← Table of contents
The Life of Jesus Critically Examined

Chapter VII · DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.

George Eliot translation

[

Contents

]

§ 80.

CONVERSATION OF JESUS WITH NICODEMUS.

The first considerable specimen which the fourth gospel gives of the teaching of Jesus, is his conversation with Nicodemus (iii. 1–21). In the previous chapter (23–25) it is narrated, that during the first passover attended by Jesus after his entrance on his public ministry, he had won many to faith in him by the miracles, σημεῖα, which he performed, but that he did not commit himself to them because he saw through them: he was aware, that is, of the uncertainty and impurity of their faith. Then follows in our present chapter, as an example, not only of the adherents whom Jesus had found even thus early, but also of the wariness with which he tested and received them, a more detailed account how Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews and a Pharisee, applied to him, and how he was treated by Jesus.

If then it be established that the evangelist, from v. 16 to the end of the discourse, means to represent Jesus as the speaker, while Jesus can never have so spoken, we cannot rest satisfied with the half measure adopted by Lücke, when he maintains that it is really Jesus who continues to speak from the above passage, but that the Evangelist has inwoven his own explanations and amplifications more liberally than before. For this admission undermines all certainty as to how far the discourse belongs to Jesus, and how far to the Evangelist; besides, as the discourse is distinguished by the closest uniformity of thought and style, it must be ascribed either wholly to Jesus or wholly to the Evangelist. Of these two alternatives the former is, according to the above considerations, impossible; we are therefore restricted to the latter, which we have observed to be entirely consistent with the manner of the fourth Evangelist.

But not only on the passage v. 16–21 must we pass this judgment: v. 14 has appeared to us out of keeping with the position of Jesus; and the behaviour of Nicodemus, v. 4 and 9, altogether inconceivable. Thus in the very first sample, when compared with the observations which we have already made on John iii. 22 ff., iv. 1 ff., the fourth gospel presents to us all the peculiarities which characterize its mode of reporting the discourses of Jesus. They are usually commenced in the form of dialogue, and so far as this extends, the lever that propels the conversation is the striking contrast between the spiritual sense and the carnal interpretation of the language of Jesus; generally, however, the dialogue is merged into an uninterrupted discourse, in which the writer blends the person of Jesus with his own, and makes the former use concerning himself, language which could only be used by John concerning Jesus.

[

Contents

]

§ 81.

THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS, JOHN V.–XII.

The further we read in the fourth gospel, the more striking is the repetition: of the same ideas and expressions. The discourses of Jesus during the Feast of Tabernacles, ch. vii. and viii. are, as Lücke has remarked, mere repetitions and amplifications of the oppositions previously presented (especially in ch. v.), of the coming, speaking, and acting, of Jesus, and of God (vii. 17, 28 f., viii. 28 f., 38, 40, 42, compare with v. 30, 43, 38); of being from above, εἶναι ἐκ τῶν ἄνω, and from beneath, ἐκ τῶν κάτω (viii. 23, comp. iii. 31); of bearing witness of one’s self, and receiving witness from God (viii. 13–19, comp. v. 31–37); of light and darkness (viii. 12, comp. iii. 10, ff., also xii. 35 f.); of true and false judgment (viii. 15 f., comp. v. 30). All that is new in these chapters, is quickly repeated, as the mention of the 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 which are attached, in the first two instances, very improbable misapprehensions or perversions on the part of the Jews, who, although Jesus had said, I go unto him that sent me, are represented as imagining, at one time, that he purposed journeying to the dispersed among the Gentiles, at another, that he meditated suicide. How often, again, in this chapter are repeated the asseverations, that he seeks not his own honour, but the honour of the Father (vii. 17 f., viii. 50, 54); that the Jews neither know whence he came, nor the father who sent him (vii. 28, viii. 14, 19, 54); that whosoever believeth in him shall have eternal life, shall not see death, while whosoever believeth not must die in his sins, having no share in eternal life (viii. 21, 24, 51, comp. iii. 36, vi. 40).—The ninth chapter, consisting chiefly of the deliberations of the Sanhedrim with the man born blind, whom Jesus had restored to sight, has of course the form of conversation, but as Jesus is less on the scene than heretofore, there is not the usual amount of artificial contrast; in its stead, however, there is, as we shall presently find, another evidence of artistic design in the narrator.

[

Contents

]

§ 82.

ISOLATED MAXIMS OF JESUS, COMMON TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL AND THE SYNOPTICAL ONES.

The long discourses of Jesus above examined are peculiar to the fourth gospel; it has only a few brief maxims to which the synoptists present parallels. Among the latter, we need not give a special examination to those which are placed by John in an equally suitable connexion, with that assigned to them by the other Evangelists (as xii. 25, comp. with Matt. x. 39, xvi. 25; and xiii. 16, comp. with Matt. x. 24); and as the passage ii. 19 compared with Matt. xxvi. 61, must be reserved until we treat of the history of the Passion, there remain to us only three passages for our present consideration.

If, from the point of view now attained, we glance back on our first passage, iv. 44, it is easy to see how the Evangelist might be led to insert in so unsuitable a connexion the testimony of Jesus as to the treatment of a prophet in his own country. It was known to him traditionally, and he appears to have applied it to Galilee in general, being ignorant of any unfavourable contact of Jesus with the Nazarenes. As, therefore, he knew of no special scene by which this 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 Evangelist succeeds in giving connectedness to his materials, when he presents his own thoughts in the form of discourses delivered by Jesus; but he often fails lamentably in that particular, when he has to deal with the real traditional sayings of Jesus. In the above instances, when he has the same problem before him as the synoptists, he 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 was accustomed to cast his metal, liquid from his own invention, and was little skilled in the art of adapting independent fragments to each other, so as to form an harmonious mosaic.

[

Contents

]

§ 83.

THE MODERN DISCUSSIONS ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DISCOURSES IN THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. RESULT.

The foregoing examination of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel, has sufficiently prepared us to form a judgment on the controversy of which they have recently been the subject. Modern criticism views these discourses with suspicion, partly on account of their internal contexture, which is at variance with certain generally received rules of historical probability, and partly on account of their external relation to other discourses and narratives. On the other hand, this gospel has had numerous defenders.

With respect to the internal contexture of the above discourses, there arises a twofold question: Does it correspond to the laws, first of verisimilitude, and secondly, of memory?

The external relation of the discourses of Jesus in John’s gospel is also twofold; for they may be compared both with those discourses which the synoptists put into the mouth of Jesus, and with the manner in which the author of the fourth gospel expresses himself when he is avowedly the speaker.

[

Contents

]

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · Schulz, über das Abendmahl, s. 321. ↑Note 2 · This “secret information” is very welcome to Dr. Paulus, because it gives a useful hint “as to many occurrences in the life of Jesus, the caNote 3 · Orig. c. Cels. i. 62. ↑Note 4 · Let the reader bear in mind the kindred names Nicolaus and Nicolaitans. ↑Note 5 · Prob., p. 44. Bretschneider is right, however, in declaring against Kuinöl’s method of supplying a connexion between the discourses in John,Note 6 · Bereschith R., sect 39 f. xxxviii. 2. Bammidbar R., s. 11 f. ccxi. 2. Tanchuma f. v. 2, in Schöttgen, i. s. 704. Something similar is said oNote 7 · Jevamoth f. lxii. 1, xcii. 1, in Lightfoot, p. 984. ↑Note 8 · E.g. Knapp, comm. in colloq. Christi cum Nicod. in loc. ↑Note 9 · Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 183. L. J. 1, a, s. 176. ↑Note 10 · Lücke and Tholuck, in loc. ↑Note 11 · III. 11: ὃ ἑωράκαμεν μαρτυροῦμεν καὶ τὴν μαρτυρίαν ἡμῶν οὐ λαμβάνετε. 13: καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατNote 12 · Sup. § 46. ↑Note 13 · This is informed in the Probabilia, p. 46. ↑Note 14 · Ut sup. p. 476. ↑Note 15 · Comp. Bretschneider, ut sup. ↑Note 16 · De Wette adduces as examples of a similar procedure on the part of Jesus in the synoptical gospels, Matt. xix. 21, xx. 22 f. But these two cNote 17 · Bibl. Comm. 2, s. 96. ↑Note 18 · III. 19: αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ κρίσις, ὅτι τὸ φῶς ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὸν κόσμον, καὶ ἠγάπησαν οἱ ἄνθρωποι μᾶλλον τὸ σκότος ἢ τὸ φῶς. III. 16: ὅυτω γὰρ Note 19 · Paulus and Olshausen, in loc. ↑Note 20 · Tholuck (Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 335) adduces as examples of a similar unobserved fusion of a discourse quoted from a foreign source, with the wNote 21 · Philo. Opp. ed. Mang. i. 44. apud Gfrörer, i. p. 122. ↑Note 22 · Joh. v. 20: ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ, ἃ αὑτὸς ποιεῖ. 24: ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων—μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τNote 23 · Vid. the passages compared by Gfrörer, 1, s. 194, from Philo, de linguarum confusione. ↑Note 24 · Sup. § 14. ↑Note 25 · De profugis, Opp. Mang., i. s. 566, Gfrörer, 1, s. 202. What is farther said of the λόγος: ἀφ’ οὒ πᾶσαι παιδεῖαι καὶ σοφίαι ῥέουσιν ἀένναοι Note 26 · See Lücke’s History of the interpretation of this passage in his Comm. 2, Appendix B, p. 727 ff. ↑Note 27 · Hase, L. J. § 99. ↑Note 28 · Comp. Bretschneider, Probab., pp. 56, 88 ff. ↑Note 29 · In relation to this chapter, I entirely approve the following remark in the Probabilia (p. 56): videretur—Jesus ipse studuisse, ut verbis ilNote 30 · E.g. by Tholuck and Lücke. The latter, however, allows that it is rather an incipient than a complete parable. Olshausen also remarks, that Note 31 · x. 27: τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἐμὰ τῆς φωνῆς μου ἀκούει, κἀγὼ γινώσκω αὐτά· 28: καὶ ἀκολουθοῦσί μοι. x. 3: καὶ τὰ πρόβατα τῆς φωνῆς αὐτοῦ ἀκούει. 14:Note 32 · Comp. v. 44 with vii. 17; v. 46 with viii. 12; v. 47 with iii. 17; v. 48 with iii. 18, v. 45; v. 49 with viii. 28; v. 50 with vi. 40, vii. 1Note 33 · L. J., b, s. 142. ↑Note 34 · Lücke, Tholuck, Paulus, in loc. ↑Note 35 · Cyril, Erasmus. Tholuck’s expedient, which Olshausen approves, is to give ἐμαρτύρησεν the signification of the pluperfect, and to understandNote 36 · Paulus, Comm. 4, s. 251, 56. ↑Note 37 · This idea is so entirely in the spirit of the ancient harmonists, that I can scarcely believe Lücke to be the first to whom it had occurred Note 38 · Vid. sup. § 39. ↑Note 39 · Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 158. ↑Note 40 · Lücke, 2, s. 478. ↑Note 41 · Tholuck, in loc. ↑Note 42 · Paulus, L. J. 1, b, s. 175; Lücke, Tholuck, Olshausen, in loc.; Hug, Einl. in das N. T. 2, s. 209. ↑Note 43 · Wegscheider, Einl. in das Evang. Joh., s. 271; Tholuck, Comm. s. 37 f. ↑Note 44 · Thus Eckermann, theol. Beiträge, 5, 2, s. 228; (Vogel) der Evangelist Johannes und seine Ausleger vor dem jüngsten Gericht, 1, s. 28 ff.; WeNote 45 · De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 105; Tholuck, Comm. z. Joh., s. 38 f.; Glaubwürdigkeit, s. 344 ff.; Lücke, 1, s. 198 f. ↑Note 46 · Commentar, 4, s. 275 f. ↑Note 47 · Verosimilia de origine evangelii Joannis, opusc. p. 1 ff., Einleit. in das N. T., s. 1302 ff. This opinion is approved by Wegscheider, ut suNote 48 · Lücke, 1, s. 192 f. ↑Note 49 · Henke, programm. quo illustratur Johannes apostolus nonnullorum Jesu apophthegmatum et ipse interpres. ↑Note 50 · Bretschneider, Probab., p. 14 f. ↑Note 51 · Ut sup. p. 199. ↑Note 52 · Wegscheider, p. 286; Lücke, p. 195 f. ↑Note 53 · Wegscheider, p. 285; Lücke, ut sup. ↑Note 54 · Lücke, s. 124 f. 175. Kern, über den Ursprung des Evang. Matthäi, in der Tüb. Zeitschrift, 1834, 2, s. 109. ↑Note 55 · S. 39. ↑Note 56 · S. 197. “But lastly, why should we fear to adduce,” etc. ↑Note 57 · The aid promised to the disciples when brought before rulers and tribunals, Matt. x. 19 f., is quite distinct from a bringing to remembranceNote 58 · Bretschneider, Probab., p. 2, 3, 31 ff. ↑Note 59 · De Wette, Einl. in das N. T., § 103; Hase, L. J., § 7. ↑Note 60 · Lücke, ut sup. pp. 336, 337. Kern, ut sup. ↑Note 61 · Tholuck, ut sup. ↑Note 62 · Bretschneider, ut sup. ↑Note 63 · De Wette, ut sup. § 105. ↑Note 64 · Comp. Schulze, der schriftst. Charakter und Werth des Johannes. 1803. ↑Note 65 · Stronck—de doctrinâ et dictione Johannis apostoli, ad Jesu magistri doctrinam dictionemque exacte composita. 1797. ↑Note 66 · Lücke, Comm. z. Joh. 1, p. 200. ↑Note 67 · Ut. sup. p. 199. ↑Note 68 · In his review of the 2nd Ed. of Lücke’s Commentar., in the Litt. Blatt der allgem. Kirchenzeitung 1834, no. 18. ↑Note 69 · This peculiarity of the discourses in John cannot be better described than by Erasmus in his Epist. ad Ferdinandum, prefatory to his ParaphrNote 70 · It is through the Gospel of John alone that we learn anything of this Nicodemus, who in vii. 50 f. appears as the advocate of Jesus, so far Note 71 · John xii. 42, it is expressly said that many among the chief rulers believed on Jesus, but concealed their faith from dread of excommunicatiNote 72 · These considerations, however, should not create any prejudice against the ensuing conversation, which is the proper object of our investigaNote 73 · In reply to the second query of Nicodemus, Jesus takes entirely the tone of the fourth Evangelist’s prologue (v. 11–13).11 The question hencNote 74 · V. 14 and 15 Jesus proceeds from the more simple things of the earth, ἐπιγείοις, the communications concerning the new birth, to the more diNote 75 · From v. 16, even those commentators who pretend to some ability in this department, lose all hope of showing that the remainder of the discoNote 76 · In the fifth chapter of John, a long discourse of Jesus is connected with a cure wrought by him on the sabbath (19–47). The mode in which JeNote 77 · In chap. vi., Jesus represents himself, or rather his Father, v. 27 ff., as the giver of the spiritual manna. This is analogous to the JewisNote 78 · The discourse above considered, also bears the form of a dialogue, and it exhibits strikingly the type of dialogue which especially belongs Note 79 · The tenth chapter commences with the well-known discourse on the Good Shepherd; a discourse which has been incorrectly called a parable.30 ENote 80 · The discourses of Jesus at the Feast of Tabernacles extend to x. 18. From v. 25, the Evangelist professes to record sayings which were utterNote 81 · The same conclusion is to be drawn from the discourse with which the fourth Evangelist represents Jesus as closing his public ministry (xii.Note 82 · The first of these is iv. 44, where the Evangelist, after having mentioned that Jesus departed from Samaria into Galilee, adds, For Jesus hiNote 83 · The declaration xiii. 20, He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me, has an almost verbal paraNote 84 · Our third passage, xiv. 31, lies yet farther within the domain of the history of the Passion than the one last examined, but as, like this, Note 85 · It is alleged by the friends of the fourth gospel that its discourses are distinguished by a peculiar stamp of truth and credibility; that tNote 86 · As to the second point, regarding the powers of memory, it is pretty generally agreed that discourses of the kind peculiar to John’s gospel,Note 87 · Thus commentators had to excogitate some other means of certifying the genuineness of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel. The geneNote 88 · Hence the champions of the discourses in question are fain to bring forward, as a forlorn hope, the supernatural assistance of the ParacleteNote 89 · As a result of the former comparison, critics have pointed out the important difference that exists between the respective discourses in theNote 90 · There is a further difference between the synoptical gospels and the fourth, as to the form of teaching adopted by Jesus; in the one, it is Note 91 · But the relation of the discourses of Jesus in the gospel of John, to the Evangelist’s own style of thinking and writing, is decisive. Here Note 92 · Lücke adduces some particulars, which on this supposition would be in his opinion inexplicable.67 First, the almost verbal agreement of JohnNote 93 · We therefore hold it to be established, that the discourses of Jesus in John’s gospel are mainly free compositions of the Evangelist; but we
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings