| 132. The Crucifixion. | ||||
EVEN Concerning the Progress of Jesus To The Place of crucifixion there is a divergency between the Synoptics and John, for according to the latter Jesus himself carried his cross there (xix. 17), while the former state that one Simon a Cyrenian bore it in his stead (Matt, xxvii. 32. parall.). The commentators indeed, as if a real agreement were assumed as a matter of course, reconcile these statements thus: at first Jesus himself endeavoured to bear the cross, but as the attempt, made it obvious that he was too much exhausted, it was laid on Simon. But when John says: And he bearing his cross went forth to Golgotha, where they crucified him, e)chlqen ei)j ton legomenon Kraniou Topon, o( legetai E)braisti Golgoqa, o(pou au)ton e)staurwsan, he plainly presupposes that the Cross was borne by Jesus on the way there. But the statement so unanimously given by the Synoptics respecting the substitution of Simon appears the less capable of being rejected, the more difficult it is to discover a. motive which might lead to its fabication. On the contrary, this individual trait might very probably have remained unknown in the circle in which the fourth gospel had its origin, and the author might {P.771} have thought that, according to the general custom, Jesus must have carried his cross. All the Synoptics designate this Simon as a Cyrenian, i.e. probably one who had come to Jerusalem to the feast, from the Lybian city of Gyrene, where many Jews resided. According to all, the carrying of the cross was forced upon him, a circumstance which can as little be urged for as against the opinion that he was favourable to Jesus. According to Luke and Mark, the man came directly out of the country, drr' dypov, and as he attempted to pass by the crowd advancing to the place of crucifixion, he was made use of to relieve Jesus. Mark designates him yet more particularly as the father of Alexander and Rufus, who appear to have been noted persons in the primitive Church (comp. Rom. xvi. 13; Acts xix. 33. (?); 1 Tim. i. 20. (?); 2 Tim. iv. 14 (?) ). On the way to the place of execution according to Luke, there followed Jesu.s, lamenting him, a great company, consisting especially of women, whom he however admonished to weep rather for themselves and their children, in prospect of the terrible time, which would soon come upon them (xxiii.27ff.). The details are taken partly from the discourse on the second advent, Luke xxi. 23; for as there it is said, "woe to those who are giving birth, and those who are suckling children, in those days" so here Jesus says, that the days are coming in which "the barren and those who have not borne children" will be pronounced blessed; partly from Hosea x. 8., for the words "then shall they begin to say to the mountains, etc." are almost exactly the Alexandrian translation of that passage. | ||||
The place of execution is named by all the evangelists Golgotha, and they all interpret this designation by kraniou topoj the place of a skull, or Kranion a skull (Matthew v. 33 parall.). From the latter name it might appear that the place was so called because it resembled a skull in form; whereas the former interpretation, and indeed the nature of the case, renders it probable that it owed its name to its destination as a place of execution, and to the bones and skulls of the executed which were heaped up there. Where this place was situated is not known, but doubtless it was out of the city; even that it was a hill, is a mere conjecture.i The course of events after the arrival at the place of execution is narrated by Matthew (v.34ff.) in a somewhat singular order. First, he mentions the beverage offered to Jesus; next, he says that after they had nailed him to the cross, the soldiers shared his clothes among them; then, that they sat down and watched him; after this he notices the superscription on the cross, and at length, and not as if supplying a previous omission, but with a particle expressive of succession in time (tote), the fact that two thieves were crucified with him. Mark follows Matthew, except that instead of the statement about the watching of the cross, he has a determination of the time at which Jesus was crucified: while Luke more correctly relates first the crucifixion of the two malefactors with Jesus, and then the casting of lots for the clothes; and the same order is observed by John. But it is inadmissible on this account to transpose the verses in Matthew (34. 37. 38. 35. 36), as has been proposed; and we must rather abandon the author of the first gospel to the charge, that in his anxiety not to omit any of the chief events at the crucifixion of Jesus, he has neglected the natural order of time. | ||||
As regards the mode of the crucifixion there is now scarcely any debated point, if we except the question, whether the feet as well as the hands were nailed to the cross. As it lay in the interest of the orthodox view to prove the affirmative: so it was equally important to the rationalist system to maintain the negative. From Justin Martyr down to Hengstenberg and Olshausen, the orthodox find in the nailing of the feet of Jesus to the cross a fulfilment of the prophecy Ps. xxii. 17., which the LXX. translates: wrucan xeiraj mou kai podaj, but it is doubtful whether the original text really speaks of piercing, and in no case does it allude to crucifixion: moreover the passage is nowhere applied to Christ in the New Testament. To the rationalists, on the contrary, it is at once more easy to explain the death of Jesus as a merely apparent death, and only possible to conceive how he could walk immediately after the resurrection, when it is supposed that his feet were left unwounded: but the case shouldrather be stated thus: if the historical evidence go to prove that the feet also of Jesus were nailed, it must be concluded that the resuscitation and the power of walking shortly after, either happened supernaturally or not at all. of late there have stood opposed to each other two learned and profound investigations of this point, the one by Paulus against, the other by Bahr, in favour of the nailing of the feet. From the Gospel narrative, the former opinion can principally allege in its support, that neither is the above passage in the Psalms anywhere used by the evangelists, though on the presupposition of a nailing of the feet it was so entirely suited to their mode of accounting for facts, nor in the story of the resurrection is there any mention of wounds in the feet, together with the wounds in the hands and side (John xx. 20. 25. 27.). The other opinion appeals not without reason to Luke xxiv. 39., where Jesus invites the disciples to behold his hands and his feet: it is certainly not here said that the feet were pierced, but it is difficult to understan, how Jesus should have pointed out his feet merely to produce a conviction of the reality of his body. The fact that among the Fathers of the Church, those who, living before Constantine, might be acquainted with the mode of crucifixion from personal observation, as Justin and Tertullian, suppose the feet of Jesus to have been nailed, is of weight. It might indeed be concluded from the remark of the latter: Qui (Christus) solus a populo tain insigniter crucifixus est, that for the sake of the passage in the Psalms these Fathers supposed that in the crucifixion of Christ his feet also were pierced by way of exception; but, as Tertullian had before called the piercing of the hands and feet the propria atrocia crucis, it is plain that the above words imply, not a special manner of crucifixion, but the special manner of death by crucifixion, which does not occur in the Old Testament, and by which therefore Jesus was distinguished from all the characters therein celebrated. Among the passages in profane writers, the most important is that of Plautus, in which, to mark a crucifixion, as extraordinarily severe, it is said: offigantur bis pedes, bis brachia. Here the question is: does the extraordinary feature lie in the bis , so that the nailing of the feet as well as of the hands only once is presupposed as the ordinary usage; or was the bis offigere of the hands, i.e. the nailing of both the hands, the usual practice, and the nailing of the feet an extraordinary aggravation of the punishment? Every one will pronounce the former alternative to be the most accordant with the words. Hence it appears to me at present, that the balance of historical evidence is on the side of those who maintain that the feet as well as the hands of Jesus were nailed to the cross. | ||||
It was before the crucifixion, according to the two first evangelists, that there was offered to Jesus a beverage, which Matthew (v. 34) describes as vinegar mingled with gall, Mark (v. 23) as wine mingled with myrrh, but which, according to both, Jesus refused to accept. As it is not understood with what object gall could be mixed with the vinegar, the xolh of Matthew is usually explained, by the aid of the esmurnismenon of Mark, as implying bitter vegetable ingredients, especially myrrh; and then either wine is actually substituted for vinegar, or the latter is understood as sour wine in order that the beverage offered to Jesus may thus appear to have been the stupefying draught consisting of wine and strong spices, which, according to Jewish usage, was presented to those about to be executed, for the purpose of blunting their susceptibility to pain. But even if the text admitted of this reading, and the words of this interpretation, Matthew would assuredly protest strongly against the real gall and the vinegar being thus {P.774} explained away from his narrative, because by this means he would lose the fulfilment of the passage in the psalm of lamentation elsewhere used Messianically: (LXX) "they gave me also gall for my food, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink" (Ps. Ixix. 21.). Matthew incontestably means, in accordance with this prophecy, real gall with vinegar, and the comparison with Mark is only calculated to suggest the question, whether it be more probable that Mark presents the incident in its original form, which Matthew has remodelled into a closer accordance with the prophecy; or that Matthew originally drew the particular from the passage in the Psalm, and that Mark so modified it as to give it an appearance of greater historical probability? | ||||
In order to come to a decision on this question we must take the two other evangelists into consideration. The presentation to Jesus of a drink mingled with vinegar is mentioned by all four, and even the two who have the vinegar mingled with gall, or the myrrhed wine, as the first drink offered to Jesus, mention afterwards the offering of simple vinegar. According to Luke, this offering of vinegar was an act of derision committed by the soldiers not very long after the crucifixion, and before the beginning of the darkness (v. 36 f.); according to Mark, shortly before the end, three hours after the darkness came on, one of the bystanders, on hearing the cry of Jesus: my God, my God etc, presented vinegar to him, likewise in derision, by means of a spongo fixed on a reed (v. 36); according to Matthew, one of the bystanders, on the same cry, and in the same manner, presented vinegar to him, but with a benevolent intention, as we gather from the circumstance that the scoffers wished to deterhim from the act (v. 48 f.); whereas in John it is on the exclamation: I thirst, that some fill a sponge with vinegar from a vessel standing near, and raise it on a stem of hyssop to the mouth of Jesus (v. 29). Hence it has been supposed that there were three separate attempts to give a beverage to Jesus: the first before the crucifixion, with the stupefying drink (Matthew and Mark); the second after the crucifixion, when the soldiers in mockery offered him some of their ordinary beverage, a mixture of vinegar and water calledposca (Luke); and the third, on the complaining cry of Jesus (Matt. Mark and John)4 But it the principle of considering every divergent narrative as a separate event be once admitted it must be consistently carried out: if the beverage mentioned by Luke must be distinguished from that of Matthew and Mark on account of a difference in the time, then must that of Matthew be distinguished from that of Mark on account of the difference in the design; and, again, the beverage mentioned by ohn must not be regarded as the same with that of the two first Synoptics, since it follows a totally different exclamation. Thus {P.775} we should obtain in all five instances in which a drink was offered to Jesus, and we should at least be at a loss to understand why Jesus after vinegar had already been three times presented to his lips, should yet a fourth time have desired to drink. If then we must resort to simplification, it is by no means only the beverage in the two first Gospels, and that in the fourth, which, on account of the agreement in the time and manner of presentation, are to be understood as one; but also that of Mark (and through this the others) must be pronounced identical with that of Luke, on account of their being alike offered in derision. Thus there remain two instances of a drink being offered to Jesus, the one before the crucifixion, the other after; and both have a presumptive support from history, the former in the Jewish custom of giving a stupefying draught to persons about to be executed, the other in the Roman custom, according to which the soldiers on their expeditions, and the completing an execution was consideed as such, were in the habit of taking with them their posca. But together with this possible historical root, there is a possible prophetic one in Ps. Ixix., and the two have an opposite influence: the latter excites a suspicion that the narrative may not have anything historical at its foundation; the former throws doubt on the explanation that the whole story has been spun out of the prophecies. | ||||
On once more glancing over the various narratives, we shall at least find that their divergencies are precisely of a nature to have arisen from a various application of the passage in the Psalms. The eating of gall and the drinking of vinegar being there spoken of, it appears as if in the first instance the former particular had been set aside as inconceivable, and the fulfilment of the prophecy found in the circumstance, (very possibly historical, since it is mentioned by all the four evangelists,) that Jesus had vinegar presented to him when on the cross. This might either be regarded as an act of compassion, as by Matthew and John, or of mockery, with Mark and Xiuke. In this manner the words: they gave me vinegar to drink, iwere indeed literally fulfilled, but not the preceding phrase: "in my thirst;" hence the author of the fourth gospel might think it probable that Jesus actually complained of thirst, i.e. cried out, "I thirst!" an exclamation, which he expressly desgnates as a fulfilment of the scripture, by which we are doubtless to understand the above passage in the Psalms (comp. Ps. xxii. 16.), Indeed, since he introduces the phrase "that the scripture might be fulfilled," by saying that "Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished," he almost appears to mean that the fulfilment of the prophecy was the sole object of Jesus in uttering that exclamation: but a man suspended on the cross in the agonies of death is not the one to occupy himself with such typological trifling this is only the part of his biographer who finds himself in perfect ease. Even this addition, however, only showed the fulfilment of {776} one half of the Messianic verse, that relating to the vinegar; there still remained what was said of the gall, which, as the concentration of all bitterness, was peculiarly adapted to be placed in relation to the suffering Messiah. It is true that the presentation of the gall, Xo&fj, as meat, Ppupa, which the prophecy strictly taken required, was still suppressed as inconceivable: but it appeared to the first evangelist, or to 1he authority which he here follows, quite practicable to introduce the gall as an ingredient in the vinegar, a mixture which Jesus might certainly be unable to drink, from its unpalata-bleness. More concerned about historical probability than prophetic connection, the second evangelist, with reference to a Jewish custom, and perhaps in accordance with historical fact, converted the vinegar mingled with gall, into wine mingled with myrrh, and made Jesus reject this, doubtless from a wish to avoid stupefaction. As however the narrative of the vinegar mingled with gall reached these two eangelists in company with the original one of the presentation of simple vinegar to Jesus; they were unwilling that this should be excluded by the former, and hence placed the two side by side. But in making these observations, as has been before remarked, it is not intended to deny that such a beverage may have been offered to Jesus before the crucifixion, and afterwards vinegar also, since the former was apparently customary, and the latter, from the thirst which tormented the crucified, natural: it is merely intended to show, that the evangelists do not narrate this circumstance, and under such various forms, because they knew historically that it occurred in this or that manner, but because they were convinced dogmatically that it must have occurred according to the above prophecy, which however they applied in different ways. | ||||
During or immediately after the crucifixion Luke represents Jesus as saying: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (v. 34); an intercession which is by some limited to" the soldiers who crucified him, by others, extended to the real authors of his death, the Sanhedrists and Pilate. However accordant such a prayer may be with the principles concerning love to enemies elsewhere inculcated by Jesus (Matt. v. 44), and however great the internal probability of Luke's statement viewed in this light: still it is to be observed, especially as he stands alone in giving this particular, that it may possibly have been taken from the reputed Messianic chapter, Is. liii., where in the last verse, the same from which the words: he was numbered with the transgressors. | ||||
{P.777} All the evangelists agree in stating that two malefactors Svo KaKovpyoi (Matthew and Mark call them Agoraf thieves) were crucified, one on each side of Jesus; and Mark, if his 28th verse be genuine, sees in this a literal fulfilment of the words: he was numbered with the transgressors, which, according to Luke xxii. 37., Jesus had the evening before quoted as a prophecy about to be accomplished in him. of the further demeanour of these fellow-sufferers, John says nothing; the two first evangelists represent them as riviling Jesus (Matt, xxvii. 44; Mark xv. 32.); whereas Luke narrates that only one of them was guilty of this offence, and that he was rebuked by the other (xxiii.39ff.). In order to reconcile this difference, commentators have advanced the supposition, that at first both criminals reviled Jesus, but that subsequently one of them was converted by the marvellous darkness; more modern ones have resorted to the supposition of an enallage numeri: but without doubt those only are right who adit a real difference between Luke and his predecessors. It is plain that the two first evangelists knew nothing of the more precise details which Luke presents concerning the relation of the two malefactors to Jesus. He narrates, namely, that when one of them derided Jesus by calling upon him, if he were the Messiah, to deliver himself and them, the other earnestly rebuked such mockery of one with whom he was sharing a like fate, and moreover as a guilty one with the guiltless, entreating for his own part that Jesus would remember him when he should corne into his kingdom (basileia); whereupon Jesus gave him the promise that he should that very day be with him in Paradise. | ||||
In this scene there is nothing to create difficulty, until we come to the words which the second malefactor addresses to Jesus. For to expect from one suspended on the cross a future coming to establish the Messianic kingdom, would presuppose the conception of the whole system of a dying Messiah, which before the resurrecion the apostles themselves could not comprehend, and which therefore, according to the above representation of Luke, a thief must have been beforehand with them in embracing. This is so improbable, that it cannot excite surprise to find many regarding the conversion of the thief on the cross as a miracle, and the supposition which commentators call in to their aid, namely, that the man was no common criminal, but a political one, perhaps concerned in the insurrection of Barabbas, ony serves to render the incident still more inconceivable. For if he was an Israelite inclined to rebellion, and bent on liberating his nation from the Roman yoke, his idea of the Messiah was assuredly the most incompatible with the acknowledgment {P.778} as such, of one so completely annihilated in a political view, as Jesus then was. Hence we are led to the question, whether we have here a real history and not rather a creation of the legend? Two malefactors were crucified with Jesus: thus much was indubitably presented by history (or did even this owe its origin to the prophecy, Isai. liii. 12.?). At first they were suspended by the side of Jesus as mute figures, and thus we find them in the narrative of the fourth evangelist, into whose region of tradition only the simple statement, that they were crucified with Jesus, had penetrated. But it was not possible for the legend long to rest contented with so slight a use of them: it opened their mouths, and as only insults were reported to have proceeded from the bystanders, the two malefactors were at first made to join in the general derision of Jesus, without any more particular account being given of their words (Matt, and Mark). But the malefactors admitted of a still better use. If Pilate had borne witnes in favour of Jesus; if shortly after, a Roman centurion-indeed, all nature by its miraculous convulsions-had attested his exalted character: so his two fellow-suiFerers, although criminals, could not remain entirely impervious to the impression of his greatness, but, though one of them did indeed revile Jesus agreeably to the original form of the legend, the other must have expressed an opposite state of feeling, and have shown faith in Jesus as the Messiah (Luke). The address of the latter to Jesus and his answer are besides conceived entirely in the spirit of Jewish thought and expression; for according to the idea then prevalent, paradise was that part of the nether world which was to harbour the souls of the pious in the interval between their death and the resurrection: a place in paradise and a favourable remembrance in the future age were the object of the Israelite's petition to God, as here to the Messiah; and it was believed concerning a man distinguished for piety that he could conduct those who ere present at the hour of his death into paradise. To the cross of Jesus was affixed, according to the Roman custom, a superscription (Mark and Luke), or a title (John) which contained his accusation rrv alriav avrov (Matthew and Mark,) consisting according to all the evangelists in the words: 6 flaaiXevg rwv 'lovdaluv the King of the Jews. Luke and John state that this superscription was couched in three different tongues, and the latter informs us that the Jewish rulers were fully alive to the derision which this form of superscription reflected on their nation, and on this account entreated Pilate, but in vain, for an alteration of the terms (v. 21 f.). | ||||
{P.779} Of the soldiers, according to John four in number, who crucified Jesus, the evangelists unanimously relate that they parted the clothes of Jesus among themselves by lot. According to the Roman law de bonis damnatorum the vestments of the executed fell as spolia to the executioners, and in so far that statement of the evangelists has a point of contact with history. But, like most of the features in this last scene of the life of Jesus, it has also a point of contact with prophecy. It is true that in Matthew the quotation of the passage Ps. xxii. 18. is doubtless an interpolation; but on the other hand the same quotation is undoubtedly genuine in John (xix. 24.); that the scripture might be fulfilled which says, "they parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they cast lots." Here also, according to the assertion of orthodox expositors, David the author of te Psalm, under divine guidance, in the moments of inspiration chose such figurative expressions as had a literal fulfilment in Christ. Rather we must say, David, or whoever else may have been the author of the Psalm, as a man of poetical imagination used those expressions as mere metaphors to denote a total defeat; but the petty, prosaic spirit of Jewish interpretation, which the evangelists shared without any fault of theirs, and from which orthodox theologians, by their own fault however, have not perfectly liberated themselves after the lapse of eighteen centuries, led to the belief that those words must be understood literally, and in this sense must be shown to be fulfilled in the Messiah. Whether the evangelists drew the circumstance of the casting of lots for the clothes more from historical information which stood at their command, or from the prophetic passage which they variously interpreted, must be decided by a comparison of their narratives. These present the divergency, that while according tothe Synoptics all the clothes were parted by lot, as is evident from the words: diemerisanto ta i(matia au)tou ballontej klhron "they parted his garments, casting lots," in Matthew (v. 35), and the similar turn of expression in Luke (v. 34), but still more decidedly from the addition of Mark: "what every man should take" (v. 24): in John it is the coat or tunic, alone for which lots are cast, the other garments being parted equally (v. 23 f.). This divergency is commonly thought of much too lightly, and is tacitly treated as if the synoptic representation were related to that of John as the indefinite to the definite. Kuin l in consideration of John translates the words diemerisanto ta i(matia of Matthew thus: partim dimdebant, partim ire sortem conjiciebant: but the meaning is not to be thus distributed, for the diepspiavro they parted states what they did, the ballontej klhron casting lots, how they did it: besides Kuinb'l passes in total silence over the words "what each should get," because they undeniably {P.780} imply that lots were cast for several articles: while according to John the lots had reference only to one garment. If it be now asked, which of the two contradictory narratives is the correct one, the answer given from the point of view to which the comparative criticism of the Gospels has at present attained is, that the eye-witness John gives the correct particulars, but the Synoptics had merely received the indefinite information, that in parting the clothes of Jesus the soldiers made use of the lot, and this, from unacquaintance vith the more minute particulars, they understood as if lots had been cast for all the garments of Jesus. But not only does the circumstance that it is John alone who expressly cites the passage in the Psalms prove that he had an especial view to that passage: but, in general, this divergency of the evangelists is precisely what might be expected from a difference in the interpretation of that supposed prophecy. When the Psalm speaks of the parting of the garments and a castin of lots for the vesture: the second particular is, according to the genius of the Hebrew language which abounds in parallelism, only a more precise definition of the first, and the Synoptics, correctly understanding this, make one of the two verbs a participle. One however who did not bear in mind this peculiarity of the Hebrew style, or had an interest in exhibiting the second feature of the prophecy as specially fulfilled, might understand the and, which in reality was indicative only of more precise definition, as denoting addition, and thus regard the casting of lots and the distribution as separate acts. Then the imatismoj which was originally a synonym of imatia must become a distinct garment, the closer particularization of which, since it was not in any way conveyed in the word itself, was left to choice. The fourth evangelist determined it to be the xitwn tunic, and because he believed it due to his readers to show some cause for a mode of procedure with respect to this garment, no different from the equal distribution of the others, he intimated that the reason why it was chosen to cast lots for the tunic rather than to divide it, probably was that it had no seam (arrafoj) which might render separation easy, but was woven in one piece ufantoj d' olou. Thus we should have in the fourth evangelist exactly the same procedure as we have found on the side of the first, in the story of the entrance into Jerusalem; in both cases the doubling of a trait originally single, owing to a false interpretation of the Waw in the Hebrew parallelism; the only difference being that the first evangelist in the passage referred to is less arbitrary than the fourth is here, for he at least spares us the tracing out of the reason why two asses must then have been required for one rider. The more evident it thus becomes that the representation of the point in question in the dif- {P.781} ferent evangelists is dependent on the manner in which each interpreted that supposed prophecy in the Psalms: the less does a sure historical knowledge appear to have had any share in their representation, and hence we remain ignorant whether lota were cast on the distribution of the clothes of Jesus, indeed whether in general a distribution of clothes took place under the cross of Jesus; confidently as Justin appeals in support of this very particular to the acts of Pilate, which he had never seen. | ||||
Of the conduct of the Jews who were present at the crucifixion of Jesus, John tells us nothing; Luke represents the people as standing to look on, and only the rulers dpevrsg and the soldiers as deriding Jesus by the summons to save himself if he were the Messiah, to which the latter adds the offer of the vinegar (v.35ff.); Matthew and Mark have nothing here of mockery on the part of the soldiers, but in compensation they make not only the chief priests, scribes, and elders, but also the passers-by vent insults against Jesus (v.39ff.;29ff.). The expressions of these people partly refer to former discourses and actions of Jesus; thus, the sarcasm: You that would destroy the temple and build it again in three days, save yourself (Matt, and Mark), is an allusion to the words of that tenor ascribed to Jesus; while the reproach: he saved others, himself he cannot save, or save yourself (in all three), refers to his cures. Partly however the conduct of the Jews towards Jeus on the cross, is depicted after the same Psalm of which Tertullian justly says, that it contains totam Christi passionem. When it is said in Matthew and Mark: "And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads and saying..." (Luke says of the rulers "they derided him ), this is certainly nothing else than a mere reproduction of what stands in Ps. xxii. 8. (LXX.), "All they that see me laugh me to scorn, they shoot out the lip and shake the head" and the words which are hereupon lent to the Sanhedrists in Matthew: "He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he will have him," are the same with those of the following verse in that Psalm: pepoiqen e)pi ton qeon, r(usasqw nun ei) qelei au)ton: ei)pen gar o(ti Qeou ei)mi ui(oj "He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." Now though the taunts and shaking of the head on the part of the enemies of Jesus may, notwithstanding that the description of them is drawn according to the above Old Testament passage, still very probably have really happened: it is quite otherwise with the words which are attributed to these mockers. Words which, like those above quoted, are in the Old Testament put into the mouth of the enemies of the godly, could not be adopted by the Sanhedrists without their voluntarily {P.783} assuming the character of the ungodly: which they would surely have taken care to avoid. Only the Christian legend, if it once applied the Psalm to the sufferings of Jesus, and especially to his last hours, could attribute these words to the Jewish rulers, and find therein the fulfilment of a prophecy. | ||||
The two first evangelists do not tell us that any one of the twelve was present at the crucifixion of Jesus: they mention merely several Galilean women, three of whom they particularize: namely, Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses; and, as the third, according to Matthew, the mother of the sons of Zebedee, according to Mark, Salome, both which designations are commonly understood to relate to the same person (Matt. v. 55 f.; Mark v. 40 f.); according to these evangelists the twelve appear not yet to have reassembled after their flight on the arrest of Jesus. In Luke, on the contrary, among all his acquaintance, whom he represents as beholding the crucifixion (v. 49) the twelve would seem to be included: but the fourth gospel expressly singles out from among the disciples the one whom Jesus loved, i.e. John, as present, and among the women, together with Mary Magdalene and the wife of Cleopas, names instead of the mother of James and John, the mothr of Jesus himself. Moreover, while according to all the other accounts the acquaintances of Jesus stood afar off according to the fourth gospel John and the mother of Jesus must have been in the closest proximity to the cross, since it represents Jesus as addressing them from the cross, and appointing John to be his substitute in the filial relation to his mother (v.25ff.). Olshausen believes that he can remove the contradiction which exists between the synoptic statement and the presupposition of the fourth gospel as to the position of the friends of Jesus, by the conjecture that at first they did indeed stand at a distance, but that subsequently some approached near to the cross: it is to be observed, however, in opposition to this, that the Synoptics mention that position of the adherents of Jesus just at the close of the scene of crucifixion and death, immediately before the taking down from the cross, and thus presuppose that they had retained this position until the end of the scene; a state of the case which cannot but be held entirely consistent with the alarm which filled the minds of the disciples during those days, and still more wih feminine timidity. If the heroism of a nearer approach might perhaps be expected from maternal tenderness: still, the total silence of the Synoptics, as the interpreters of the common Gospel tradition, renders the historical reality of that particular doubtful. The Synoptics cannot have known any thing of the presence of the mother of Jesus at the cross, otherwise they would have mentioned her as the chief person, before all the other women; nor does any thing appear to have been known of a more intimate relation between her and John: at least in the Acts (i. 12 f.) the mother of Jesus is supposed to be with the twelve in general, his brothers, and the women of the society. It is at least not so easy to understand how the memory of that affecting presence and remarkable relation could be lost, as to conceive how the idea of them might originate in the circle from which the fourth gospel proceeded. If this circle be imagined as one in which the apostle John enjoyed peculiar veneration, on which account our gospel drew him out of the trio of the more confidential associates of Jesus, and isolated him as the beloved disciple: it will appear that nothing could be more strikingly adapted to confirm this relation than the statement that Jesus bequeathed, as it were, the dearest legacy, his mother (in reference to whom, as well as to the alleged beloved disciple, it must have been a natural question, whether she had left the side of Jesus in this last trial), to John, and thus placed this disciple in his stead, made him vicarius Christi. | ||||
As the address of Jesus to his mother and the favourite disciple is peculiar to the fourth gospel: so, on the other hand, the exclamation, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Qee mou qee mou, i)nati me e)gkatelipej; is only found in the two first Gospels (Matt. v. 46; Mark v. 34). This exclamation, with the mental state from which it proceeded, like the agony in Gethsemane, constitutes in the opinion of the Church a part of the vicarious suffering of Christ. As however in this instance also it was impossible to be blind to the difficulties of the supposition, that the mere corporeal suffering, united with the external depression of his cause, overwhelmed Jesus to such a degree that he felt himself forsaken by God, while there have been both before and after him persons who, under sufferings equally severe, have yet preserved composure and fortitude: the opinion of the Church has here also, in addition to the natural corporeal and spiritual affliction, supposed as the true cause of that state of mind in Jsus, a withdrawal of God from his soul, a consciousness of the divine wrath, which it was decreed that he should bear in the stead of mankind, by whom it was deserved as a punishment. How, presupposing the dogma of the Church concerning the person of Christ, a withdrawal of God from his soul is conceivable, it is the part of the defenders of this opinion themselves, to decide. Was it the human nature in him which felt so forsaken? Then would its unity with the divine have been interrupted, and thus the very basis of the personality of Christ, according to the above system, removed. Or the divine? In that case the second person in the Godhead would have been separated from the first. As little can it have been the God-man, consisting of both natures, that felt forsaken by God, since the very essence of this is the unity and inseparableness of the divine and the human. Thus urged by the self-contradiction of this supernaturalistic explanation, to fall {P.784} back on the natural mode of accounting for the above exclamation by the sense of external suffering, and yet repelled from the idea that Jesus should have been so completely subdued by this, commentators have attempted to mollify the sense of the exclamation. It consists of the opening words of Ps. xxii., a passage which is classical for this last scene in the life of Jesus. Now this Psalm begins with a complaining description of the deepest suffering, but in the course of its progress soars into joyful hope of deliverance; hence it has been supposed that the words which Jesus immediately utters do not give his entire experience, and that in thus reciting the first verse he at the same time quotes the whole psalm and especially its exulting close, just as if he meant to say: It is true that I, like the author of this psalm, appear now forsaken of God, but in me, as in him, the divine succour will only be so much the more glorified. But if Jesus uttered this exclamation with a view to the bystanders, and in rder to assure them that his affliction would soon be merged in triumph, he would have chosen the means the least adapted to his purpose, if he had uttered precisely those words of the Psalm which express the deepest misery; and instead of the first verse he would rather have chosen one from the 10th to the 12th, or from the 20th to the end. If however in that exclamation he meant merely to give vent to his own feeling, he would not have chosen this verse if his actual experience in these moments had been, not what is there expressed, but what is described in the succeeding verses. Now if this experience was his own, and if, all supernatural grounds of explanation being dismissed, it proceeded from his external calamities; we must observe that one who, as the Gospels narrate of Jesus, had long included suffering and death in his idea of the Messiah, and hence had regarded them as a part of the divine arrangements, could scarcely complain of them when they actually arrived as an abandonment by God; rather, on the above supposition, we should be led to think that Jesus had found himself deceived in the expectations which he had previously cherished, and thus believed himself forsaken by God in the prosecution of his plan. Bat we could only resort to such conjectures if the above exclamation of Jesus were shown to have an historical foundation. In this respect the silence of Luke and John would not, it is true, be so serious a difficulty in our eyes, that we should take refuge in explanations like the following: John suppressed the exclamation, lest it should serve to countenance the Gnostic opinion, by admitting the inference that the Godhead which was insusceptible of suffering, departed from Jesus in that moment. But the relation of the words of Jesus to the 22d Psalm does certainly render this particular suspicious. If the Messiah was once conceived of as suffering, and if that Psalm was used as a sort of programme of his suffering, for which it was by no means necessary as an inducement that Jesus should have really quoted one of its verses on the cross: the opening words of the Psalm which are expressive of the deepest suffering must appear singularly adapted to be put into the mouth of the crucified Messiah. In this case the derisive speech of the bystanders, he callethfor Elijah etc, can have had no other origin than this-that the wish for a variety of taunts to complete this scene after the model of the psalm, was met by the similarity of sound between the Eloi in the exclamation lent to Jesus, and the name of Elijah which was associated with the Messiah. | ||||
Concerning the last words which the expiring Jesus was heard to utter, the evangelists differ. According to Matthew and Mark, it was merely a loud voice, fwnh megalh, with which he departed (v. 50, 37); according to Luke, it was the petition: Father, into your hands I commend my spirit, (v. 46); while according to John it was on the brief expression: it is finished, tetelestai, that he bowed his head and expired (v. 30). Here it is possible to reconcile the two first evangelists with one or other of the succeeding ones by the supposition, that what the former describe indefinitely as a loud cry, and what according to their representation might be taken for an inarticulate expression of anguish, the others, with more particularity, give in its precise verbal form. It is more difficult to reconcile the two last Gospels. For whether we suppose that Jesus first commended his soul to God, and hereupon cried: it is finished; or vice versa; botheollocations are alike opposed to the intention of the evangelists, for the expression of Luke cannot be rendered, as Paulus would have it, by: soon after he had said this, he expired; and the very words of the exclamation in John define it as the last utterance of Jesus; the two writers forming different conceptions of the closing words. In the account of Luke, the common form of expression for the death of Jesus: paredwke to pneuma (he delivered up his spirit) appears to have been interpreted as an actual commending of his soul to God on the part of Jesus, and to have been further developed with reference to the passage Ps. xxxi. 5: "Lord into your hands I commend my spirit," (LXX), a passage which from the strong resemblance of this Psalm to the 22nd would be {P.786} apt to suggest itself. Whereas the author of the fourth gospel appears to have lent to Jesus an expression more immediately proceeding from his position in relation to his Messianic office, making him express in the word rerisarai it is finished the completion of his work, or the fulfilment of all the prophecies (with the exception, of course, of what could only be completed and fulfilled in the resurrection). | ||||
Not only these last words, however, but also the earlier expressions of Jesus on the cross, will not admit of being ranged in the succession in which they are generally supposed. The speeches of Jesus on the cross are commonly reckoned to be seven; but so many are not mentioned by any single evangelist, for the two first have only one: the exclamation, my God, my God, etc. Luke has three: the prayer of Jesus for his enemies, the promise to the thief, and the commending of his spirit into the hands of the Father; John has likewise three, but all different: the address to his mother and the disciple, with the exclamations, "I thirst" and "It is finished." Now the intercessory prayer, the promise and the recommendation of Mary to the care of the disciple, might certainly be conceived as following each other: but the diyw and the Hli come into collision, since both exclamations are followed by the same incident, the offering of vinegar by means of a sponge on a reed. When to ths we add the entanglement of the tetelestai with the pater etc., it should surely be seen and admitted, that no one of the evangelists, in attributing words to Jesus when on the cross, knew or took into consideration those lent to him by the others; that on the contrary each depicted this scene in his own manner, according as he, or the legend which stood at his command, had developed the conception of it to suit this or that prophecy or design. | ||||
A special difficulty is here caused by the computation of the hours. According to all the Synoptics the darkness prevailed from the sixth hour until the ninth hour, (in our reckoning, from twelve at midday to three in the afternoon); according to Matthew and Mark it was about the ninth hour that Jesus complained of being forsaken by God, and shortly after yielded up the ghost; according to Mark it was the third hour wra trith (nine in the morning) when Jesus was crucified (v. 25). On the other hand, John says (xix. 14.) that it was about the sixth hour, (when according to Mark Jesus had already hung three hours on the cross,) that Pilate first sat in judgment over him. Unless we are to suppose that the sun-dial went backward, as in the time of Hezekiah, this is a contradiction which is not to be removed by a violent alteration of the reading, nor by appealing to the "about" in John, or to the inability of the disciples to take note of the hours under such afflictive cirsumstances; at the utmost it might perhaps {P.787} be cancelled if it were possible to prove that the fourth gospel hroughout proceeds upon another mode of reckoning time than that used by the Synoptics. | ||||