CHAPTER YII. DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. § 80. COXVEESATION OF JESUS WITH NICODEMUS. THE first considerable specimen wliicli tlic fourth Gospel gives of tlic tcacliing of Jesua, is his conversation with Nicodemus (iii. 1-21.). In the previous chapter (23-25.) it is narrated, that during the first passovcr attended by Jesus after his entrance on his public ministry, he liad won many to faith in him by tlic miracles, cr]iis~ia, which lie performed, but tliat he did not commit himself to them because lie saw through them: lie was aware, that is, of the uncertainty and impurity of their faith. Then follows in our present chapter, as an example, not only of tlie adherents whom Jesus liad found even tlius early, but also of tlie wariness witli wliicli lie tested and received them, a more detailed account how Nicodemus, a ruler of tlie Jews and a Pharisee, applied to him, and how lie was treated by Jesus. It is through tlie Gospel of John alone tliat we learn anything of this Nicodemus, wlio in vii. 50 f. appears as the advocate of Je- sus, so far as to protest against his being condemned without a hear- ing, and in xix. 39. as tlie partaker witli Joseph of Arimathca of tlie care of interring Jesus. Modern criticism, witli reason, considers it surprising tliat Matthew (witli tlic other synoptists) does not even mention tlie name of tills remarkable adherent of Jesus, and tliat we have to gather all our knowledge of him from tlie fourth Gospel; since the peculiar relation in wliicli Nicodemus stood to Jesus, and Ills participation in tlic care of his interment, must have been as well known to Matthew as to John. This difficulty lias been numbered among tlic arguments wliicli are thought to prove tliat tlic first Gospel was not written by tlie apostle Mattlicw, but was tlie product of a tradition considerably more remote from tlie time and locality of Je- sus.* But tlic fact is tliat tlic common fund of tradition on which DISCOUESES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 395 all tlie synoptists drew had preserved no notice of this Nicodemus. With touching piety tlic Christian legend has recorded in tlic tablets of her memory, tlie names of all tlie others wlio helped to render the last honours to their murdered master-of Joseph of Arhnathea and tlie two Marys (Matt. xxvii. 56-61 parall.); wliy then was Nico- demus tile only neglected one-he who was especially distinguished among those who tended tlie remains of Jesus, by his nocturnal in- terview witli the teacher sent from God, and by his advocacy of him among tlic chief priests and Pharisees ? It is so difficult to conceive that the name of this man, if lie had really assumed such a position, would have vanished from the popular evangelical tradition, without leaving a single trace, that one is induced to inquire whether tlie contrary supposition be not more capable of explanation : namelv, that such a relation between Nicodemus and Jesus might have hccn fabricated by tradition, and adopted by the author of the fourth Gospel without having really subsisted. John xii. 42, it is expressly said tliat many among the chief rulers believed on Jesus, but concealed their faitli from dread of ex- communication by tlie Pharisees, because they loved the praise, of inen more than the praise of God* Tliat towards the end of his career many people of rank believed in Jesus, even in secret only, is not very probable, since no indication of it appears in tlic Acts of tlie Apostles; for tliat the advice of Gamaliel (Acts v. 34 ff.) did not originate in a positively favourable disposition towards tlie cause of Jesus, seems to be sufficiently demonstrated by the spirit of his disciple Saul. Moreover tlic synoptists make Jesus declare in plain terms tliat tlie secret of his Mcssiahship liad been revealed only to babes, and hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. xi. 25; Luke x. 21.), and Joseph ofArimathea is tlie only individual of tlie ruling class whom they mention as an adherent of Jesus. How, then, if Jesus did not really attach to himself any from tlie upper ranks, canic tlie case to be represented differently at a later period ? In John vii. 48 f. we read tliat the Pharisees sought to disparage Jesus by tlie remark that none of tlic rulers or of the Pharisees, but only the ignorant populace, believed on him ; and even later adversaries of Christianity, for example, Celsus, laid great stress on tlie circum- stance tliat Jesus liad liad as his disciples e-r(pp/;-ovc dvOpuTrovf;, reA- 6va<; KO.I vavraq -w^ -Tovr]po-d~ovc.1[ Tills reproach was a thorn in tlie side of tlie early church, and though as long as licr members were drawn only from the people, slic might reflect with satisfaction on tlie declarations of Jesus, in wliicli he liad pronounced the poor, -r-u^ov^, and simple, vi]'nlov(;, blessed: yet so soon as she was joined by men of rank and education, these would lean to the idea. tliat con- * This "secret information" is very welcome to Dr. Paulas, because it gives a useful hint "as to many occurrences in the life of Jesus, tlie causes of which are not obvious" (L. J. 1. B. S. 141): that is, Paulus, like Bahrdt and Venturini, thous-a less openly, is fond of using such secret and influential allies as dws ex machina^ for the explanation of much that is miraculous in tlie life of Jesus (the transli^uration, residence after the resur- 396 THE LIFE OF JESUS. verts like themselves had not been wanting to Jesus during his life. But, it would be objected, nothing had been liitlierto known of such converts. Naturally enough, it might be answered; since fear of tlieir equals would induce them to conceal their relations with Jesus. Thus a door was opened for the admission of any number of secret adherents among tlie higher class (John xil. 42 f.). But, it would be farther urged, how could they have intercourse with Jesus, unob- served ? Under the veil of the night, would be the answer; and thus the scene was laid for tlie interviews of such men witli Jesus (xix. 39.). This, however, would not suffice; a representative of this class must actually appear on the scene: Josepli of Arimathea might have been chosen, his name being still extant in the synoptical tradition; but the idea of him was too definite, and it was tlie interest of the legend to name more than one eminent friend of Jesus. Hence a new personage was devised, whose Greek name NtKod^o? seems to point him out significantly as tlie representative of tlie dominant class.* That tills development of tlie legend is confined to tlie fourth Gospel, is to be explained, partly by tlie generally admitted lateness of its origin, and partly on tlie ground that in tlie evidently more cultivated circle in which it arose, the limitation of the adherents of Jesus to tlie common people would be more offensive, than in the circle in which tlie synoptical tradition was formed. Thus tlie re- proach which modern criticism lias cast on the first Gospel, on the score of its silence respecting Nicodemus, is turned upon tlie fourth, on tlie score of its information on the same subject. Tliese considerations, however, should not create any prejudice against tlie ensuing conversation, which is the proper object of our investigations. This may still be in the main genuine; Jesus may have held such a conversation with one of his adherents, and our evangelist may have embellished it no further than by making this interlocutor a man of rank. Neither will we, with the author of tlie Probabilia, take umbrage at tlie opening address of Nicodemus, nor complain, with him, that there is a want of connexion between that address and the answer of Jesus.f Tlie requisition of a new birth ('yevvrjOrjval avuOevY as a condition of entrance into tlie kingdom of heaven, does not differ essentially from tlie summons with wliicli Jesus opens his ministry in the synoptical gospels, liepent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. New birth, or new creation, was a current image among tlie Jews, especially as denoting the conversion of an idolater into a worshipper of Jehovah. It was * Let the reader bear in mind the kindred names Kicolans and Nicolaitans. •{• Prob. p. 44. Bretsclmcider is right, however, in declaring against KuiiK'il's method of supplying a connexion between tlie discourses in John, by the insertion of propositions and intermediate discourses supposed to have been omitted. Liicke judiciously admits (1, p. 446) tliat if, in John, something appears to be wanting between two consecutive ex- pressions of Jesus, we are yet to suppose that there was an immediate connexion between them in the mind of the evangelist, and it is this connexion which it is tlie task of exegesis to ascertain. In truth the discourses in tlie 4th Gospel are never entirely wanting in con- nexion (apart from the exceptions to be noticed § 81), though that connexion is some- DISCOUKSES OF JESUS IN THE FOUETH GOSPEL. 397 customary to say of Abraham, that when, according to the Jewish supposition, lie renounced idolatry for the worship of the true God, he became a new creature (t-ttmn n"i")S)-* The proselyte, too, in allusion to his relinquishing all his previous associations, was com- pared to a new-born child, f Tliat such phraseology was common among the Jews at tliat period, is shown by the confidence with wliicli Paul applies, as if it required no explanation, the term new creation, naiv'q /ci-tfftc, to tliose truly converted to Christ. Now, if Jesus required, even from tlie Jews, aa a condition of entrance into tlie messianic kingdom, the new birth which they ascribed to then- heathen proselytes, Nicodemus might naturally wonder at tlie requi- sition, since the Israelite thought himself, as such, unconditionally entitled to tliat kingdom: and tills is the construction which has been put upon his question v. 44 But Nicodemus does not ask, How canst thou say tliat a Jew, or a child of Abraham, must be born again ? His ground of wonder is that Jesus appears to suppose it possible for a man to be born again, and tliat when he is old. It docs not, therefore, astonish him that spiritual new birth should be expected in a Jew, but corporeal new birth in a man. How an oriental, to whom figurative speecli in general-how a Jew, to whom tlie image of tlie new birth in particular must have been familiar- liow especially a master of Israel, in whom tlie misconstruction of figurative phrases cannot, as in tlie Apostles (e. g. Matt. xv. 15 f. ; xvi. 7.), be ascribed to want of education-could understand this expression literally, has been matter of extreme surprise to exposi- tors of all parties, as well as to Jesus (v. 10). Hence some have supposed that the Pharisee really understood Jesus, and only in- tended by his question to test tlie ability of Jesus to interpret his figurative expression into a simple proposition :§ but Jesus does not treat him as a hypocrite, as in tliat case lie must have done-he continues to instruct him, as one really ignorant ov 'yivwaKovra (v. 10). Others give tlie question the following turn: This cannot be meant in a physical sense, how then otherwise ? || But the true drift of the question is rather the contrary: By these words I can only understand physical new birth, but how is this possible ? Our wonder at tlie ignorance of the Jewisli doctor, therefore, returns upon us ; and it is heightened when, after tlie copious explanation ot Jesus (v. 5-8.), tliat tlie new birth which he required was a spiritual birth, ysvv^Ofjval KK. ~ov wei^ua-oc, Nicodemus lias made no advance in comprehension, but asks with tlie same obtuseness as before (v. 9.), llow can these, things be ? By this last difficulty Liicke is so straitened, that, contrary to his 'ordinary exegetical tact, he refers tlie continued amazement of Nicodemus, (as other expositors liad referred his original question,) to tlie circumstance * Bcreschith E. sect. 30 f. xxxviii. 2. Bamimdbar E. S. 11 f. ccxi. 2 Tanchuma f. v. 2, in Schottgen, i. S. 704. Something similar is said of Moses, from Schemoth E. ib. t Jevamoth f. Ixii. 1. xcii. 1, in Lighttbot, p. 984, f. E. g. Knapp, Comm. in colloq. Christi cum Nicod. in loc. g Paulus, Comm. 4, S. 183. L. J. 1, a. S. 176. |1 Lucke and 398 THE LIFE OP JESUS. tliat Jesus maintained tlie necessity of new birth even for Israelites. But, in tliat case, Nicodomus would have inquired concerning the necessity, not the possibility, of tliat Lirtli; instead of asking, How can these tilings be ? lie would have asked, W/'u/ mvst these thing's be? Tills inconcclvaLle mistake in a Jewish doctor is not tlion to be explained away, and our surprise must become strong suspicion so soon as it can be shown, tliat legend or tlie evangelist Iiad in- ducements to represent tills individual as more simple than lie really was. First, tlicn, it must occur to us, tliat in all descriptions and recitals, contrasts are eagerly exhibited; hence in the representation of a colloquy in which one party is the teacher, tlie oilier tlic taught, there is a strong temptation to create a contrast to tlie wisdom of tlic former, by exaggerating tlie simplicity of tlie latter. Further, we must remember tlie satisfaction it must give to a Christian mind of tliat age, to place a master of Israel in tlie position of an unin- telllo-ent person, bv tlic side of tlic Master of tlie Christians. Lastly it is, as we sliall presently see. more clearly, tlie constant method of the fourth evangelist in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form tlie knot and tlie progress of tlie discussion, by making tlie interlocutors understand literally wliat Jesus intended figuratively. In repiv to tlie second query of Nicodemus, Jesus takes entirely tlic tone of tlic fourth evangelist's prologue (v. 11-13*). The Question hence arises, whether tlie evangelist Lorrowed from Jesus, or lent to him hid own style. A previous investigation lias decided in favour of tlie latter alternative, f But tills inquiry referred merely to the form of the discourses ; in relation to their matter, its analogy with tlic ideas of Pliilo, does not authorize us at once to conclude that the writer here puts his Alexandrian doctrine of tlic Logos into tlie mouth of Jesus 4 because the expressions, JF<3 speak that zee do know, &c. o oiSafiEv AO/.OV^EV ic. - /L, and, JVoman hath ascended up to heaven, &c. ovSei^ dvaft^'cev K. r. >,., have an analogy with Matt. xi. 27.; and tlic idea of the prc-existcncc of tlie Messiah which is here propounded, is, as we have seen, not foreign to the apostle Paul. V. 14 and 15 Jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth, i-riyuol^ tlic communications concerning tlic new birth, to tlie more difficult tilings of heaven, e-rorpanotc, tlie announcement of the destination of tlie Mcssiali to a vicarious death. The Son of Man, lie says, must be lifted vp {v^wOqvat, which, in John's phraseology, signincs crucifixion, with an allusion to a glorifying exaltation)', in tlic same way, and witli tlie same effect, as tlie brazen serpent .Numb. xxi. 8, 9. Here many questions press upon us. Is it credible, tliat Jesus already, at tlic very commencement of his * III. 11: 6 mpunap.FV izaprvpovfttv I. 18 : •9cbv oi(idf eupaKe TTUCTTC- b l^ovo- ica}. Tijv iiapruftiav r/^dv ov '/.a^uvtrs. 13: yeviic vioc, o iiv el{ ruv noinuv TOV irarpof, Kal ovSeic: uvai-Sifh/KfV (•(f Tor tii-pavuv, cl w iKflvof c^riffiaaTO. 6 SK TOV ovpavov icara,3nf, o vlo{ TOV u.v9fiu- 11: -Kill ol Uwi avrov ov TfopsAafiw. DISCOURSES OF JESUS IX THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 399 public ministry, foresaw his death, and. in the specific form of crucifixion ? and tliat long before he instructed his disciples on this point, he. made a communication on the subject to a Pharisee? Can it be held consistent with tlie wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, that. he, should impart such knowledge to Nicodcmus ? Even Lucke* puts the question wliy, when Nicodemus Iiad not understood the more obvious doctrine, Jesus tormented him with the more recondite, and especially with the secret of tlie Messiah's deatli, which was then so remote ? He answers: it accords perfectly witli the wisdom of Jesus as a teacher, tliat lie should reveal tlie sufferings appointed for him by God as early as possible, because no instruction was better adapted to cast down false worldly liopes. But tlie more remote tlie idea of tlie Messiah's deatli from tlie conceptions of his cotemporaries, owing to tlic worldliness of their expectations, the more impressively and unequivocally must Jesus express tliat idea, if he wished to promulgate it; not in an enigmatical form which he could not be sure tliat Nicodcmus would understand. Lucke con- tinues : Nicodcmus was a man open to instruction; one of whom good might be expected. But in this very conversation, his dulncss of comprehension in earthly things, KTiyua, had evinced tliat he must have still less capacity for heavenly things, enovpdvia: and, according to v. 12, Jesus himself despaired of enlightening liirn with respect to them. Lucke, however, observes, that it was a practice witli Jesus to follow up easy doctrine which had not been compre- hended, by difficult doctrine which was of course less compre- hensible; thai he purposed thus to give a spur to tlie minds of his hearers, and by straining their attention, engage them to reflect. But tlie examples which Lucke adduces of such proceeding on the part of Jesus, are all drawn from tlie fourth gospel. Now tlie very point in question is, whether tliat gospel correctly represents tlie teaching of Jesus; consequently Liicke argues in a circle. We have seen a similar procedure ascribed to Jesus in his conversation with tlie woman of Samaria, and we have already declared our opinion that such an overburthening of weak faculties witli enigma on enigma, does not accord with tlie wise rule as to the communi- cation of doctrine, which tlie same gospel puts into the mouth of Jesus, xvi. 12. It would not stimulate, but confuse, the mind of tlie hearer, who persisted in a misapprehension of tlie well-known figure of tlie new birth, to present to him the novel comparison of the Messiah and his deatli, to the brazen serpent and its effects ; a comparison quite incongruous witli Ills Jewish ideas.! In the first three gospels Jesus pursues an entirely different course. In tliese, where a misconstruction betrays itself on the part, of the disciples, Jesus (except where he breaks off altogether, or where it is evident that tlie evangelist unhistorically associates a number of metaphor- ical discourses) applies himself with tlie assiduity of an earnest teacher to tlie thorough explanation of tlie difficulty, and not until •* T-» „.„> „ i-r, + p,,n,n Brplsfhiifiider. ut sun. 400 THE LIFE OF JESU9. he has effected this does he proceed, step by step, to convey further instruction (e. g. Matt. xiii. 10 ff. 36 ff.; xv. 16; xvi. 8 ff.)* This is the method of a wise teacher; on the contrary, to leap from one subject to another, to overburthen and strain the mind of the hearer, a mode of instruction which the fourth evangelist attributes to Jesus, is wholly inconsistent with tliat character. To explain this inconsistency, we must suppose tliat the writer of tlie fourth gospel thought to heighten in the most effective manner the contrast which appears from tlie first', between the wisdom of the one party and the incapacity of tlie other, by representing the teacher as over- whelming tlie pupil who put unintelligent questions on tlie most elementary doctrine, with lofty and difficult themes, beneath which Ills faculties are laid prostrate. Prom v. 16, even those commentators wlio pretend to some ability in this department, lose all hope of showing that tlie remain- der of tlie discourse may have been spoken by Jesus. Not only does Paulus make this confession, but even Olsliausen, with a concise statement of his reasons.! At tlie above verse, any special reference to Nicodemus vanishes, and there is commenced an entirely general discourse on the destination of the Son of God, to confer a blessing on tlie world, and on the manner in which unbelief forfeits tills bless- ing. Moreover, these ideas are. expressed in a form, which at one moment appears to be a reminiscence of tlie evangelist's introduc- tion, and at another lias a striking similarity witli passages in tlie first epistle of John.} In particular, tlie expression the only begot- ten Son, o p.ovoysvf^ vtbc, which is repeatedly (v. 16 and 18.) attrib- uted to Jesus as a designation of his own person, is nowhere else found in Ills mouth, even in the fourth gospel; this circumstance, however, marks it still more positively as a favourite phrase of the evangelist (i. 14-18.), and of the writer of tlie Epistles (1 John iv. 9). Further, many things are spoken of as past, which at the supposed period of tills conversation with Nicodemus were yet future. For even if tlie words, he gave, 's.6wev, refer not to tlie giving over * De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part of Jesus in the synoptical gospels, Matth. xix. 21 ; xx. 22 f. But these two cases are of a totally dif- ferent kind from the one under consideration in John. We have here to treat of a want of comprehension, in the face of which it is surprising tliat Jesus instead of descending to its level, cliooses to elevate himself to a still less attainable altitude. In the passages quoted from the aynoptists, on tlie other hand, we have examples of an excessive self- valuation, too high an estimate of their ability to promote the cause of Jesus, on the part of the rich young man and of the sons of Zebedee, and Jesus with perfect propriety checks their egotistic ardour by the abrupt presentation of a higher demand. These instances could only be parallel witli that of Kicodcinus, if the latter had piqued himself on ^ his enlightenment, and Jesus, by a sudden night into a higher region, had sought to convince him of his ignorance, f Bibl. Comm. 2, S. 96. t III. 19: avT-ri (ie SUTIV ri npiaif, u-t I. 9: r/v TO yuc TO u^-Swim, TO IJIUT'^OV TO puc E/V/AuKev £(f Tor Koanov, icat ftyuiTTiaav •KU.VTd ur^punw, tf)f6[ievov elf TOV Koauav. 01 uviipuToi fluW.ov TO (TKOTOJ- JJ Tb i?uc. .'>: Kat TO i^uc ev rg OKOTia ijinirel, KCU i] ono- I[I. 10 : OV~.: WTf Tr/v ffiuvr^v ai'TOi) a/c^Koare w- Joh. i, 18: •S^ov o^Sels ^(JpffKC TTUTTOTE. ?~orf, oure Tt/.^oc dVTov WOUKOTS. Comp. 1. Joh. iv. 12. 3y : K.ai TIJV 7^'ov ailTftv oi'K ^cre WWVTO. 1 Joli. i. 10 : KUI o TJayw, a.vrw ova icTW iv vfuv, iv Vfuv. 40 : Kill oil •9(7^T£ Q^dv irpdf {te, Iva i^uf/v 1 Joh. v. 12: o ftij S^w TOV vlov TOV •Sscw fxVTe. ^,w(v OVK l^n, 42; on T7/r uj.ttTrg.r TOV 'Scov ova eyre cv 1 Joh. ii. 15 : OVK ISTCV ^ uyum) rav rra- tavTOK;. rpof cv afiro. 44: 7T(.)^ SvvanQf vf^E?^ TTtGTWEiv, 6o^av Joh. xi. 43 : r/'yuTrfJoav yap 77/v 66^av7uV Trapu uW.^'A.uv ?.a^f3wovTs^. Kai Tf/v 66^av rrjV uv^puirw uuA?.ov, ^Trep TTJV Qo^av TOV ^t-ov. Brapd TOU [tuvov T^emi •ov (^//mre, •}• Viu. tliu passages compared by Gfrurer, 1, S. 194, from Philo, de Unguarum coii- 404 THE LIFE OF JESUS. sprang from an Hellenistic source, rather than from Palestine. But the chief point in tlie argument is, that in tins gospel John the Bap- tist speaks, as we have seen, in precisely the same strain as the author of the gospels, and Ills Jesus. It cannot be supposed, tliat not only the evangelist, but the Baptist, whose public career was prior to that of Jesus, and whose character was strongly marked, modelled his expressions with verbal minuteness on t.liosc of Jesus. Hence only two cases are possible: either the Baptist determined the style of Jesus and the evangelist (wlio indeed appears to liave been the Baptist's disciple); or tlic evangelist determined the style of the Baptist and Jesus. Tlie former alternative will be rejected by the orthodox, on the ground of tlie higher nature that dwelt in Christ; and we are equally disinclined to adopt it, for tlie reason that Jesus, even though he may have been excited to activity by tlie Baptist, yet appears as a character essentially distinct from him, and original; and for tlie still more weighty consideration, that the style of tlie evangelist is much too feeble for tlie rude Baptist,-too mystical for Ills practical mind. There remains, then, but the latter alternative, namely, that the evangelist lias given his own style both to Jesus and to the Baptist: an explanation in itself more natural than the former, and supported by a multitude of examples from all kinds of historical writers. If however tlie evangelist is thus re- sponsible for tlie form of this discourse, it is still possible tliat the matter way have belonged to Jesus, but we cannot pronounce to wliat extent this is the case, and we have already had proof tliat the evangelist, on suitable opportunities, very freely presents his own reflections in the form of a discourse from Jesus. In cliap. vi., Jesus represents himself, or rather his Father, v. 27 ff., as the giver of the spiritual manna. Tills is analogous to tlie Jewish idea above quoted, tliat the second Goel, like tlie first, would provide manna ;* and to the invitation of Wisdom in the Pro- verbs, ix. 5, Come., eat of my bread: SsXOs-e, (paye-e -G)V Epuv Sip-uv. But the succeeding declaration, that he is himself the bread of life that comet/i down from heaven, aprof 6 iy&v b in -ov ovpavov ita-afiag (v. 33 and 35) appears to find its true analogy only in tlie idea of Philo, that the divine word, /loyoc 0eZoc, is that which nourishes the soul, T& Tpeifxiv Trfv i/w^y.t From v. 51, tlie difficulty becomes still greater. Jesus proceeds to represent his flesh as the bread from lieavcn, which he will give for tlie life of the world, and to eat the flesh of tfie Son of Man, and to drink his blood, lie pronounces to be the only means of attaining eternal life. Tlie similarity of these expressions to the words wliicli tlie synoptists and Paul attri- bute to Jesua, at the institution of the Lord's Supper, led tlie older commentators generally to understand tills passage as having rcfer- * Sup. § 14. \ De profugis, Opp. Mang., i. S. 5G6 Gfrorer, 1, S. 203. What is farther said of ii..», . .'.A' n,', ^r.mi vr,if,nn. icn). mdiial oeovoiv uevvaol may be compared withJohn iv. DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 405 ence to the Sacramental supper, ultimately to be appointed by Jesus.* The chief objection to this interpretation is, tliat before tlie institu- tion of the supper, such an allusion would be totally unintelligible. Still the discourse might have some sense, liowever erroneous, for tlie hearers, as indeed it liad, according to tlie narrator's statement; and tlie impossibility of being understood is not, in the fourth gos- pel, so shunned by Jesus, tliat that circumstance alone would suffice to render this interpretation improbable. It is certainly supported by the analogy between the expressions in tlie discourse, and tlie words associated with tlie institution of tlie supper, and tills analogy lias wrung from one of our recent critics tlie admission, that even if Jesus himself, in uttering the above expressions, did not refer to tlie supper, the evangelist, in choosing and conveying tins discourse of Jesus, miglit have had that institution in Ills mind, and miglit have supposed that Jesus here gave a premonition of its import, f In tliat case, however, he could scarcely have abstained from modifying the language of Jesus ; so tliat, if tlic clioice of the expression eat the flesh, &c., can only be adequately explained on the supposition of a reference to the Lord's Supper, we owe it, without doubt, to the evangelist alone. Having once said, apparently in accordance with Alexandrian ideas, that Jesus had described himself as the bread of life, liow could he fail to be reminded of tlie bread, wdiich in the Christian community was partaken of as the body of Clirist, together with a beverage, as his blood ? He would the more gladly seize the opportunity of making Jesus institute tlie supper prophetically, as it were; because, as we sliall hereafter sec, he knew nothing definite of its historical institution by jesus.f The discourse above considered, also bears tlie form of a dialogue, and it exhibits strikingly the type of dialogue which especially be- longs 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...,," I T 2 (1U + <-•„„,„ Tl»>>B,.hn»;fl<.r Prnliah n ;">«. 88 ft' 406 THE LIFE OF JESUS. served, it, is the less so tliat Jesus should express himself thus un- intelligibly. 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 rea- son for the secession, and then, on its occurrence, feel so much dis- pleasure 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 super- ficial 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 oppo- sition 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 op- positions 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 Proba- bilia 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. 407 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 artifi- cial contrast; in its stead, however, there is, as we shall presently find, another evidence of artistic desio'n in the narrator. 7 0 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 out- line of a history that dcvelopes itself, having a commencement, pro- gress, 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 con- fesses, 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 ex- ternal 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 Dedica- tion. 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 in- cipient 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 back- ground 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 ver- bal 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 posi- tive 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 remi- niscences out of previous chapters,* and, as Paulus expresses it,f is a mere echo of some of tlie principal apophthegms of Jesus occur- ring 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 im- ply tliat wliat follows is an actual harangue, from tlie lips of Jesus. This commentators will not admit, and they can appeal, not with- out a show of reason, to tlie statement of tlic evangelist, v. 36, tliat Jesus withdrew himself from tlic public eye, and to his ensuing ob- servations 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 ha- rangue. 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. 4a . „ ,-.11 „,,», „,. JII . y;;. 17, viii. as. + L. J. b. S. 143, t Lueke, Tholuck, I'aulus, DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 409 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-nifi- cation 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 ques- tion 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. § 82. ISOLATED MAXIMS OF JESUS, COMMON TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL AKD THE SYNOPTICAL ONES. THE long discourses of Jesus above examined are peculiar to tlie fourth gospel; it lias only a few brief maxims to wliicli tlie sy- noptists present parallels. Among the latter, we need not give a special examination to those wliicli are placed by Jolm in an equally suitable connexion, with tliat assigned, to them by tlie other evan- gelists (as xii. 25. comp. with Matt. x. 39; xvi. 25; and xiii. 16. comp. witli Matt. x. 24.); and as tlie passage ii. 19 compared with Matt. xxvi. 61, must be reserved until we treat of tlic history of tlie Passion, there remain to us only three passages for our present consideration. Tlie first of tlicse is iv. 44, where tlie evangelist, after having mentioned tliat Jesus departed from Samaria into Galileo, adds, For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honour in his own country, av~b<; yao b 'I. Kp.apTvp'f]oev, o-i Trpo(pf)~ric; iv TT) 16'ia TrarplSi riuifv ova ^et. We find tlic same idea in Mattlicw xiii. 57. (Mark vi. 4; Luke iv. 24.), A prophet is not v:ithoiit honour, save in his own country and ill his ovn house, OVK, wi-t Trp^r^f a-rt/tcx-, el fiff iv rg naTpiSi. avrov ical iv -^ olnia avrov. ]3ut while in tlie latter case it stands in a highly appropriate connexion, as a remark prompted by the ungracious reception which Jesus met with in his native city, and wliicli caused him to leave it again: in Jolm, on tlic contrary, it is given as a motive for the return of Jesus into Ills own country, Ga- lileo, where, moreover, lie is immediately said to be warmly received. The experience stated in tlic above sentence, would rather have dis- inclined than induced Jesus to undertake a journey into Galileo; hence tlie expedient of translating yap by although, is the best adapt- ed to tlie necessity of tlic case, and has even been embraced by Kuinol, except tliat, unhappily, it is an open defiance of tlie laws of language. "Unquestionably, if Jesus knew tliat tlic prophet held tills unfavour- able position in Ills native wwitry, -n-aTptc, it is not probable that he would regard it as a reason for going thither. Some expositors,* 410 THE LIFE OF JESUS. therefore, liave 'been induced to understand Trarp'i^, not as the prov- ince, but in a narrower sense, as the native city, and to supply, after the statement that Jesus -went into Galilee, tlie observation, which they assume tlie evangelist to have omitted, that he avoided Ins na- tive city Nazareth, for tlie reason given in tlie ensuing verse. But an ellipsis such as tills explanation requires us to suppose, belongs not less to tlie order of impossibilities than -the transmutation of "yap into though. The attempt to introduce tlie desiderated state- ment tliat Jesus did not visit his own fra-pig into tlie present passage lias been therefore renounced; but it has yet been thought possible to discover there an intimation that he did not soon return thither; a delay for wliich tlie maxim, on -rpo^-y/c K. r. /I. might consistently be, quoted as a reason.* But to render tills interpretation admissible, the entire period of tlie absence of Jesus from Galilee must have been mentioned immediately before tlie notice of his return ; instead of this, however, only the short time tliat Jesus had tarried in Sa- maria is given (v. 45), so that in ludicrous disproportion of cause and effect, tlie fear of tlie contempt of Ills fellow countrymen would, on tlie above supposition, be made tlie reason for delaying his return into Galilee, not until after a residence of some months in Judea, but until after tlie lapse of two days spent in Samaria. So long, therefore, as Galilee and Nazareth arc admitted to be the Tra-pl^ of Jesus, tlie passage in question cannot be vindicated from tlie ab- surdity of representing, tliat Jesus was instigated to return thither by tlie contempt wliicli lie knew to await him. Consequently, it be- comes the interest of the expositor to recollect, tliat Matthew and Luke pronounce Bethlehem to lie tlie birthplace of Jesus, whence it follows tliat Judca was his native country, wliicli lie now forsook on account of tlie contempt lie liad there experienced, f But according toiv. 1. comp. ii. 24, iii. 26 ff'., Jesus liad won a considerable num- ber of adherents in Judca, and could not therefore complain of a lack of honour, rip]: moreover tlie enmity of tlie Pharisees, hinted at in iv. 1, was excited by tlie growing consequence of Jesus in Judea, and was not at all rcfcrrible to such a cause as tliat indicated in tlie maxim: o-( -po^-rc K.. r /I. .Further, tlie entrance into Ga- lileo is not connected in our passage witli a departure from Judea, but from Samaria; and as, according to tlie import of the text, Je- sus departed from Samaria and went into Galilee, because lie had found tliat a prophet lias no honour in his own country, Samaria might rather seem to be pointed out as his native country, in con- formity with tlie reproach cast on him by tlie Jews, viii. 4i->; though even tills supposition would not give consistency to the passage, for efiapTvp-iiaev tlie signification of the pluperfect, and to understand yap as an explicative, But 1 tlo nut sec how this can lie of any avail, for yup and ovv (v, 4.'>,) would still form a relation ot' a^n-cement between two propositions, wliich one would have expected to be opposed to each other liy viv and 6s, * Paulus. Cuinni 4, S. 2.">1, .">(;, -i- Tills id-ra is so entirely in the spirit of the an- cient harmonists, tliat I can scarcely believe Lilcke to be the first to whom it liad occurred DISCOURSES OF JESL'S IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 411 in Samaria also Jesus is said, iv. 39, to have liad a favourable re- ception. Besides, we have already seen* tliat the fourth evano-elist knows nothing of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, but on all occa- sions presupposes him to be a Galileau and a Nazarene. From the above considerations we obtain only tlie negative result, tliat it is impossible to discover any consistent relation between the maxim in question and tlie context. A positive result,-namely, how the maxim came to occupy its actual position, notwithstanding this want of relation, will perhaps be obtained when we have examined the two other passages belonging to tlie present head of our inquiry. Tlie declaration xiii. 20, lie tliat recelveth you, rewiveth me, and he tliat rccciveth me rcceiveth him that sent lize, lias an almost verbal parallel in Matt. x. 40. In John, it is preceded by the pre- diction of the betrayal of Jesus, and his explanation to Ills disciples tliat he liad told them tills before it came to pass, in order tliat wlien his prediction was fulfilled., they might believe in him as the Mes- siah. What. is tlie connexion between tlicsc subjects and tlie above declaration, or between tlie latter and its ensuing context, where Je- sus recurs to Ins betrayer ? It is said tliat Jesus wished to impress on liis disciples tlie hi^'li dignity of a messianic missionary, a dignity winch the betrayer thought lightly of losing;! but tlie negative idea of loss, on wliich this supposition turns, is not intimated in tlie text. Others arc of opinion tliat Jesus, observing tlie disciples to be dis- heartened by tlie mention of the betrayer, sought to inspire them witli new courage by representing to them their hi"'h value ::j: but in tliat case lie would hardly have reverted immediately after to tlie traitor. Others, again, conjecture that some intermediate sentences have been omitted by tlie writer ;§ but this expedient is not much happier than tliat of Kuinol, who supposes tlie passage to be a gloss taken from Matt. x. 40, united originally to v. 1G of cliap. xiii. of John, but by some chance transposed to tlie end of the paragraph. Nevertheless, tlie indication of v. 16 is an useful way-mark. This verse, as well as v. 20, lias a parallel in tlie discourse of instruc- tions in Mattlicw (x. 24.); if a few fragments of tills discourse had readied tlie author of tlie fourth gospel through tlie medium of tra- dition, it is very probable tliat one of them would bring tlio others to liis recollection. In v. 16 there is mention of the sent, uToaro^oi;, and of hili'i u;1io sent Aim,, "re/^ac av-bv ; so in v. 20, of tliosc whom Jesus will send, and of Him wlio sent Jesus. It is true, tliat the one passage lias a humiliating, tlie other an encouraging tendency, and their affinity lies therefore, not in tlie sense, but in tlio words; so tliat as soon as the fourth evangelist puts down, from memory, traditional sayings of Jesus, we see him subject to tlie same law of association as tlie synoptists. It would have been the most natural arrangement to place v. 20 immediately after v. 16; but tlie thought of tlie traitor was uppermost in tlie mind of tlie writer, and lie could * Vid. sup. g 39. + I'aulus, L, J. 1, B, S. 158. { Lilcke, 2, S. 478. § Tholuck, 412 THE LIFE OF JESUS. easily postpone the insertion of an apophthegm that had only a verbal connexion with Ilia previous matter. Our third passage, xiv. 31, lies yet farther witliin the domain of the history of the Passion than tlie one last examined, but as, like tills, it can be viewed quite independently, we sliall not be anticipat- ing if we include it in our present chapter. In the above passage, the words Arise, let us go hence, eyelpecsOs, d'yw^sv ev-evOev, remind us of those by which Jesus, Matt. xxvi. 46, Mark xiv. 42, summons his disciples to join him in encountering tlie traitor : liise, let us be aoinq, eyeipEaOe dydip.sv. Tlie position of the words in Jolin is per- plexing, because the summons to depart has no effect; Jesus, as it lie liad said nothing of the kind, immediately continues (xv. 1,), I am the true vine, &c., and does not take his departure with his dis- ciples until after he has considerably prolonged his discourse. Ex- positors of every hue have been singularly unanimous in explaining the above words by the supposition, that Jesus certainly intended at the moment to depart and betake himself to Getlisemane, but love for his disciples, and a strong desire to impart to them still farther admonition and comfort, detained him ; that hence, the first part of the summons, Arise, was executed, but tliat, standing in tlie room in which he had supped, lie pursued Ills discourse, until, later, (xviii. 1.), he also put into effect the words, let us go hence.* It is possible tliat the circumstances were such; it is also possible that tlie image of this last evening, with all its details, might be engraven so deeply and accurately in tlie memory of a disciple, that lie might narrate how Jesus arose, and how toucliingly lie lingered. But one wlio wrote under tlie influence of a recollection thus lively, would note the particulars which were most apparent; tlie rising to depart and the delay,-not the mere words, which without tlie addition of tliose •ibic. Here conjecture arises that a reminiscence of tlie evangelical tradition pre- sented itself to tlie writer, and tliat he inserted it just where it oc- cured to him, not, as it happened, in the best connexion; and tills conjecture assumes probability so soon as we discover wliat might have reminded him of tlie above expression. In the synoptical parallels the command, I-ivse, let us lie going, is connected witli tlie announcement, Behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners-behold he is at hand that doth betray me ; with tlie announcement, tliat is, of tlie hostile power which is approaching, before which, however, Jesus exhibits no fear, but goes to encounter tlie danger witli the decision implied in that command. In John's gospel, also, Jesus, in the passage under our notice, liad been speaking of a liostile power when he said, The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me. It makes little difference tliat in Jolin it is tlie power tliat dwells in tlie betrayer, and in those led by him, wliile, in tlie synoptical gospels, circumstances are altogether unintelli & . . again, then, tlie * Paulus, L. J. 1. B. S. 175 ; Lucke, Tholuek, Olshausen, in loc., Hug, Einleit. in Hnafl T 9 S. 9m DISCOUESES OP JESUS IN THE FOUETH GOSPEL. 413 it is the betrayer who is impelled by that power, that is said to ap- proach. If the author of the fourth gospel knew by tradition tliat Jesus liad united with the announcement of an approaching dano-er the words, Eise, let us be going, this expression would be likely to occur to him on tlie mention of the prince of this world; and as in tliat stage of his narrative he had placed Jesus and his disciples in tlie city and witliin doors, so that a considerable change of place waa necessary before they could encounter the enemy, lie added to ayufisv (let us go), evTevOsv ^hence). As, however, this traditional fragment liad intruded itself unawares into the train of thought, which he de- signed to put as a farewell discourse into tlie mouth of Jesus, it waa immediately lost sight of, and a free course was given to the stream of valedictory instruction, not yet exhausted. If, from the point of view now attained, we glance back on our first passage, iv. 44, it is easy to see how tlie evangelist might be led to insert in so unsuitable a connexion the testimony of Jesus as to tlie treatment of a prophet in his own country. It was known to him traditionally, and he appears to have applied it to Galileo in general, being ignorant of any unfavourable contact of Jesus with the Nazarenes. As, therefore, he knew of no special scene by which tins observation might have been prompted, he introduced it where the simple mention of Galilee suggested it, apparently without any definite idea of its bearing. The result of the above investigation is this; the fourth evan- gelist succeeds in giving connectedness to his materials, when he presents his own tliouglits in the form of discourses delivered by Jesus; but lie often fails lamentably in tliat particular, wlien he lias to deal with tlie real traditional sayings of Jesus. In tlie above instances, when lie has the same problem before him as the synop- tists, lie is as unfortunate in its solution as they; nay, he is in a yet more evil case, for his narrative is not homogeneous with the common evangelical tradition, and presented few places where a genuine traditional relic could be inserted. Besides, he wag accus- tomed to cast his metal, liquid from his own invention, and was little skilled in tlie art of adapting independent fragments to each other, so as to form an harmonious mosaic. § 83. THE MODEEN DISCUSSIONS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DISOOUESES IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN-EESULT. THE foregoing examination of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel, has sufficiently prepared us to form a judgment on the controversy of whicli they liave recently been the subject. Mod- ern criticism views these discourses with suspicion, partly on ac- count of their internal contexture, which is at variance with certain generally received rules of historical probability, and partly on ac- count of tlieir external relation to other discourses and narratives. 414 THE LIFE OF JESUS. With respect to tlic internal contexture of the above discourses, there arises a twofold question : Docs it correspond to the laws, first, of verisimilitude, and secondly, of memory ? It is alleged by tlic friends of tlie fourth gospel tliat its discourses are distinguished by a peculiar stamp of truth and credibility ; that the conversations which it represents Jesus as holding with men ot tlie most diverse disposition and capacity, are faithful delineations of character, satisfying tlic strictest demands of psychological cri- ticism.* In opposition to tills, it is maintained to be in tlie high- est degree improbable, tliat Jesus should have adopted prccise-ly the same style of teaching to persons differing widely in their degrees of cultivation; tliat lie should have spoken to the Galileans in the synagogue at Capernaum not more intelligibly than to a master of Israel; tliat tlic matter of his discourses should have turned almost entirely on one doctrine.-tlie dignity of his person; and tliat their form should have been such, as to seem selected witli a view to perplex and repel his hearers. Neither, it is further urged, do the interlocutors express themselves in conformity with their position and character. Tlie most educated Pharisee lias no advantage in intelligence over a Samaritan woman of tlie lowest grade; tlie one, as well as the other, can only put a carnal interpretation on the dis- course which Jesus intends spiritually; their misconstructions, too, are frequently so glaring, as to transcend all belief, and so uniform tliat they seem to belong to a standing set of features witli wliicli the author of the fourth gospel lias chosen, for tlie sake of contrast, to depict those whom lie brings into conversation with Jesus.f Hence, I confess, I understand not wliat is tlic meaning of veri- similitude in tlie mind of tliosc wdio ascribe it to the discourses of Jesus in tlic gospel of John. As to tlie second uoint, regarding tlie powers of memory, it is pretty generally agreed that discourses of the kind peculiar to John's gospel,-in contradistinction to the apothegms and parables, eitlicr isolated or strung together, in tlie synoptical gospels,-namely, se- ries of dependent propositions, or prolonged dialogues, are among the most difficult to retain and reproduce witli accuracy.t Unless such discourses were reduced to writing at tlie moment of their de- livery, all liope of their faithful reproduction must be abandoned. Hence Dr. Paulus once actually entertained tlie idea, tliat in the judgment-halls of tlie temple or tlie synagogues at Jerusalem, there were stationed a sort of shorthand writers, wliose office it w^as to draw up verbal processes, and that from their records the Christians, after the deatli of Christ, made transcripts.§ In like manner, Ber- tholdt was of opinion, that our evangelist, during the lifetime of * Wegscheider, Einl. in clas Evang. Job. S. 271 ; Tlwluck, Comm. S. 37 f. f Thug Eckermann, tlieol. Beitrage, .'», 2, S. 228; (Vogi-1) der Evangelist Johannes iinil seine Ausleger vor dem jiingstcn Gericht, 1, S. 28 fi'., Wegsclu-iJer, S. 281 ; Bretsehneider, Probabil. 33, 4."), apud Wcgscheider, ut sup. S. W I ; Brutachneider, Probab. p. 33, 45. MSCOUBSES OF JESUS IN THE FOUETH GOSPEL 415 Jesus, took down most of the discourses of Jesus in the Aramsean language, and made tliese notes the foundation of Ills gospel, com- posed at a much later period.* These modern hypotheses are clearly unhistorical ;f nevertheless, their propounders were able to adduce many reasons in their support. The prophetic declarations of Jesus relative to his death and resurrection, said Bcrtholdt, are more in- definite in Jolm than in the synoptical gospels, a sure si"-n that they were recorded before their fulfilment, for otherwise the writer's experience of tlie event would have reflected more clearness on the predictions. To tills we may add tlie kindred argTinicnt, by "which Henke thought it possible to establish the genuineness of tlie dis- courses in John: namely, that tlie fourth Evangelist not seldom appends explanatory remarks, often indeed erroneous, to the obscure expression of Jesus, thus proving tliat he was scrupulously consci- entious in reporting tlie discourses, for otherwise lie would liave mingled his comments with their original matter.t But it is with justice objected, that tlie obscurity of tlie predictions in the fourth gospel is in perfect harmony with tlie mystical spirit tliat pervades the work, and as, besides, tlie author, together with his fondness for the obscure and enigmatical, indisputably possessed taste, he must have been conscious that a prophecy would only be tlie more piquant and genuine-looking, the more darkly it was delivered: lienee, though he put those predictions into the mouth of Jesus long after the events to which they refer, lie might yet cliose to give them an indefinite form. Tills observation helps to explain why tlie evan- gelist, when elucidating some obscure expressions of Jesus, adds that. his disciples did not understand them until after his resurrec- tion, or after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (11. 22; vii. 39); for the opposition of tlie darkness in wliicli the disciples at one time groped, to tlie liglit which ultimately arose on them, belongs to tliat order of contrasts witli wliicli this gospel abounds. Another argu- ment, adopted by Bertholdt and approved by Tlioluck, is, that in the discourses of the fourth gospel there sometimes occur observa- tions, wliich, having no precise meaning in themselves, nor any connexion with tlie rest of tlie discourse, must, have been occasioned by some external circumstance, and can only be accounted for on. tlie supposition of prompt, nay, of immediate reduction to writing; and among their examples tlie passage, Arise, let us go hence (xiv. 31), is one of tlie most important. But tlie origin of such digres- sive remarks lias been above explained, in a manner tliat renders tlie hypothesis of instantaneous note-taking superfluous. Thus commentators liad to excogitate some other means of cer- tifying the genuineness of the discourses of Jesus in tlie fourth gos- pel. Tlie general argument, so often adduced, founded on wliat a ^ Veroshnilia de origine evangelii Joannis, opusc. p. 1 ff. Einl. in das N. T. S. 1302 ff. This opinion is approved by Wugschcider, ut sup. p. 270 ff. and also Mug. 2, 2U3 f. and Tlioluck, Coinm. p. 38, think the supposition of early notes not to be altogether re- jected. + Lucke. 1. S. 192 f. + Henke. proerramm. duo illustratur Johannes apostolua 416 THE LIFE OF JESUS. good memory might achieve, especially among men of simple lives, unused, to writing, lies in the region of abstract possibility, where, as Liicke remarks,* there may always be nearly as much said against as for a theory. It has been thought more effectual to adopt an ar- gument resting on a narrower basis, and to appeal to the individual distinctions of tlie apostle John,-to his intimate and peculiar rela- tion to Jesus as the favourite disciple,-to his enthusiasm for his master, wliicli must surely have strengthened his memory, and have enabled him to preserve in the most lively recollection all that can.»3 from tlie lips of his divine friend.f Although this peculiar relation of John to Jesus rests on the authority of John's gospel alone, we might, without reasoning in a circle, draw from it conclusions as to the credibility of tlie discourses communicated by him, were the faults of wliicli his gospel is accused only such as proceed from tlie inevitable fading of tlie memory; because the positive notices of tliat relation could never flow from tills negative cause. As, however, tlie suspicion which lias arisen to the prejudice of tlie fourth evan- gelist lias gone far beyond those limits, even to the extent of taxing him with free invention, no fact resting on tlie word of John can be used in support of the discourses which he communicates. But neither the above relation, if admitted, nor tlie remark that John apparently attached himself to Jesus in early youth, when impres- sions sink deepest, and from the time of his master's death lived in a circle where tlie memory of his words and deeds was cherished, f suffices to render it probable that John could retain in his mind long scries of ideas, and complicated dialogues, until the period in which the composition of his gospel must be placed. For critics are agreed that tlie tendency of tlie fourth gospel, its evident aim to spiritualize the common faith of Christians into the Gnosis, and thus to crush many errors which liad sprung up, is a decisive attestation tliat it was composed at a period wlien the church had attained a degree cf maturity, and consequently in tlie extreme old age of tlie apostle. § Hence tlie champions of the discourses in question are fain to bring forward, as a forlorn hope, tlie supernatural assistance of the Paraclete, wliicli was promised to tlie disciples, and wliicli was to restore all that Jesus had said to their remembrance. This is done byThohick with great confidence,!) by Lucke with some diffidence, *[ which Tholuck's Anzeiger severely censures, but which we consider laudable, because it implies a latent consciousness of the circle that is made, in attempting to prove the truthfulness of tlie discourses in John, by a promise which appears nowhere but in those discourses ;** and of the inadequacy of an appeal, in a scientific inquiry, to a pop- ular notion, such as tliat of tlie aid of the Holy Spirit. Tlie con- * Ut sup. p. 199. •;• Wegscheider, p. 28G ; Liicke, p. 195 f. }• Wegscheider, p. 285 ; Lucke, ut sup. . 3 Ccnnp. Schuize, der M'liril'ist. Charukter uinl Werth des Johannes. 180;!. |i Stronck-dc doutrina • •<• .• -,. i.,i,.,...,:., ,,^,^-t,^; ,ifi .Tpun miK.-ish-i doctrinani dictioncinclue exactu composita, DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL. 419 of Jolm with the synoptists in isolated sayings of Jesus. But aa tlie fourth evangelist was witliin the pale of the Christian commu- nity, lie must have had at his command a tradition, from which, though drawing generally on his own resources, he might occasion- ally borrow isolated, marked expressions, nearly unmodified. An- other argument of Lucke is yet more futile. If, lie says, John liad really liad tlie inclination and ability to invent discourses for Jesus, lie would have been more liberal in long discourses; and tlic alter- nation of brief remarks with prolonged addresses, is not to be ex- plained on the above supposition. But this would follow only if tlie author of tlic fourth gospel appeared to be a tasteless writer, whose perception did not tell him, tliat to one occasion a short dis- course was suitable, to another a long one, and that tlie alternation of diffuse harangues witli concise sentences was adapted to produce tlie best impression. Of more weight is tlie observation of Paulus, that if tlie fourth evangelist liad given tlic rein to his invention in attributing discourses to Jesus, he would have obtruded more of his own views, of which lie lias given an abstract in his prologue; whereas the scrupulousness with wliieli he abstains from putting Ills doctrine of the Logos into tlic mouth of Jesus, is a proof of tlie faithfulness with which lie confined himself to the materials presented by his memory or Ills authorities.* But the doctrine of tlic Logos is sub- stantially contained in the succeeding discourse of Jesus; and that tlic form in which it is propounded by tlie evangelist in his preface, docs not also reappear, is sufficiently explained by tlie consideration, that lie must have known that form to be altogether foreign to the teaching of Jesus. We therefore liold it to be established, tliat tlie discourses of Jesus in John's gospel are mainly free compositions of tlie evange- list ; but we have admitted tliat lie lias culled several sayings of Jesus from an authentic tradition, and hence we do not extend tills proposition to those passages which are countenanced by parallels in tlic synoptical gospels. In these compilations we have an ex- ample of tlie vicissitudes which bcfal discourses, tliat are preserved only in tlie memory of a second party. Severed from their original connexion, and broken up into smaller and smaller fragments, they present wlicn reassembled tlic appearance of a mosaic, in which the connexion of tlic parts is a purely external one, and every transition an artificial juncture. Tlie discourses of Jesus in Jolm present just tlic opposite appearance. Their gradual transitions, only rendered occasionally obscure by the mystical depths of i. ailing in which they lie,-transitions in wliicli one thought develops itself out of another, and a succeeding proposition is frequently but an explana- tory amplification of tlie preceding, \-are indicative of a pliable, * In Ins review of the 2nd Ed. of Lflcke's Commentar., in the Lit. Blatt der allgem. Kirchenzeitung 1S31, no. 18. f This peculiarity of the discourses in John cannot be lietter described than by Erasmus in his Epist. ad Ferdinandum, prefatory to Ins Para- 420 THE LIFE OF JESUS. unresisting mass, such as is never presented, to a writer by the traditional sayings of another, but such as proceeds from the stores of his own thought, which he moulds according to hia will. For this reason the contributions of tradition to these stores of thought, (apart from the sayings which are also found, in the earlier gospels,) were not so likely to have been particular, independent dicta of Jesus, as rather certain ideas which formed the basis of many of his discourses, and which were modified, and developed according to the tent of a mind of Alexandrian or Greek culture. Such are the correlative ideas of TTOTTJP and vwc: (father and son), 'j>&<; and anorog {light and darkness), ^"i) and -Sava-oi; (life and death), avu and Bdi-di {above and beneath), Gap!; and •nvev^a (flesh and spirit) ; also some symbolical expressions, as ap-oc; r!]<; <,uf](; {bread of life), vSwfi i,C>v {water of life). These and a few other ideas, variously com- bined by an ingenious author, compose the bulk of the discourses attributed to Jesus by John; a certain uniformity necessarily at- tending this elemental simplicity.