Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (856 page)

^†
Tholuck, in loc.imply that lots were cast for several articles: while according to John the lots had reference only to one garment. If it be now asked, which of the two contradictory narratives is the correct one, the answer given from the point of view to which the comparative criticism of the gospels has at present attained is, that the eye-witness John gives the correct particulars, but the synoptists had merely received the indefinite information, that in parting the clothes of Jesus the soldiers made use of the lot, and this, from unacquaintance with the more minute particulars, they understood as if lots had been cast for all the garments of Jesus.
^*
But not only does the circumstance that it is John alone who expressly cites the passage in the Psalms prove that he had an especial view to that passage: but, in general, this divergency of the Evangelists is precisely what might be expected from a difference in the interpretation of that supposed prophecy. When the psalm speaks of the parting of the garments and a casting of lots for the vesture: the second particular is, according to the genius of the Hebrew language which abounds in parallelism, only a more precise definition of the first, and the synoptists, correctly understanding this, make one of the two verbs a participle. One however who did not bear in mind this peculiarity of the Hebrew style, or had an interest in exhibiting the second feature of the prophecy as specially fulfilled, might understand the
and,
which in reality was indicative only of more precise definition, as denoting addition, and thus regard the casting, of lots and the distribution as separate acts. Then the
i
m
a
t
i
s
m
o
V
[
Heb. letters
]
(
l
^e
bush
)
which was originally a synonyme of
i
m
a
t
i
a
[
Heb. letters
]
(
b
^e
gadiym
)
must become a distinct garment, the closer particularization of which, since it was not in any way conveyed in the word itself, was left to choice. The fourth Evangelist determined it to be the
c
i
t
w
n
tunic,
and because he believed it due to his readers to show some cause for a mode of procedure with respect to this garment, so different from the equal distribution of the others, he intimated that the reason why it was chosen to cast lots for the tunic rather than to divide it, probably was that it had no seam (
a
r
r
a
f
o
V
) which might render separation easy, but was woven in one piece (
u
f
a
n
t
o
V
d
i
‘
o
l
o
u
).
^†
Thus we should have in the fourth Evangelist exactly the same procedure as we have found on the side of the first, in the history of the entrance into Jerusalem: in both cases the doubling of a trait originally single, owing to a false interpretation of the in the Hebrew parallelism; the only difference being that the first Evangelist in the passage referred to is less arbitrary than the fourth is here, for he at least spares us the tracing out of the reason why two asses must then have been required for one rider. The more evident it thus becomes that the representation of the point in question in the different

^*
E. G. Theile, zur Biographie Jesu, § 36, Anm. 33.

^†
Expositors observe in connexion with this particular, that the coat of the Jewish high priest was also of this kind. Jos. Antiq. iii. vii. 4 — The same view of the above difference has been already presented in the Probabilia, p. 8o f.Evangelists is dependent on the manner in which each interpreted that supposed prophecy in the Psalms: the less does a sure historical knowledge appear to have had any share in their representation, and hence we remain ignorant whether lots were cast on the distribution of the clothes of Jesus, nay whether in general a distribution of clothes took place under the cross of Jesus; confidently as Justin appeals in support of this very particular to the Acts of Pilate, which he had never seen.
^*

Of the conduct of the Jews who were present at the crucifixion of Jesus, John tells us nothing; Luke represents the people as standing to look on, and only the
rulers
a
r
c
o
n
t
e
V
and the soldiers as deriding Jesus by the summons to save himself if he were the Messiah, to which the latter adds the offer of the vinegar (v. 35 ff.); Matthew and Mark have nothing here of mockery on the part of the soldiers, but in compensation they make not only the
chief priests, scribes,
and
elder;
but also the
passers by,
p
a
r
a
p
o
r
e
o
m
e
n
o
i
vent insults against Jesus (v. 39 ff., 29 ff.)
.
The expressions of these people partly refer to former discourses and actions of Jesus; thus, the sarcasm:
Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it again in three days, save thyself
(Matt. and Mark), is an allusion to the words of that tenor ascribed to Jesus; while the reproach:
he saved others, himself he cannot save,
or
save thyself
(in all three), refers to his cures. Partly however the conduct of the Jews towards Jesus on the cross, is depicted after the same psalm of which Tertullian justly says that it contains
totam Christi passionem.
^†
When it is said in Matthew and Mark:
And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads and saying:
o
i
d
e
p
a
r
a
p
o
r
e
u
o
m
e
n
o
i
a
b
l
a
s
f
h
m
o
u
n
a
y
t
o
n
,
k
i
n
o
n
t
e
V
t
a
V
k
e
f
a
l
a
V
a
u
t
w
n
k
a
i
l
e
g
o
n
t
e
V
(Luke says of the
rulers
a
r
c
o
n
t
e
V
they derided him
e
x
e
m
u
k
t
h
r
i
z
o
n
),
this is certainly nothing else than a mere reproduction of what stands in Ps. xxii. 8 (LXX.):
All they that see me laugh me to scorn, they shoot out the lip and shake the head:
p
a
n
t
e
V
o
i
q
e
w
r
o
u
n
t
e
V
m
e
e
x
e
m
u
k
t
h
r
i
s
a
n
m
e
,
e
l
a
l
h
s
a
n
e
n
c
e
i
l
e
s
i
n
,
e
k
i
n
h
s
a
n
k
e
f
a
l
h
n
;
and the words which are hereupon lent to the Sanhedrists in Matthew:
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he will have him,
p
e
p
o
i
q
e
n
e
p
i
t
o
n
q
e
o
n
,
p
u
s
a
s
q
w
n
u
n
e
i
q
e
l
e
i
a
u
t
o
n
,
are the same with those of the following verse in that Psalm:
He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him,
h
l
p
u
s
e
n
e
p
i
K
u
r
i
o
n
,
r
u
s
a
s
q
w
a
u
t
o
n
,
s
w
s
a
t
w
a
u
t
o
n
,
o
t
i
q
e
l
e
i
a
u
t
o
n
.
Now though the taunts and shaking of the head on the part of the enemies of Jesus may, notwithstanding that the description of them is drawn according to the above Old Testament passage, still very probably have really happened: it is quite otherwise with the words which are attributed to these mockers. Words which, like those above quoted, are in the Old Testameut put into the mouth of the enemies of the godly, could not be adopted by the Sanhedrists without their voluntarily