40.
—The fate of the Gospels was decided by death—it hung on the
“cross.” . . . It was only death, that unexpected and shameful
death; it was only the cross, which was usually reserved for the canaille
only—it was only this appalling paradox which brought the disciples
face to face with the real riddle: “Who was it? what was
it?”—The feeling of dismay, of profound affront and injury;
the suspicion that such a death might involve a refutation of their
cause; the terrible question, “Why just in this way?”—this
state of mind is only too easy to understand. Here everything must
be accounted for as necessary; everything must have a meaning, a reason, the
highest sort of reason; the love of a disciple excludes all chance. Only then
did the chasm of doubt yawn: ”Who put him to death? who was his
natural enemy?”—this question flashed like a lightning-stroke. Answer:
dominant Judaism, its ruling class. From that moment, one found one's self in
revolt against the established order, and began to understand Jesus as
in revolt against the established order. Until then this militant, this
nay-saying, nay-doing element in his character had been lacking; what is more,
he had appeared to present its opposite. Obviously, the little community had not
understood what was precisely the most important thing of all: the example offered
by this way of dying, the freedom from and superiority to every feeling of
ressentiment—a plain indication of
how little he was understood at all! All that Jesus could hope to accomplish by
his death, in itself, was to offer the strongest possible proof, or example,
of his teachings in the most public manner. But his disciples were very far from
forgiving his death—though to have done so would have accorded with
the Gospels in the highest degree; and neither were they prepared to offer
themselves, with gentle and serene calmness of heart, for a similar death. . . . On
the contrary, it was precisely the most unevangelical of feelings, revenge,
that now possessed them. It seemed impossible that the cause should perish with his
death: “recompense” and “judgment” became necessary
(—yet what could be less evangelical than “recompense,”
“punishment,” and “sitting in judgment”!). —Once
more the popular belief in the coming of a messiah appeared in the foreground;
attention was riveted upon an historical moment: the “kingdom of God”
is to come, with judgment upon his enemies. . . But in all this there was a wholesale
misunderstanding: imagine the “kingdom of God” as a last act, as a
mere promise! The Gospels had been, in fact, the incarnation, the fulfillment,
therealization of this “kingdom of God.” It was only now that
all the familiar contempt for and bitterness against Pharisees and theologians began
to appear in the character of the Master was thereby turned into a Pharisee
and theologian himself! On the other hand, the savage veneration of these completely
unbalanced souls could no longer endure the Gospel doctrine, taught by Jesus, of the
equal right of all men to be children of God: their revenge took the form of
elevating Jesus in an extravagant fashion, and thus separating him from
themselves: just as, in earlier times, the Jews, to revenge themselves upon their
enemies, separated themselves from their God, and placed him on a great height.
The One God and the Only Son of God: both were products of
ressentiment . . . .