Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (825 page)

^*
As the author of the Probabilia thinks, s. 94.

^†
Hug, ut sup. s. 221.

^‡
Kuinöl, in loc.

^§
Paulus, Comm. 4, 5. 57ff.

^||
Lücke, in loc.

¶Lightfoot, in loc.

^*
Probalil, ut sup.Of the further statements also, as to the points in which Jesus gave offence to the hierarchy of his nation, those which the synoptists have alone, or in common with John, are credible; those which are peculiar to the latter, not so. Among those which are common to both sides, the solemn entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the strong attachment of the people to him, were equally natural causes of offence with his discourses and actions in opposition to the sabbatical institutions, in whatever the latter may have consisted; on the contrary, the manner in which, according to the fourth gospel, the Jews take offence at the declarations of Jesus concerning himself as the Son of God, is, according to our earlier analysis,* as inconceivable, as it is consistent with the common order of things that the polemical tone towards the Pharisees which the first Evangelists all lend to Jesus, should irritate the party attacked. Thus no new or more profound insight into the causes and motives of the reaction against Jesus, is to be obtained from the fourth gospel: but the information which the synoptists have preserved to us fully suffices to make that fact intelligible.

§ 118. JESUS AND HIS BETRAYER.

Although it had been resolved in the council of the chief priests and elders, that the feast time should be allowed to pass over before any measures were taken against Jesus, because any act of violence against him in these days might easily excite an insurrection, on the part of his numerous adherents among the visitants to the feast (Matt. xxvi. 5; Mark xiv. 2
):
yet this consideration was superseded by the facility with which one of his disciples offered to deliver him into their hands. Judas, surnamed
I
s
k
a
r
i
w
t
h
V
, doubtless on account of his origin from the Jewish city of Kerioth† (Josh. xv. 25),
went, according to the synoptists, a few days before the passover, to the heads of the priesthood, and volunteered to deliver Jesus quietly into their hands, for which service they promised him money, according to Matthew, thirty pieces of silver (
a
r
g
u
r
i
a
,
Matt. xxvi. 14 ff. parall.). Of such an antecedent transaction between Judas and the enemies of Jesus, the fourth gospel not only says nothing, but appears moreover to represent the matter as if Judas had not formed the determination of betraying Jesus to the priesthood, until the last Supper, and had then promptly put it into execution. The same entering (
e
i
s
e
l
q
e
i
n
)
of Satan into Judas, which Luke (xxii. 3) places before his first interview with the chief priests, and before any preparation had been made for Jesus and his disciples to eat

^{1* Vol}
. II. § 62.

^†
Olshausen gives us more precise information concerning the descent of the traitor, when he says (bibl. Comm. 2, s.
458 Anm.): “Perhaps the passage, Gen. xlix. 27,
Dan shall be a serpent, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse’s heels, so that his rider shall fall backward,
is a prophetic intimation of the treachery of Judas, whence we might conclude that he was of the tribe of Dan.”the passover together, is represented by the author of the fourth gospel as occurring at this meal, before Judas left the company (xiii. 27):
a proof, as it appears, that in the opinion of this Evangelist, Judas now made his first traitorous visit. He does indeed observe, before the meal (xiii. 2),
that the
devil had put it into the heart
of Judas to betray Jesus, and this
t
o
u
d
i
a
b
o
l
o
u
b
e
b
l
h
k
o
t
o
V
e
i
V
t
h
n
k
a
r
d
i
a
n
is commonly regarded as the parallel of Luke’s
e
i
s
h
l
q
e
s
a
t
a
n
a
V
(Satan entered
into him), being understood to imply the formation of the treacherous resolve, in consequence of which Judas went to the chief priests: but if he had previously been in treaty with them, the betrayal was already completed, and it is then not easy to perceive what can be meant by the words
e
i
s
h
l
q
e
n
e
i
V
a
u
t
o
n
o
s
a
t
a
n
a
V
on the occasion of the last meal, since the summoning of those who were to seize Jesus was no new diabolical resolution, but only the execution of that which had already been embraced. The expression in John v. 27 only obtains an entirely consistent sense in distinction from v. 2,
when the
b
a
l
l
e
i
n
e
i
V
t
h
n
k
a
r
d
i
a
n
in the latter, is understood of the rising of the thought, the
e
i
s
e
l
q
e
i
n
in the former, of the ripening of this thought into resolution, the supposition that Judas had pledged himself to the chief priests before the meal being thus excluded.* In this manner, however, the statement of the synoptists that Judas, some time before the perpetration of his treacherous act, made a bargain with the enemies of Jesus, stands in contradiction with that of John, that he only put himself in league with them immediately before the deed; and here Liicke decides in favour of John, maintaining it to be after his departure from the last supper (xiii. 30), that Judas made that application to the chief priests which the synoptists (Matt. xxvi. 1 f. parall.) place before the meal.† But this decision of Lücke’s is founded solely on deference to the presupposed authority of John; for even if, as he remarks, Judas could very well obtain an interview with the priests when night had commenced: still, regarding the matter apart from any presuppositions, the probability is beyond comparison stronger on the side of the synoptists, who allow some time for the affair, than on that of John, according to whom it is altogether sudden, and Judas, truly as if he were possessed, rushes out when it is already night to treat with the priests, and immediately hurry to the deed.

Concerning the motives which induced Judas to league himself with the enemies of Jesus, we learn from the three first gospels no more than that he received money from the chief priests. This would indicate that he was actuated by covetousness, especially according to the narrative in Matthew, where Judas, before he promises to betray Jesus, puts the question,
What will ye give me?
Clearer light is thrown on this subject by the statement of the fourth gospel (xii. 4 ff
.),
that on the occasion of the meal in Bethany, Judas was indignant at the anointing, as an unnecessary expenditure, — that he carried the purse, and acted the thief in that office; whence it might be supposed that the avarice of Judas, no longer satisfied by his peculations on the funds of the society, hoped to reap a more considerable harvest by
^*
That, according to the account in John, Judas first went to the chief priests from the meal, is acknowledged by Lightfoot also (horæ, p. 465), but he on this account regards the meal described by John as earlier than the synoptical one.

^†
Comm. z. Joh. 2, s. 484.betraying Jesus to the rich and powerful sacerdotal party. We must hold ourselves under obligation to the author of the fourth gospel, that by the preservation of these particulars, which are wanting in the other Evangelists, he has made the act of Judas somewhat more comprehensible, — so soon as his statements are shown to have an historical foundation. We have shown above, however, how improbable it is that, had that censure really proceeded from Judas, the legend should have lost this trait;* how probable, On the other hand, a legendary origin of it, it is easy to discern. The meal at Bethany stood in the evangelical tradition near to the end of the life of Jesus, an end brought about by the treachery of Judas ; — how easily might the thought arise in some one, that the narrow-minded censure of a noble prodigality could only come from the covetous Judas? That the censure at the same time turned upon the propriety of selling the ointment for the benefit of the poor, could in the mouth of Judas be only a pretext, behind which he concealed his selfishness: but advantage to himself from the sale of the ointment could not be expected by him, unless he allowed himself to purloin some of the money saved; and this again he could not do unless he were the purse-bearer. If it thus appear possible for the statement that Judas was a
thief and had the bag,
to have had an unhistorical origin: we have next to inquire whether there are any reasons for supposing that such was actually the
case.

Here we must take into consideration another point on which the synoptists and John differ, namely, the foreknowledge of Jesus that Judas would betray him. In the synoptical gospels, Jesus first manifests this knowledge at the last supper, consequently at a time in which the deed of Judas had virtually been perpetrated; and apparently but a short time before, Jesus had so little presentiment that one of the twelve would be lost to him, that he promised them all, without exception, the honour of sitting on twelve thrones of judgment in the palingenesia (Matt. xix. 28)
.
According to John, on the contrary, Jesus declares shortly before the time of the last passover but one, consequently a year before the result, that one of the twelve is a
devil,
d
i
a
b
o
l
o
V
, meaning, according to the observation of the Evangelist, Judas, as his future betrayer (vi. 70); for, as it had been observed shortly before (v. 64),
Jesus knew from the beginning, — -who should betray him.
According to this, Jesus knew from the commencement of his acquaintance with Judas, that this disciple would prove a traitor; and not merely did he foresee this external issue, but also, since he knew what was in man (John ii. 25)
,
he must have penetrated the motives of Judas, namely,