Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (764 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
11.6Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
But not only on tlie passage v. 16-21 must we pass this judgment: v. 14 lias appeared to us out of keeping with tlie position of Jesus; and the behaviour of Nicodemus, v. 4 and 9, altogether inconceivable. Thus in tlie very rirst sample, wlien compared witli tlie observations which we have already made on John lii. 22 fl’. ;
iv. 1 ff., tlie fourth gospel presents to us all tlie peculiarities which characterize its mode of reporting tlie discourses of Jesus.
They arc usually commenced in tlie form of dialogue, and so far as this extends, tlie lever that propels tlie conversation is tlie striking contrast between the spiritual sense and tlie carnal interpretation of the language of Jesus: generally, however, tlie dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in which tlie writer blends tlie person o’f Jesus witli Ills own, and makes tlie former use concerning himself, language which could only be used by John concerning Jesus.
They arc usually commenced in tlie form of dialogue, and so far as this extends, tlie lever that propels tlie conversation is tlie striking contrast between the spiritual sense and tlie carnal interpretation of the language of Jesus: generally, however, tlie dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in which tlie writer blends tlie person o’f Jesus witli Ills own, and makes tlie former use concerning himself, language which could only be used by John concerning Jesus.
§ 81. THE D1SCOUESES OF JESL’S, JOHN V-XII.
IN tlie fifth chapter of John, a long discourse of Jesus is connected with a cure wrought by him on the sabbath (19-47). The mode in which Jesus at v. 17 defends his activity on the sabbath, is worthy of notice, as distina;uished from tliat adopted by him in tlie earlier Gospels. These ascribe to him, in such cases, three arguments : the example of David, wlio ate tlie show-bread; tlie precedent of the sabbatical labours of the priest’s in the temple, quoted also in John vii. 23 (Matt. xii. 3 ft. parall.): and tlie course pursued with respect to an ox, sheep, or ass, that falls into the pit (Matt. xii.
11 parall.), or is let out to watering on the sabbath (Luke xiii. 18.):
all which arguments arc entirely in the practical spirit that characterizes tlie popular teaching of Jesus. Tlie fourth evangelist, on tlie contrary, makes him argue from tlie uninterrupted, activity of God, and reminds us by the expression wliicli lie puts into tlie mouth of Jesus, My .Father ‘icorketh hitherto, 6 Tra-ffp wg dp-i epyd^Erai, of a principle in tlie Alexandrian metaphysics, viz. God never ceases to act, nwwv 6 Osb^ ovSi-o-e -avK-ai •:* a metaphysical proposition more likely to be familiar to tlie author of tlie fourth gospel than to Jesus. In the synoptical gospels, miracles of healing on the sabbath are fallowed up by declarations respecting tlie nature and design of the sabbatical institution, a species of instruction of wliicli the people were greatly in need ; but in tlie present passage, a digression is immediately made to tlie main theme of tlie gospel, the person of Christ and liis relation to tlie Father.
The perpetual recurrence of this theme in tlie fourth gospel lias led its adversaries, not without reason, to accuse it of a tendency purely theoretic, and directed to tlie glorification of Jesus.
In tlie matter of tlie succeeding discourse
The perpetual recurrence of this theme in tlie fourth gospel lias led its adversaries, not without reason, to accuse it of a tendency purely theoretic, and directed to tlie glorification of Jesus.
In tlie matter of tlie succeeding discourse
DISCOURSES OP JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
there is nothing to create a difficulty, nothing that Jesus might not have spoken, for it treats, with tlie strictest colierence, of thino-s which the Jews expected of tlie Messiah, or wliicli Jesus attributed to himself, according to tlie synoptists also: as, for instance, the raising of the dead, and the office of judging tlie world. But this consistency in tlie matter, only lieiglitcns tlie difficulty connected witli the form and phraseology in which it is expressed. For the discourse, especially its latter half (from v. 31), is full of the closest analogies witli tlie first epistle of John, and witli passages in the gospel in wliicli either the author speaks, or John tlie Baptist.* One means of explaining tlie former resemblance is to suppose, tliat the evangelist formed his style by closely imitating that of Jesus. Tliat this is possible, is not to be disputed; but it. is equally certain that it could proceed only from a mind destitute of originality and selfconhdencc,-a character wliicli tlie fourth evangelist in nowise exhibits.
Farther, as in tlie other gospels Jesus speaks in a thoroughly different tone and style, it would follow, if lie really spoke a3
Farther, as in tlie other gospels Jesus speaks in a thoroughly different tone and style, it would follow, if lie really spoke a3
lie is represented to have done by John, tliat tlie manner attributed to him by tlie synoptists is fictitious.
Now, tliat this manner did not originate witli the evangelists is plain from tlie fact, that cacli of them is so little master of his matter. Neither could tlie bulk of tlie discourses have been tlie work of tradition, not only because they have a highly original cast, but because they bear tlie impress of tlie alleged time and locality.
On tlie contrary, the fourth evangelist, by the ease witli wliich he disposes Ins materials, awakens the suspicion tliat they are of his own production; and some of Ills favourite ideas and phrases, such as, The Father showeth the fSoit all tliat himself doeth,\ and those already quoted, seem to have
Now, tliat this manner did not originate witli the evangelists is plain from tlie fact, that cacli of them is so little master of his matter. Neither could tlie bulk of tlie discourses have been tlie work of tradition, not only because they have a highly original cast, but because they bear tlie impress of tlie alleged time and locality.
On tlie contrary, the fourth evangelist, by the ease witli wliich he disposes Ins materials, awakens the suspicion tliat they are of his own production; and some of Ills favourite ideas and phrases, such as, The Father showeth the fSoit all tliat himself doeth,\ and those already quoted, seem to have
* John. v. 20 : o •yv.a TraTrjp 4i/-E( TOY Jolm iii. 35 (tlie Baptist) : o yup varf/p vlov Kai ^uvTa ffe/.Kwaiv flirt;) a avTi}^ 7^oi£t. a-ya^a TOV vim.’ Kai T^UVTO 6ecuK{v sv Ty ^.ipi
ail-rov.
24: o TOV ?.n-yov/tov uKOvbiv-lieTaftsfiriitCV lJtili.iii.l4: f/ftsic: o’lSa/iev, on [iCTapc^fl
iK TOV •QavuTOV U^ TfjV C,UTjV.
Kft/lEV CK TOV ^QVUTOV Ei(; TT]V C,UT]V.
Kft/lEV CK TOV ^QVUTOV Ei(; TT]V C,UT]V.
32 : KO.I. o«ia, on u^Tj^r^ cunv ^ {WftTvpia, Joh. xix. 3;’* : Kai u^^y^ £C!OLV ai’rov ft Sjv uapTVpei TTf-pi FU.CH’,f^apTvpia^ KdKeivo^ O(O£T, on aA^i9^ /leyefc.
Conip xxi. 24.
1 Joli. 3, 13.
1 Joli. 3, 13.
34 : i)’(,^ 6s Of Trapu uv^tpcivov T^V fiaprv- 3 John. v. 9 : cl TT/V ^lapTVpia.v TUV avQptdfi’lav Aaf^f3uvGf.
KUV ^a^uvofzsr, ?/ f^aprvpt-a TOV ^EOV f^si^v
KUV ^a^uvofzsr, ?/ f^aprvpt-a TOV ^EOV f^si^v
3G : c;/y & t^u f/apTupiav fiu!,u TOV ‘luiiv- ioTiv on av-ni corn-’ i? /.lapTupia Toi -Seov, i/v
VOV.p£/i(lpTVp!/K£ 7T£pi TOV vlov abTOV.
37; nai o m’K^ef fie irar%» avToc iitfiap
TVRTjKe Wp( IflOV.
IL>.: WTf Tr/v ffiuvr^v ai’TOi) a/c^Koare w- Joh. i, 18: •S^ov o^Sels ^(JpffKC TTUTTOTE.
?~orf, oure Tt/.^oc dVTov WOUKOTS.Comp. 1. Joh. iv. 12.
3y : K.ai TIJV 7^’ov ailTftv oi’K ^cre WWVTO. 1 Joli. i. 10 : KUI o TJayw, a.vrw ova icTW
iv vfuv, iv Vfuv.
40 : Kill oil •9(7^T£ Q^dv irpdf {te, Iva i^uf/v 1 Joh. v. 12: o ftij S^w TOV vlov TOV •Sscw fxVTe. ^,w(v OVK l^n,
42; on T7/r uj.ttTrg.r TOV ‘Scov ova eyre cv 1 Joh. ii. 15 : OVK ISTCV ^ uyum) rav rratavTOK;. rpof cv afiro.
44: 7T(.)^ SvvanQf vf^E?^ TTtGTWEiv, 6o^av Joh. xi. 43 : r/’yuTrfJoav yap 77/v 66^av7uV
Trapu uW.^’A.uv ?.a^f3wovTs^. Kai Tf/v 66^av rrjV uv^puirw uuA?.ov, ^Trep TTJV Qo^av TOV ^t-ov.
Brapd TOU [tuvov T^emi •ov (^//mre,
•}• Viu. tliu passages compared by Gfrurer, 1, S. 194, from Philo, de Unguarum coii
404 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
sprang from an Hellenistic source, rather than from Palestine. But the chief point in tlie argument is, that in tins gospel John the Baptist speaks, as we have seen, in precisely the same strain as the author of the gospels, and Ills Jesus. It cannot be supposed, tliat not only the evangelist, but the Baptist, whose public career was prior to that of Jesus, and whose character was strongly marked, modelled his expressions with verbal minuteness on t.liosc of Jesus.
Hence only two cases are possible: either the Baptist determined the style of Jesus and the evangelist (wlio indeed appears to liave been the Baptist’s disciple); or tlic evangelist determined the style of the Baptist and Jesus. Tlie former alternative will be rejected by the orthodox, on the ground of tlie higher nature that dwelt in Christ; and we are equally disinclined to adopt it, for tlie reason that Jesus, even though he may have been excited to activity by tlie Baptist, yet appears as a character essentially distinct from him, and original; and for tlie still more weighty consideration, that the style of tlie evangelist is much too feeble for tlie rude Baptist,-too mystical for Ills practical mind. There remains, then, but the latter alternative, namely, that the evangelist lias given his own style both to Jesus and to the Baptist: an explanation in itself more natural than the former, and supported by a multitude of examples from all kinds of historical writers. If however tlie evangelist is thus responsible for tlie form of this discourse, it is still possible tliat the matter way have belonged to Jesus, but we cannot pronounce to wliat extent this is the case, and we have already had proof tliat the evangelist, on suitable opportunities, very freely presents his own reflections in the form of a discourse from Jesus.
In cliap. vi., Jesus represents himself, or rather his Father, v.
27 ff., as the giver of the spiritual manna. Tills is analogous to tlie Jewish idea above quoted, tliat the second Goel, like tlie first, would provide manna ;* and to the invitation of Wisdom in the Proverbs, ix. 5, Come., eat of my bread: SsXOs-e, (paye-e -G)V Epuv Sip-uv.
But the succeeding declaration, that he is himself the bread of life that comet/i down from heaven, aprof 6 iy&v b in -ov ovpavov ita-afiag (v. 33 and 35) appears to find its true analogy only in tlie idea of Philo, that the divine word, /loyoc 0eZoc, is that which nourishes the soul, T& Tpeifxiv Trfv i/w^y.t From v. 51, tlie difficulty becomes still greater. Jesus proceeds to represent his flesh as the bread from lieavcn, which he will give for tlie life of the world, and to eat the flesh of tfie Son of Man, and to drink his blood, lie pronounces to be the only means of attaining eternal life. Tlie similarity of these expressions to the words wliicli tlie synoptists and Paul attribute to Jesua, at the institution of the Lord’s Supper, led tlie older commentators generally to understand tills passage as having rcfer
* Sup. § 14.
\ De profugis, Opp. Mang., i. S. 5G6 Gfrorer, 1, S. 203.
What is farther said of ii..», . .’.A’ n,’, ^r.mi vr,if,nn. icn). mdiial oeovoiv uevvaol may be compared withJohn iv.
What is farther said of ii..», . .’.A’ n,’, ^r.mi vr,if,nn. icn). mdiial oeovoiv uevvaol may be compared withJohn iv.
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
ence to the Sacramental supper, ultimately to be appointed by Jesus.*
The chief objection to this interpretation is, tliat before tlie institution of the supper, such an allusion would be totally unintelligible.
Still the discourse might have some sense, liowever erroneous, for tlie hearers, as indeed it liad, according to tlie narrator’s statement;
and tlie impossibility of being understood is not, in the fourth gospel, so shunned by Jesus, tliat that circumstance alone would suffice to render this interpretation improbable. It is certainly supported by the analogy between the expressions in tlie discourse, and tlie words associated with tlie institution of tlie supper, and tills analogy lias wrung from one of our recent critics tlie admission, that even if Jesus himself, in uttering the above expressions, did not refer to tlie supper, the evangelist, in choosing and conveying tins discourse of Jesus, miglit have had that institution in Ills mind, and miglit have supposed that Jesus here gave a premonition of its import, f In tliat case, however, he could scarcely have abstained from modifying the language of Jesus ; so tliat, if tlic clioice of the expression eat the flesh, &c., can only be adequately explained on the supposition of a reference to the Lord’s Supper, we owe it, without doubt, to the evangelist alone.
Having once said, apparently in accordance with Alexandrian ideas, that Jesus had described himself as the bread of life, liow could he fail to be reminded of tlie bread, wdiich in the Christian community was partaken of as the body of Clirist, together with a beverage, as his blood ? He would the more gladly seize the opportunity of making Jesus institute tlie supper prophetically, as it were; because, as we sliall hereafter sec, he knew nothing definite of its historical institution by jesus.f
Having once said, apparently in accordance with Alexandrian ideas, that Jesus had described himself as the bread of life, liow could he fail to be reminded of tlie bread, wdiich in the Christian community was partaken of as the body of Clirist, together with a beverage, as his blood ? He would the more gladly seize the opportunity of making Jesus institute tlie supper prophetically, as it were; because, as we sliall hereafter sec, he knew nothing definite of its historical institution by jesus.f
Other books
Cooking Up Trouble by Judi Lynn
Song Magick by Elisabeth Hamill
5 Murder by Syllabub by Kathleen Delaney
Europe in the Looking Glass by Morris, Jan, Byron, Robert
Core Topics in General & Emergency Surgery: Companion to Specialist Surgical Practice by Paterson-Brown MBBS MPhil MS FRCS, Simon
Her Last Defense by Vickie Taylor
The Vow by Lindsay Chase
The Red Heart of Jade by Marjorie M. Liu
Lilith’s Dream: A Tale of the Vampire Life by Whitley Strieber
Against The Wall by Dee J. Adams