Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (816 page)

* Henke,
Joannes apostolus nonnullorum Jesu apophthegmatum in evang. suo et ipse interpres.
In Pott’s and Ruperti’s Sylloge Comm. theol. I, s. 9; Gabler, Recension des Henke’schen Programms im neuesten theol. Journal, 2, I, s. 88; Lücke, in loc.

† Thus, besides Henke in the above Programm, Herder, von Gottes Sohn nach Johannes Evang., s. 135 f. ; Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 165 f. ; L. J. I, a, s. 173 f. ; Lücke, and De Wette, in loc.built, as
another, made without hands,
a
l
l
o
V
,
a
c
e
i
r
o
p
o
i
h
t
o
V
,
whereby he appears to indicate the same contrast between a ceremonial and a spiritual religious system. By the aid of these passages, it is thought, the declaration in John may be explained thus: the sign of my authority to purify the temple, is my ability in a short time to introduce in the place of the Jewish ceremonial worship, a spiritual service of God; i.e. I am authorized to reform the old system, in so far as I am qualified to found a new one. It is certainly a trivial objection to this explanation, that in John the object is not changed, as in Mark, where the temple which is to be built is spoken of as
another
(
a
l
l
o
V
),
but instead of this, is indicated by the word
a
u
t
o
V
,
as the same with the one destroyed;
^*
since, indeed, the Christian system of religion in relation to the Jewish, may, just as the risen bodyof Jesus in relation to the dead one, be conceived as at once identical and different, inasmuch as in both cases the substance is the same, while the transitory accidents only are supposed to be removed. But it is a more formidable objection which attaches itself to the determination of time,
e
n
t
r
i
s
i
n
h
m
e
r
a
i
V
.
That this expression is also used indefinitely and proverbially, in the sense of a short interval of time in general, is not adequately proved by the two passages which are usually appealed to with this view; for in them the third day, by being placed in connexion with the second and first (Hos. vi. 2 : [
Heb. letters
]
Miyyomayim bayyom hashsheliyshiy
; Luke xiii. 32 :
s
h
m
e
r
o
n
k
a
i
a
u
r
i
o
n
k
a
i
t
h
t
r
i
t
h
is announced as a merely relative and proximate statement, whereas in our passage it stands alone, and thus presents itself as an absolute and precise determination of time.†

Thus alike invited and repelled by both explanations,‡ theologians take refuge in a double sense which holds the middle place either between the interpretation of John and the symbolical one last stated,§ or between the interpretation of John and that of the Jews ;|| so that Jesus either spoke at once of his body which was to be killed and again restored to life, and of the modification of the Jewish religion which was to be effected, chiefly by means of that death and resurrection; or, in order to repel the Jews, he challenged them to destroy their real temple, and on this condition, never to be fulfilled, promised to build another, still, however, combining with this ostensible sense for the multitude, an esoteric sense, which was only understood by the disciples after the resurrection, and according to which
n
a
o
V
denoted his body. But such a challenge addressed to the Jews, together with the engagement appended to it, would have been an unbecoming manifestation of petulance, and the latent intimation to the disciples, a useless play on words; besides that, in general, a double meaning either of the one or the

* Storr, in Flatt’s Magazin, 4, s. 199.

† Tholuck and Olshausen, in loc.

‡ Hence Neander remains suspended in indecision between the two, s. 395 f.

§ Thus Kern, die Hauptthatsachen der evang. Gesch., Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1836, 2, s. 128.

|| Thus Olshausen.other kind is unheard of in the discourse of a judicious man.* As, in this manner, the possibility of explaining the passage in John might be entirely despaired of, the author of the Probabilia appeals to the fact that the synoptists call the witnesses, who allege before the judgment seat that Jesus had uttered that declaration,
y
e
u
d
o
m
a
r
t
u
r
a
V
,
false witnesses;
whence he concludes, that Jesus never said what John here attributes to him, and thus gains an exemption from the explanation of the passage, since he regards it as a figment of the fourth Evangelist, whose object was both to explain the calumniations of the accusers, and also to nullify them by a mystical interpretation of his words.† But, on the one hand, it does not follow, from the fact that the synoptists call the witnesses false, that, in the opinion of the Evangelists, Jesus had never said anything whatever of that whereof they accused him; for he might only have said it somewhat differently (
l
u
s
a
t
e
, not
l
u
s
w
), or have intended it in a different sense (figuratively instead of literally) : on the other hand, if he said nothing at all of this kind, it is difficult to explain how the false witnesses should come to choose that declaration, and especially the remarkable phrase,
e
n
t
r
i
s
i
n
h
m
e
r
a
i
V
.

If, according to this, on every interpretation of the expression, except the inadmissible one relative to the body of Jesus, the words
e
n
t
r
i
s
i
n
h
m
e
r
a
i
V
form a difficulty: a resource might be found in the narrative of the Acts, as being free from that determination of time. For here Stephen is only accused of saying,
o
t
i
I
.
o
N
a
z
.
o
u
t
o
V
k
a
t
a
l
u
s
e
i
t
o
n
t
o
p
o
n
t
o
u
t
o
n
(
t
o
n
a
g
i
o
n
)
,
k
a
i
a
l
l
a
x
e
i
t
a
e
q
h
a
p
a
r
e
d
w
k
e
M
w
u
s
h
V
.
What is
false
in this allegation (for the witnesses against Stephen also are described as
m
a
r
t
u
r
e
V
y
e
u
d
e
i
V
might be the second proposition, which speaks in literal terms of a changing of the institutes of Moses, and instead of this, Stephen, and before him Jesus, may very probably have said in the figurative signification above developed,
k
a
i
p
a
l
i
n
 
o
i
k
o
d
o
m
h
s
e
i
(
-
s
w
)
a
u
t
o
n
or
k
a
i
a
l
l
o
n
(
a
c
e
i
r
o
p
o
i
h
t
o
n
)
o
i
k
o
d
o
m
h
s
e
i
(
-
s
w
)
.