Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (855 page)

^*
Thus Chrysostom and others.

^†
Beza and Grotius.

^‡
Paulus, s. 763; Winer, N. T. Gramm., s,
243; Fritzsche, in Matth., p. 817.

^§
Vid. Thilo, Cod. apocr. 1,
s. 143.
Further apocryphal information concerning the two malefactors crucified with Jesus is to be found in the evang. infant. arab. c. xxiii. ap. Thilo, p.
92 f. ; comp. the note p. 143; in the evang. Nicod. c. ix. 10, Thilo, p. 581 ff
.;
c. xxvi. p. 766 ff.

^||
Paulus and Kuinöl, in loc.of one so completely annihilated in a political view, as Jesus then was. Hence we are led to the question, whether we have here a real history and not rather a creation of the legend? Two malefactors were crucified with Jesus: thus much was indubitably presented by history (or did even this owe its origin to the prophecy, Isa. liii. 12?). At first they were suspended by the side of Jesus as mute figures, and thus we find them in the narrative of the fourth Evangelist, into whose region of tradition only the simple statement, that they were crucified with Jesus, had penetrated. But it was not possible for the legend long to rest contented with so slight a use of them : it opened their mouths, and as only insults were reported to have proceeded from the bystanders, the two malefactors were at first made to join in the general derision of Jesus, without any more particular account being given of their words (Matt. and Mark). But the malefactors admitted of a still better use. If Pilate had borne witness in favour of Jesus; if shortly after, a Roman centurion — nay, all nature by its miraculous convulsions — had attested his exalted character: so his two fellow-sufferers, although criminals, could not remain entirely impervious to the impression of his greatness, but, though one of them did indeed revile Jesus agreeably to the original form of the legend, the other must have expressed an opposite state of feeling, and have shown faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Luke). The address of the latter to Jesus and his answer are besides conceived entirely in the spirit of Jewish thought and expression; for according to the idea then prevalent, paradise was that part of the nether world which was to harbour the souls of the pious in the interval between their death and the resurrection: a place. in paradise and a favourable remembrance in the future age were the object of the Israelite’s petition to God, as here to the Messiah
^*
and it was believed concerning a man distinguished for piety that he could conduct those who were present at the hour of his death into paradise.
^†

To the cross of Jesus was affixed, according to the Roman custom,
^‡
a
superscriptiion
e
p
i
g
r
a
f
h
(Mark and Luke), or a
title
t
i
t
l
o
V
(John) which contained
his accusation
t
h
n
a
i
t
i
a
n
a
u
t
o
u
(Matthew and Mark), consisting according to all the Evangelists in the words:
o
b
a
s
i
l
e
u
V
t
w
n
I
o
u
d
a
i
w
n
, the king of the Jews.
Luke and John state that this superscription was couched in three different tongues, and the latter informs us that the Jewish rulers were fully alive to the derision which this form of superscription reflected on their nation, and on this account entreated Pilate, but in vain, for an alteration of the terms (v. 21 f.).

^*
Confessio Judæi ægroti, ap. Wetstein, p. 820
: — da portionem meam in horta Edenis, et memento me in seculo futuro, quod absconditum est justis.
Other passages are given, ib, p. 819.

^†
Cetuboth, f. ciii. ap.
Wetstein, p. 819:
Quo die Rabbi moriturus erat, venit vox de coelo, dixitque: qui praesens aderit morienti Rabbi, ille intrabit in paradisum.

^‡
Vid. Wetstein, in loc. Matth.Of the soldiers, according to John four in number, who crucified Jesus, the Evangelists unanimously relate that they parted the clothes of Jesus among themselves by lot. According to the Roman law
de bonis damnatorum
^*
the vestments of the executed fell as
spolia
to the executioners, and in so far that statement of the Evangelists has a point of contact with history. But, like most of the features in this last scene of the life of Jesus, it has also a point of contact with prophecy. It is true that in Matthew the quotation of the passage Ps. xxii. 18 is doubtless an interpolation; but on the other hand the same quotation is undoubtedly genuine in John (xix. 24)
:
i
n
a
h
g
r
a
f
h
p
l
h
r
w
q
h
h
l
e
g
o
u
s
a
(verbally after the LXX.)
m
o
u
e
a
u
t
o
i
V
,
k
a
i
e
p
i
t
o
n
i
m
a
t
i
s
m
o
n
m
o
u
e
b
a
l
o
n
k
l
h
r
o
n
, that the scripture might be fulfilled which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots.
Here also, according to the assertion of orthodox expositors, David the author of the psalm, under divine guidance, in the moments of inspiration chose such figurative expressions as had a literal fulfilment in Christ.
^†
Rather we must say, David, or whoever else may have been the author of the psalm, as a man of poetical imagination used those expressions as mere metaphors to denote a total defeat; but the petty, prosaic spirit of Jewish interpretation, which the Evangelists shared without any fault of theirs, and from which orthodox theologians, by their own fault however, have not perfectly liberated themselves after the lapse of eighteen centuries, led to the belief that those words must be understood literally, and in this sense must be shown to be fulfilled in the Messiah. Whether the Evangelists drew the circumstance of the casting of lots for the clothes more from historical information which stood at their command, or from the prophetic passage which they variously interpreted, must be decided by a comparison of their narratives. These present the divergency, that while according to the synoptists all the clothes were parted by lot, as is evident from the words:
d
i
e
m
e
r
i
s
a
n
t
o
t
a
i
m
a
t
i
a
a
u
t
o
u
,
b
a
l
l
o
n
t
e
V
k
l
h
r
o
n
, they parted his garment, casting lots,
in Matthew (v.
35),
and the similar turn of expression in Luke (v. 34), but still more decidedly from the addition of Mark:
t
i
V
t
i
a
r
h
,
what every man should take
(v.
24):
in John it is the
coat
or
tunic,
c
i
t
w
n
alone for which lots are cast, the other garments being parted equally (v. 23
f.). This divergency is commonly thought of much too lightly, and is tacitly treated as if the synoptical representation were related to that of John as the indefinite to the definite. Kuinöl in consideration of John translates the words
d
i
e
m
e
r
i
z
a
n
t
o
b
a
l
l
o
n
t
e
V
of Matthew thus:
partim dividebant, partim in sortem conjiciebant:
but the meaning is not to be thus distributed, for the
d
i
e
m
e
r
i
z
o
n
t
o
, they parted,
states
what
they did, the
b
a
l
l
o
n
t
e
V
k
l
h
r
o
n
, casting lots, how
they did it: besides Kuinöl passes in total silence over the words
t
i
V
t
i
a
r
h
,
because they undeniably

^*
Quoted ia Wetstein, p. 536; compare, however, the correction of the text in Paulus, ex. handb. 3, b, s,
751.