has effected this does he proceed, step by step, to convey further instruction (e. g. Matt. xiii. 10 ff. 36 ff.; xv. 16; xvi. 8 ff.)* This is the method of a wise teacher; on the contrary, to leap from one subject to another, to overburthen and strain the mind of the hearer, a mode of instruction which the fourth evangelist attributes to Jesus, is wholly inconsistent with tliat character. To explain this inconsistency, we must suppose tliat the writer of tlie fourth gospel thought to heighten in the most effective manner the contrast which appears from tlie first’, between the wisdom of the one party and the incapacity of tlie other, by representing the teacher as overwhelming tlie pupil who put unintelligent questions on tlie most elementary doctrine, with lofty and difficult themes, beneath which Ills faculties are laid prostrate.
Prom v. 16, even those commentators wlio pretend to some ability in this department, lose all hope of showing that tlie remainder of tlie discourse may have been spoken by Jesus. Not only does Paulus make this confession, but even Olsliausen, with a concise statement of his reasons.! At tlie above verse, any special reference to Nicodemus vanishes, and there is commenced an entirely general discourse on the destination of the Son of God, to confer a blessing on tlie world, and on the manner in which unbelief forfeits tills blessing. Moreover, these ideas are. expressed in a form, which at one moment appears to be a reminiscence of tlie evangelist’s introduction, and at another lias a striking similarity witli passages in tlie first epistle of John.} In particular, tlie expression the only begotten Son, o p.ovoysvf^ vtbc, which is repeatedly (v. 16 and 18.) attributed to Jesus as a designation of his own person, is nowhere else found in Ills mouth, even in the fourth gospel; this circumstance, however, marks it still more positively as a favourite phrase of the evangelist (i. 14-18.), and of the writer of tlie Epistles (1 John iv. 9). Further, many things are spoken of as past, which at the supposed period of tills conversation with Nicodemus were yet future.
For even if tlie words, he gave, ‘s.6wev, refer not to tlie giving over
* De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part of Jesus in the synoptical gospels, Matth. xix. 21 ; xx. 22 f. But these two cases are of a totally different kind from the one under consideration in John.
We have here to treat of a want of comprehension, in the face of which it is surprising tliat Jesus instead of descending to its level, cliooses to elevate himself to a still less attainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the aynoptists, on tlie other hand, we have examples of an excessive selfvaluation, too high an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part of the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt presentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel witli that of Kicodcinus, if the latter had piqued himself on ^ his enlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden night into a higher region, had sought to convince him of his ignorance, f Bibl. Comm. 2, S. 96.
We have here to treat of a want of comprehension, in the face of which it is surprising tliat Jesus instead of descending to its level, cliooses to elevate himself to a still less attainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the aynoptists, on tlie other hand, we have examples of an excessive selfvaluation, too high an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part of the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt presentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel witli that of Kicodcinus, if the latter had piqued himself on ^ his enlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden night into a higher region, had sought to convince him of his ignorance, f Bibl. Comm. 2, S. 96.
t III. 19: avT-ri (ie SUTIV ri npiaif, u-t I. 9: r/v TO yuc TO u^-Swim, TO IJIUT’^OV
TO puc E/V/AuKev £(f Tor Koanov, icat ftyuiTTiaav •KU.VTd ur^punw, tf)f6[ievov elf TOV Koauav.
01 uviipuToi fluW.ov TO (TKOTOJ- JJ Tb i?uc..’>: Kat TO i^uc ev rg OKOTia ijinirel, KCU i] ono
I[I. 10 : OV~
Ktinuov, uaTe TOV vim avTov T&V fioYO-yeWl 1 John iv. 1); cvTovni iijiavt-pu^ri i] uyuvri c6uaev. iva. TTUC o viarevuv n’c avrov, fiil TOV •SEOV ev •i/ulv, on TOV v!.ov avrov TUV ^ou^u/aiTai. aW ern Cwhv aluvtov. voyevn umaTEif.sv o Seo’: cli; TOV nocf^ov, iva
DISCOUESES OP JESUS IN THE FOUETH GOSPEL.
to death, but to the sending of the Messiah into the world ; tlie expressions, men loved darkness ‘ffydnrjaav ol avOpunoi rb (T/CO-OC, and their deeds were evil, ffv Trovrjpa avrwv TO Spya (v. 19.), as Llicke also remarks, could only be used after tlie triumph of darkness liad been achieved in tlie rejection and execution of Jesus: they belong then to the evangelist’s point of view at the time when lie wrote, not to tliat of Jesus when on the threshold of his public ministry. In general the whole of tilis discourse attributed to Jesus, with its constant use of the third person to designate the supposed speaker;
with its dogmatical terms only begotten, light, and the like, applied to Jesus; witli its comprehensive view of the crisis and its results, wliich the appearance of Jesus produced, is far too objective for us to believe that it came from the lips of Jesus. Jesus could not speak thus of himself, but tlie evangelist might speak thus of Jesus. Hence the same expedient lias been adopted, as in tlie case of tlie Baptist’s discourse already considered, and it lias been supposed that Jesus is tlie speaker down to v. 16, but tliat from tliat point tlie evangelist appends his own dogmatic reflections.* But there is again here no intimation of sucli a transition in the text; ratlier, tlie connecting word for, yap (v. 16.), seems to indicate a continuation of the same discourse. No writer, and least of all tlie fourtli evangelist (comp.
vii. 39; xi. 51 f. ; xii. 16 : xxxiii. 37 ff.), would scatter his own observations thus undistingui shingly, unless lie wished to create a misapprehension, f
If then it be establislied tliat tlie evangelist, from v. 16. to the end of the discourse, means to represent Jesus as the speaker, while Jesus can never liave so spoken; we cannot rest satisfied with the half measure adopted by Luke, when he maintains tliat it is really Jesus who continues to speak from tlie above passage, but that the evangelist has interwoven his own explanations and amplifications more liberally than before. For this admission undermines all certainty as to liow far tlie discourse belongs to Jesus, and how far to the evangelist; besides, as the discourse is distinguished by the closest uniformity of thought and style, it must be ascribed cither wholly to Jesus or wholly to tlie evangelist. Qf tliese two alternatives the former is, according to tlie above considerations, impossible; we are
• Paulas and Olshausen, in loc.•}- Tholuck (Glaubwurdigkeit, S. 335.) adduces as examples of a similar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source, with the writer’s own matter, Gal. ii. 14 ff. Euseb. II. E. iii. 1, 39. Hieron. Comm. in Jes. 53. But sucli instances in an epistle, a commentary or an liistorieal work interspersed witli reasoning and criticism, are not parallel with those in an liistorieal narrative of the nature of our fourth gospel.In works of the former kind, the reader expects the author to reason, and hence, when the discourse of another party has been introduced, he is prepared at the slightest pause to see tlie author again take up tlie argument. It is quite different with a work like our fourth gospel.The introduction, it is true, is put forth as the autlior’s own reasoning, and it is there quite natural tliat after a brief quotation from the disccurse of another, v. 15, he should, at v. 16, resume tlie cliaracter of speaker without any express intimation, liut when once lie has entered on his narrative, which is strictly a recital of wliat lias been done, and what has been said, all that he annexes without any mark of distinction (as e. g. xii. 37.) to a discourse explicitly ascribed to another.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
therefore restricted to the latter, which we Iiavc observed to be entirely consistent witli tlie manner of tlie fourth evangelist.
Other books
Ramage and the Dido by Dudley Pope
Crack of Doom by Willi Heinrich
Two Strikes by Holley Trent
Tempt Me Eternally by Gena Showalter
Dust on the Sea by Edward L. Beach
The Blue Ring by A. J. Quinnell
Echoes Of A Gloried Past (Book 2) by Ken Lozito
The Jonah by James Herbert
Believe It or Not by Tawna Fenske