Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (840 page)

John, indeed, as even the author of the Probabilia remarks, has not wholly passed over the anxiety of Jesus in relation to his approaching death; he has only assigned to it an earlier epoch, John xii. 27 ff
.
The scene with which John connects it takes place immediately after the entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem, when certain Greeks, doubtless proselytes of the gate, who had come among the multitude to the feast, wished to have an interview with him. With all the diversity of the circumstances and of the event itself; there is yet a striking agreement between what here occurs and what the synoptists place in the last evening of the life of Jesus, and in the seclusion of the garden. As Jesus here declares to his disciples,

^*
Commentatio critica, qua Evangelium Joannis genuinum esse — ostenditur, p. 57 ff
.

^†
Probab., p. 33 ff.
my soul is troubled even unto death,
p
e
r
i
l
u
p
o
V
e
s
t
i
n
h
y
u
c
h
m
o
u
e
w
V
q
a
n
a
t
o
u
(Matt. xxvi. 38): so there he says:
Now is my soul troubled,
n
u
n
h
y
u
c
h
m
o
u
t
e
t
a
r
a
k
t
a
i
(John xii, 27); as he here prays,
that if it be possible, this hour may pass from him
,
i
n
a
,
e
i
d
u
n
a
t
o
n
e
s
t
i
,
p
a
r
e
l
q
h
a
p
‘
a
u
t
o
u
h
w
r
a
(Mark xiv. 35)
:
so there he entreats:
Father, save me from this hour,
p
a
t
e
r
,
s
w
s
o
n
m
e
e
k
t
h
V
w
r
a
V
t
a
u
t
h
V
(John xii. 27); as here he calms himself by the restriction
nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt,
a
l
l
‘
o
u
t
i
e
g
w
q
e
l
w
,
a
l
l
a
t
i
s
u
(Mark xiv 36) so there by the reflection:
but for this cause came I to this hour,
a
l
l
a
d
i
a
t
o
u
t
o
h
l
q
o
n
e
i
V
t
h
n
w
r
a
n
t
a
u
t
h
n
(John xii. 27); lastly, as here an
angel
appears
strengthening
Jesus,
a
g
g
e
l
o
V
e
n
i
s
c
u
w
n
(Luke xxii. 43): so there something happens which occasions the bystanders to observe that
an angel spake to him,
a
g
g
e
l
o
V
a
u
t
w
l
e
l
a
l
h
k
e
n
(John xii.
29).
This similarity has induced many of the more modern theologians to pronounce the incident in John xii.
27
ff., and that in Gethsemane identical; and after this admission the only question was, on which side the reproach of inaccurate narration, and more especially of erroneous position, ought to fall.

Agreeably to the tendency of the latest criticism of the gospels, the burthen of error in this matter has been more immediately cast on the synoptists. The true occasion of the mental conflict of Jesus is said to be found only in John, namely, in the approach of those Greeks who intimated to him through Philip and Andrew their wish for an interview with him. These persons doubtless wished to make the proposal that he should leave Palestine and carry forward his work among the foreign Jews; such a proposal held out to him the enticement of escape from the threatening danger, and this for some moments placed him in a state of doubt and inward conflict, which however ended by his refusing to admit the Greeks to his presence.* Here we have the effects of a vision rendered so acute by a double prejudice, both critical and dogmatical, as to read statements between the lines of the text; for of such an intended proposal on the part of the Greeks, there is no trace in John; and yet, even allowing that the Evangelist knew nothing of the plan of the Greeks from these individuals themselves, there must have been some intimation in the discourse of Jesus that his emotion had reference to such a proposal. Judging from the context, the request of the Greeks had no other motive than that the solemn entrance of Jesus, and the popular rumour concerning him, had rendered them curious to see and know the celebrated man; and this desire of theirs was not connected with the emotion which Jesus experienced on the occasion, otherwise than that it led Jesus to think of the speedy propagation of his kingdom in the Gentile world, and of its indispensable condition, namely, his death. Here, however, the idea of his death is only mediately and remotely presented

^*
Goldhorn, über das Schweigen des Joh. Evangeliums über den Seelenkampf Jesu in Gethsemane, in Tzschirner’s Magazin. f. christl. Prediger, 1, 2, s. 1 ff.to the soul of Jesus; hence it is the more difficult to conceive how it could affect him so strongly, as that he should feel himself urged to beseech the Father for delivery from this hour; and if he were ever profoundly moved by the presentiment of death, the synoptists appear to place this fear in a more suitable position, in immediate proximity to the commencement of his sufferings. The representation of John is also deficient in certain circumstances, presented by the synoptists, which appear to vindicate the trouble of Jesus. In the solitude of the garden and the gloom of night, such an ebullition of feeling is more conceivable; and its unrepressed utterance to his most intimate and worthy friends is natural and justifiable. But according to John that agitation seized Jesus in the broad daylight, in a concourse of people; a situation in which it is ordinarily more easy to maintain composure, or in which at least it is usual, from the possibility of misconstruction, to suppress the more profound emotions.

Hence it is more easy to agree with Theile’s opinion, that the author of the fourth gospel has inserted the incident, correctly placed by the synoptists, in a false position.* Jesus having said, as an introduction to the answer which he returned to the request of the Greeks, that they might see the man who had been so glorified by his entrance into the city: Yes, the hour of my glorification is come, but of glorification by death (xii. 23
f.): this led the narrator astray, and induced him, instead of giving the real answer of Jesus to the Greeks together with the result, to make Jesus dilate on the intrinsic necessity of his death, and then almost unconsciously to interweave the description of the .internal conflict which Jesus had to experience in virtue of his voluntary sacrifice, whence he subsequently, in its proper place, omits this conflict. There is nothing strange in Theile’s opinion, except that he supposes it possible for the Apostle John to have made such a transposition. That the scene in Gethsemane, from his having been asleep while it was passing, was not deeply imprinted on his mind, and that it was besides thrust into the background of his memory by the crucifixion which shortly followed, might have been considered explanatory of an entire omission, or a merely summary account of the scene on his part, but by no means of an incorrect position. If notwithstanding his sleepiness at the time, he had taken any notice of the event, he must at least have retained thus much — that that peculiar state of mind in Jesus befel him close upon the commencement of his sufferings, in the night and in privacy: how could he ever so far belie his memory as to make the scene take place at a much earlier period, in the open day, and among many people? Rather than thus endanger the authenticity of the Gospel of John, others, alleging the possibility that such a state of mind might occur more than once in the latter part of the life of Jesus, deny the identity of the two scenes. †

^*
Vid. the Review of Usteri’s Comm. crit., in Winer’s and Engelhardt’s n. krit. Journal, 2, s. 359 ff.

^†
Hase, L. J., § 134; Lücke,
2,
s. 591 f.. Anm.Certainly, between the synoptical representation of the mental conflict of Jesus and that given in John, besides the external difference of position, there exist important internal divergencies; the narrative in John containing features which have no analogy with anything in the synoptical account of the events in Gethsemane. it is true that the petition of Jesus in John for for deliverance from
this hour,
is perfectly in unison with his prayer in the synoptists: but, on the other hand, there is no parallel to the additional prayer in John:
Father, glorify thy name
p
a
t
e
r
,
d
o
x
a
s
o
n
s
o
u
t
o
o
n
o
m
a
(xii. 28) : further, though in both accounts an angel is spoken of, yet there is no trace in the synoptists of the heavenly voice which in the fourth gospel occasions the belief that an angel is concerned. Such heavenly voices are not found in the three first gospels elsewhere than at the baptism and again at the transfiguration; of which latter scene the prayer of Jesus in John:
Father, glorify thy name,
may remind us. In the synoptical description of the transfiguration, it is true the expressions
d
o
x
a
, glory
and
d
o
x
a
z
e
i
n
, to glorify,
are not found: but the Second Epistle to Peter represents Jesus as receiving in the transfiguration
honour and glory,
t
i
m
h
n
k
a
i
d
o
x
a
n
,
and the heavenly voice as coming from the
excellent glory
m
e
g
a
l
o
p
r
e
p
h
V
d
o
x
a
(i. 17 f.). Thus in addition to the two narratives already considered, there presents itself a third as a parallel; since the scene in John xii. 27 ff
.
is on the one side, by the trouble of spirit and the angel, allied to the occurrences in Gethsemane, while on the other side, by the prayer for glorification and the confirmatory voice from heaven, it has some affinity with the history of the transfiguration. And here two cases are possible: either that the narrative of John is the simple root, the separation of which into its constituent elements has given rise in a traditional manner to the two synoptical anecdotes of the transfiguration and the agony in the garden; or that these last are the original formations, from the fusing and intermingling of which in the legend the narrative of John is the mixed product: between which cases only the intrinsic character of the narratives can decide. That the synoptical narratives of the transfiguration and the agony in the garden are clear pictures, with strongly marked features, can by itself prove nothing; since, as we have sufficiently shown, a narrative of legendary origin may just as well possess these characteristics as one of a purely historical nature. Thus if the narrative in John were merely less clear and definite, this need not prevent it from being regarded as the original, simple sketch, from which the embellishing hand of tradition had elaborated those more highly coloured pictures. But the fact is that the narrative in John is wanting not only in definiteness, but in agreement with the attendant circumstances and with itself. We have no intimation what was the answer of Jesus to the Greeks, or what became of those persons themselves; no appropriate motive is given for the sudden anguish of Jesus and his prayer for glorification. Such a mixture of heterogeneous parts is always the sign of a secondary product, of an alluvial conglomeration; and hence we seem warranted to conclude, that in the narrative of John the two synoptical anecdotes of the transfiguration and the agony in the garden are blended together. If, as is apparently the case, the legend when it reached the fourth Evangelist presented these two incidents in faded colours,* and in indistinct outline: it would be easy for him, since his idea of
.glorification
(
d
o
x
a
z
e
i
n
) had the double aspect of suffering and exaltation, to confuse the two; what he gathered from the narrative of the agony in the garden, of a prayer of Jesus to the Father, he might connect with the heavenly voice in the history of the transfiguration, making this an answer to the prayer; to the voice, the more particular import of which, as given by the synoptists, was unknown to him, he gave, in accordance, with his general notion of this incident as a
glory
d
o
x
a
conferred on Jesus, the import :
I have both glorified and will glorify again,
k
a
i
e
d
o
x
a
s
a
k
a
i
p
a
l
i
n
d
o
x
a
s
w
, and to make it correspond with this divine response, he had to unite with the prayer of Jesus for deliverance that for glorification also; the strengthening angel, of which the fourth Evangelist had perhaps also heard something, was included in the opinion of the people as to the source of the heavenly voice; in regard to the time, John placed his narrative about midway between the transfiguration and the agony in the garden, and from ignorance of the original circumstances the choice in this respect was infelicitous.