Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (692 page)

* Bibl. Comm. 1, S. 115.

† Heb. Mythol. ii. S. 218.

‡ Bauer, ut sup. i. S. 129. Paulus, exeget. Handbuch, i. a 74.

§ Paulus, Commentar. i. S. 12.

|| Bauer, ut sup.

¶ Glabenslehre, 1 Thl. § 42 und 43 (2te Ausgabe).

* Binder, Studien der evang. Geistlichkeit Wurtembergs, ix. 2, 5, 11 ff. sentation, man’s desire to separate the two sides of his moral nature, and to contemplate, as beings existing external to himself, angels and devils. For, the origin of both representations remains merely subjective, the angel being simply the ideal of created perfection: which, as it was formed from the subordinate point of view of a fanciful imagination, disappears from the higher and more comprehensive observation of the intellect. *

Olshausen, on the other hand, seeks to deduce a positive argument in favour of the reality of the apparation in question, from those very reasonings of the present day which, in fact, negative the existence of angels; and he does so by viewing the subject on its speculative side. He is of opinion that the gospel narrative does not contradict just views of the world, since God is immanent in the universe and moves it by his breath. † But if it be true that God is immanent in the world, precisely on that account is the intervention of angels superfluous. It is only a Deity who dwells apart, throned in heaven, who requires to send down his angels to fulfil his purposes on earth. It would excite surprise to find Olshausen arguing thus, did we not perceive from the manner in which this interpreter constantly treats of angelology and demonology, that he does not consider angels to be independent personal entities; but regards them rather as divine powers, transitory emanations and fulgurations of the Divine Being. Thus Olshausen’s conception of angels, in their relation to God, seems to correspond with the Sabellian doctrine of the Trinity; but as his is not the representation of the Bible, as also the arguments in favour of the former prove nothing in relation to the latter, it is useless to enter into further explanation. The reasoning of this same theologian, that we must not require the ordinariness of every day life for the most pregnant epochs in the life of the human race; that the incarnation of the eternal word was accompanied by extraordinary manifestations from the world of spirits, uncalled for in times less rich in momentous results, ‡ rests upon a misapprehension. For the ordinary course of every day life is interrupted in such moments, by the very fact that exalted beings like the Baptist are born into the world, and it would be puerile to designate as ordinary those times and circumstances which gave birth and maturity to a John, because they were unembellished by angelic apparitions. That which the spiritual world does for ours at such periods is to send extraordinary human intelligences, not to cause angels, to ascend and descend.

Finally, if, in vindication of this narrative, it be stated that such an exhibition by the angel, of the plan of education for the unborn child, was necessary in order to make him the man who should become, § the assumption includes too much; namely, that all great men, in order by their education to become such, must have been introduced into the world in like manner, or cause must be shown

* Compare my Dogmatik, i. § 49.

† Bibl. Comm., 1. Th. S. 119.

‡ Ut sup S. 93.

§ Hess, Geschichte der drei letzten Lebensjahre Jesu u. s. w. l. Thl. S. 13. 33. why that which was unnecessary in the case of great men of other ages and countries was indispensable for the Baptist. Again, the assumption attaches too much importance to external training, too little to the internal development of the mind. But in conclusion, many of the circumstances in the life of the Baptist, instead of serving to confirm a belief in the truth of the miraculous history, are on the contrary, as has been justly maintained, altogether irreconcileable with the supposition, that his birth was attended by these wonderful occurrences. If it were indeed true, that John was from the first distinctly and miraculously announced as the forerunner of the Messiah, it is inconceivable that he should have had no acquaintance with Jesus prior to his baptism; and that, even subsequent to that event, he should have felt perplexed concerning his Messiahship. (John i., 30 ; Matth. xi., 2.*)

Consequently the
negative
conclusion of the rationalistic criticism and controversy must, we think, be admitted, namely, that tho birth of the Baptist could not have been preceded and attended by these supernatural occurrences. The question now arises, what
positive
view of the matter is to replace the rejected literal orthodox explanation?

§ 18. NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE NARRATIVE.

IN treating tlie narrative before us according to the rationalistic method, which requires the separation of the pure fact from the opinion of interested persons, the simplest alteration is this: to retain the two leading facts, the apparition and the dumbness, as actual external occurrences; but to account for them in a natural manner. This were possible with respect to the apparition, by supposing that a man, mistaken by Zacharias for a divine messenger, really appeared to him, and addressed to him the words he believed he heard. But this explanation viewed in connexion with the attendant circumstances, being too improbable, it became necessary to go a step further, and to transform the event from an external to an internal one ; to remove the occurrence out of the physical into the psychological world. To this view the opinion of Bahrdt, that a flash ot lightning was perhaps mistaken by Zacharias for an angel, † forms a transition; since he attributes the greater part of the scene to Zacharias’s imagination. But that any man, in an ordinary state of mind, could have created so long and consecutive a dialogue out of a flash of lightning is incredible. A peculiar mental state must be supposed; whether it be a swoon, the effect of fright occasioned by the lightning, ‡ but of this there is no trace in the tcxt; (no falling down as in Acts ix., 4.); or, abandoning tho notion of the lightning, a dream, which, however, could scarcely

* Horst in Henke’s Museum i, 4. S. 733 f. Gabler in seinem neuest. theol. Journal, vii. 1. S. 403.

† Briefe uber die Bibel im Volkstone (Ausg, Frankfurt und Lepizig, 1800), Ites Bandchen, 6ter Brief, S. 51 f.

‡ Bahrdt, ut sup. S. 52. occur whilst burning incense in the temple. Hence, it has been found necessary, with Paulus, to call to mind that there are waking visions or ecstasies, in which the imagination confounds internal images with external occurrences. * Such ecstasies, it is true, are not common; but says Paulus, in Zacharias’s case many circumstances combined to produce so unusual a state of mind. The exciting causes were, firstly, the long-cherished desire to have a posterity; secondly, the exalted vocation of administering in the Holy Place, offering up with the incense the prayers of the people to the throne of Jehovah, which seemed to Zacharias to foretoken the acceptance of his own prayer; and thirdly, perhaps an exhortation from his wife as he left his house, similar to that of Rachel to Jacob. Gen. xxx., I. (!) In this highly excited state of mind, as he prays in the dimly-lighted sanctuary, he thinks of his most ardent wish, and expecting that now or never his prayer shall be heard, he is prepared to discern a sign of its acceptance in the slightest occurrence. As the glimmer of the lamps falls upon the ascending cloud of incense, and shapes it into varying forms, the priest imagines he perceives the figure of an angel. The apparition at first alarms him; but he soon regards it as an assurance from God that his prayer is heard. No sooner does a transient doubt cross his mind, than the sensitively pious priest looks upon himself as sinful, believes himself reproved by tlie angel, and — here two explanations are possible — either an apoplectic seizure actually deprives him of speech, which he receives as the just punishment of his incredulity, till the excessive joy he experiences at the circumcision of his son restores the power of utterance: so that the dumbness is retained as an external, physical, though not miraculous, occurrence; † or the proceeding is psychologically understood, namely, that Zacharias, in accordance with a Jewish superstition, for a time denied himself the use of the offending member. ‡ Re-animated in other respects by the extraordinary event, the priest returns home to his wife, and she becomes a second Sarah.

With regard to this account of the angelic apparition given by Paulus, — and the other explanations are either of essentially similar character, or are so manifestly untenable, as not to need refutation — it may be observed that the object so laboriously striven after is not attained. Paulus fails to free the narrative of the marvellous; for by his own admission, the majority of men have no experience of the kind of vision here supposcd. § If such a state of ecstasy occur in particular cases, it must result either from a predisposition in the individual, of which we find no sign in Zacharias, and which his advanced age must have rendered highly improbable; or it must have been induced by some peculiar circumstances, which totally fail in the present instance. || A hope which has been long indulged

* Exeget. Handb. 1, a. S. 71 ff.

† Bahrdt, ut sup. 7ter Brief, S. 60. — E. F. uber die beiden ersten Kapitel des Matthias und Lukas, in Henke’s Magazin, v. 1. S. 163. Bauer, hebr. Mythol. 2, S. 220.

‡ Exeget. Handb., 1, a. S. 77-80.

§ Ut sup. S. 73.

|| Comp. Schleiermacher uber die Schriften des Lukas, S. 25. is inadequate to the production of ecstatic vehemence, and the act of burning incense is insufficient to cause so extraordinary an excitement, in a priest who has grown old in the service of the temple. Thus Paulus has in fact substituted a miracle of chance for a miracle of God. Should it be said that to God nothing is impossible, or to chance nothing is impossible, both explanations are equally precarious and unscientific.

Indeed, the dumbness of Zacharias as explained from this point of view is very unsatisfactory. For had it been, as according to one explanation, the result of apoplexy; admitting Paulus’s reference to Lev. xxi., 16, to be set aside by the contrary remark of Lightfoot, * still, we must join with Schleiermacher in wondering how Zacharias, notwithstanding this apoplectic seizure, returned home in other respects healthy and vigorous; &@134; and that in spite of partial paralysis his general strength was unimpaired, and his long-cherished hope fulfilled. It must also be regarded as a strange coincidence, that the father’s tongue should have been loosed exactly at the time of the circumcision; for if the recovery of speech is to be considered as the effect of joy, ‡ surely the father must have been far more elated at the birth of the earnestly-desired son, than at the circumcision; for by that time he would have become accustomed to the possession of his child.

The other explanation: that Zacharias’s silence was not from any physical impediment, but from a notion, to be psychologically explained, that he ought not to speak, is in direct contradiction to the words of Luke. What do all the passages, collected by Paulus to show that
o
u
d
u
n
a
m
a
i
may signify not only a positive
non posse
, but likewise a mere
non sustinere
, § prove against the clear meaning of the passage and its context? If perhaps the narrative phrase, (v. 22.)
o
u
k
h
d
u
n
a
t
o
l
a
l
e
s
a
i
a
u
t
o
i
V
might be forced to bear this sense, yet certainly in the supposed vision of Zacharias, had the angel only forbidden him to speak, instead of depriving him of the power of speech, he would not have said:
k
a
i
e
s
h
s
i
w
p
w
n
,
m
h
d
u
n
a
m
e
n
o
V
l
a
l
h
s
a
i
, but
i
s
q
i
s
i
w
p
w
n
m
h
d
'
e
p
i
c
e
i
r
h
s
h
V
l
a
l
h
s
a
i
. The words
d
i
e
m
e
n
e
k
o
f
o
V
(v. 21.) also most naturally mean actual dumbness. This view assumes, and indeed necessarily so, that the gospel history is a correct report of the account given by Zacharias himself; if then it be denied that the dumbness was actual, as Zacharias affirms that actual dumbness was announced to him by the angel, it must be admitted that, though perfectly able to speak, he believed himself to be dumb; which leads to the conclusion that he was mad: an imputation not to be laid upon the father of the Baptist without compulsory evidence in the text.