Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (765 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
8.5Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
The discourse above considered, also bears tlie form of a dialogue, and it exhibits strikingly the type of dialogue which especially belongs to tlie fourth gospel: tliat, namely, in wliicli language intended spiritually, is understood carnally. In tlie first place (v. 34), the Jews (as tlie woman of Samaria in relation to tlie water) suppose tliat by the bread ichich comcth dozen from heaven, Jesus means some material food, and entreat him evermore to supply tliem with such.Such a misapprehension was certainly natural; but one would have thought tliat tlie Jews, before they carried the subject farther, would have indignantly protested against the assertion of Jesus (v. 32), tliat Moses liad not given them heavenly bread. When, Jesus proceeds to call himself the bread from heaven, tlie Jews in tlie synagogue at Capernaum murmur tliat lie, the son of Joseph, whose father- and mother they knew, should arrogate to himself a descent from heaven (v. 41); a reflection which the synoptists witli more probability attribute to the people of Nazareth, tlie native city of Jesus, and to wliicli they assign a more natural cause. Tliat tlie Jews should not understand (v. 53) liow Jesus could give them Ins flesh to eat is very conceivable; and for tliat reason, as we liave ob
* See Lucke’s History of the Interpretation of this passage in Ins Comm. 2, Appen
T> - r.)T 0’ A IT...,,” IT 2 (1U + <-•„„,„ Tl»>>B,.hn»;fl<.r Prnliah n ;”>«. 88 ft’
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
served, it, is the less so tliat Jesus should express himself thus unintelligibly. Neitlier is it surprising tliat tills hard saying aaXrjpbf /loyo? sliould cause many disciples to fall away from liiin, nor easy to perceive how Jesus could, in tlie first instance, himself give reason for the secession, and then, on its occurrence, feel so much displeasure as is implied in v. 61 and 67. It is indeed said, tliat Jesus wished to sift his disciples, to remove from Ills society tlic superficial believers, tlie earthly-minded, whom he could not trust; but tlie measure which he here adopted was one calculated to alienate froin liiin even his best and most intelligent followers.
 
.For it is certain tliat the twelve, wlio on other occasions knew not what was meant by tlie leaven oftlic Pharisees (Matt. xvl. 7), or by tlie opposition between wliat goes into tlic mouth, and wliat comes out of it (Matt. xv. 15), would not understand tlic present discourse ; and tlic ico/’ds of eternal lif’’, for the sake of which they remained witli him (v. 6S), were assuredly not the words of this sixtli chapter.*
 
Tlie farther we read in tlie fourth gospel, the more striking is tlie repetition of the same ideas and expressions.
 
The discourses of Jesus during tlie Feast of Tabernacles, ch. vii. and vili. are, as Lucke lias remarked, mere repetitions and amplifications of tlic oppositions previously presented (especially in ch. v.), of tlic coining, speaking, and acting, of Jesus, and of God (vii. 17, 28 f.; vili. 28 f., 38, 40, 42. compare witli v. 30, 43; vi. 38.); of being from above, wai KK ~wv avw, and/’/wrt beneath, KK. r&v ndru (viii. 23 comp. iii.
31.); of beariii” witness of one’s self, and rcceivina’ witness from
more striking is
/ ‘0
 
‘ o
God (viii. 13-iy. eomp. v. 31-37.); of li”‘ht and darkness (viii.
12. eomp. iii. 10 ft’., also xii. 35 f); of true and false judgment (viii.
15 f., comp. v. 30.). All tliat is new in tlicsc chapters, is quickly repeated, as tlie mention of tlic departure of Jesus whither the Jews cannot follow him (vii. 33 f., viii. 21.; comp. xiii. 33., xiv. 2 ff., xvi. 16 ff.); a declaration, to whieli arc attaclicd, in tlic first two instances, very improbable misapprehensions or perversions on tlic part of tlic Jews, who, although Jesus liad said, I go unto him that wilt me., arc represented as imagining, at one time, tliat lie purposed journeying to tlic dispersed oniony tlie Gentiles, at another, tliat lie meditated suicide. How oficn, again, in this chapter are repeated tlic asseverations, tliat lie seeks not his own honour, but tlic honour of tlie leather (vii. 17 f., viii. 50, 54); tliat tlic Jews neither know whence lie came, nor tlic father who sent him (vii. 28; viii. 14, 19, 54); that whosoever bclievcth in liini sliall have eternal life, shall not see dcatli, wlille whosoever bclievcth not nmst die in his sins, having no share in eternal life (viii. 21, 24, 51; eomp. iii. 36, vi.
40.).-Tlic ninth chapter, consisting chiefly of tlic deliberations of tlie Sanhedrim witli the man born blind, whom Jesus h;id restored
having no share in eternal life (viii. 21
 
* In relation to this chapter, I entirely approve the following remark in the Probabilia CP- •’>(»): vufrrvtur-Jwii.-, ijw ifinduisw, ui. vbrb’i^ iUn.di:rtt Jutlii.’i.-f, »<‘<• ah us tnhHif^reftu: jt’t vv.i-fi ?;<•(.• «J’tt^ w aiJvn’ yofnit, nci^n sl ila do’’lfism’f. fiinia vjf’t’fi.swty qtfititfti ‘Uliui^
 
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
 
to sight, has of course the form of conversation, but as Jesus is less on tlie scene than heretofore, there is not tlie usual amount of artificial contrast; in its stead, however, there is, as we shall presently find, another evidence of artistic desio’n in the narrator.
 
70
 
Tlie tenth chapter commences witli the well-known discourse on the Good Shepherd; a discourse which lias been incorrectly called a parable.* Even the briefest among tlic oilier parables of Jesus, such as tliat of tlie leaven and of tlie mustard-seed, contain tlic outline of a history that dcvelopes itself, having a commencement, progress, and conclusion. Here, on tlie contrary, there is no historical development; even tlie particulars tliat have an historical character are stated generally, as tilings tliat arc wont to happen, not as tilings tliat once liappcned, and they are left without farther limitation;
 
moreover, tlie door usurps the place, of tlie Shepherd, wliicli is at first tlie principal image ; so that we have here, not a parable, but an allegory. Thcrcfure tills passage at least-(and we sliall find no other, for the similitude of tlie vine, cli. xv., coines, as Lucke confesses, under the same category as the one in question)-furnishes no argument against tlie allegation by wliicli recent critics have justified their suspicions as to tlie authenticity of tlie fourth gospel;
 
namely, that its author seems ignorant of tlie parabolic mode of teaching which, according to tlie oilier evangelists, was habitual with Jesus. It docs not however appear totally unknown to tlie fourth evangelist tliat Jesus was fond of teacliing by parables, for he attempts to give examples of this method, both in cli. x. and xv., tlic tirst of which lie expressly styles -A parable, -apoifzia. But it is obvious tliat tlic parabolic form was not accordant with his taste, and tliat lie was too deficient in tlic faculty of depicting external tilings, to abstain from tlie intermixture of reflections, wlience the parable in his hand became an allegory.
 
Tlic discourses of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles extend to x. 18. From v. 25, tlic evangelist professes to record sayings which were uttered by Jesus three months later, at tlic Feast of Dedication. When, on this occasion, tlic Jews desire from him a distinct declaration whether lie be the Messiah, his immediate reply is, that lie has already told tliem this sufficicntiv, and lie repeats his appeal to tlie testimony of tlie Father, as given in tlic wor’Jcs, epya, done by Jesus in his name (as in v. 36.).
 
Hereupon, by reason of the incidental remark tliat his unbelieving questioners were not of his sheep, tlie evangelist reverts to tlie allegory wliicli lie liad recently abandoned, and repeats part of it word for word.f But not recently
* E. g. by Tholack and Lucke. Tlie latter, however, allows tliat it is rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks, tliat tlie discourses of tlie Shepherd and tlie Vine are rather comparisons than parables; and Neander shows himself willing to distinguish the parable presented by the synoptists as a species, under the genus similitude, to whk-h tlic napoi/^iat or John belong.
 
•}• x. 27 ; TU TpujjaTCt Tit eftu. Tjyf (jiwfii; x. 3; Kai Til vpufSara T^f ijiuvyi; avrov /.toy aKOvet,UKOVEV
 
KH^ D } wualit^ av7u’
 
34: Kai yn-’uaKf’i TU ffid.
 
408 THE LIFE OP JESUS.
 
had. Jesus abandoned tills allegory; for since its delivery three months are supposed to have elapsed, and it is certain tliat in tlie interim much must have been spoken, done, and experienced by Jesus, that would thrust this figurative discourse into tlic background of his memory, so tliat lie would be very unlikely to recur to it, and in no case would he be able to repeat it, word for word.
He wlio had just quitted tlie allegory was tlie evangelist, to wliom three months liad not intervened between tlie inditing of tlie first half of this chapter, and tliat of the second. He wrote at once what, according to Ilia statement, was chronologically separated by a wide interval; and lience tlie allegory of tlic shepherd might well leave so distinct an echo in his memory, tliougli not in tliat of Jesus. If any think tliat they can solve tills difficulty by putting only the verbal similarity of the later discourse to tlic earlier one to tlie account of the evangelist, sucli an opinion cannot be interdicted to them.
For others, this instance, in connexion with the rest, will be a positive proof tliat tlie discourses of Jesus in tlic fourth gospel are to a great extent tlie free compositions of the evangelist.
 
The same conclusion is to be drawn from tlie discourse with which tlie fourth evangelist represents Jesus as closing his public ministry (xii. 44-50). Tins discourse is entirely composed of reminiscences out of previous chapters,* and, as Paulus expresses it,f is a mere echo of some of tlie principal apophthegms of Jesus occurring in tlie former part of tlie gospel. One cannot easily consent to let tlie ministry of Jesus close with a discourse so little original, and tlie majority of recent commentators are of opinion tliat it is tlie intention of tlie evangelist here to give us a mere epitome of the teaching of Jesus.f According to our view also, tlie evangelist is the real speaker; but we must contend that his introductory words, Jesus cried and said, ‘laovc; 6e ‘eicpa^s nal d-rev, are intended to imply tliat wliat follows is an actual harangue, from tlie lips of Jesus.
This commentators will not admit, and they can appeal, not without a show of reason, to tlie statement of tlic evangelist, v. 36, tliat Jesus withdrew himself from tlic public eye, and to his ensuing observations on tlie obstinate unbelief of tlie Jews, in which lie seems to put a period to tlie public carreer of Jesus; whence it would be contrary to his plan to make Jesus again step forward to deliver a valedictory discourse. I will not, with tlie older expositors, oppose to tlicse arguments tlie supposition tliat Jesus, after his withdrawal, returned to pronounce tlicse words in the ears of tlie Jews; but 1
liold fast to tlie proposition, that by tlie introduction above quoted, the evangelist can only have intended to announce an actual harangue. It is said, indeed, tliat tlie aorist in wpa^e and dm lias tlie
Also icdyu L^»/r cu.uvlov ViSu^i ai’-ntf corresponds to C;’L> r/Wov, ‘iva (/,»/r c^uat, •v. 10, ami Kai on,t dpTruOft Ttf ai’Til is. T^ yipof ftov is the counterpart of what is said v. 12 of the hireling who allows the sheep to be seatterecl.
 
* Comp. v, 44 witli vii, 17 ; v. 4
<>a . „ ,-.11 „,,», „,. JII . y;;. 17, viii. as.
 
+ L. J. b. S. 143, t Lueke, Tholuck, I’aulus,
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
 
signification of tlie pluperfect, and that we have liere a recapitulation of tlie previous discourses of Jesus, notwithstanding wliich the Jews had not given him credence. But to give tills retrospective sio-nification there ought to be a coiTesponding indication in tlie words themselves, or in the context, whereas this is far less tlie case than e. g. in John xviii. 24. Hence the most probable view of tlie question is this: John had indeed intended to close tlie narrative of the public ministry of Jesus at v. 36, but his concluding observations, v. 37 ff., with tlic categories of faith, ma-ic, and unbeli-^f, a.rtiar’i.a, reminded him of discourses which lie liad already recorded, and lie could not resist tlie temptation of making Jesus recapitulate them with additional emphasis in a parting harangue.