Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (697 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
11.48Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
speaks altogether as if his communication were tlie first in tins affair: he neither refers to the message previously received by Mary, nor reproaches Joseph because he had not believed it; but more
* Augustiu, de coasens. enangtiist, U. 5.
 
•)• Paulas, Olshausen, Fritzsche, Coiiim. in Tu’-tn, „ r.i; + r’nnin do Wct.t.K’a exes*. IIandbuch i. 1, S. lt>. S-irhltiicrinaclier uber
.CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 109
 
tlian all, the informing Joseph of the name of the expected child, and the giving him a full detail of the reasons wdly he should be so called, (Matt. i. 21.) would have been wholly superfluous liad the angel (according to Luke i. 31.) already indicated this name to Mary.
 
Still more incomprehensible is the conduct of the betrothed parties according to this arrangement of events. Had Mary been visited by an angel, who had made known to her an approaching supernatural pregnancy, would not tlie first impulse of a delicate woman liave been, to hasten to impart to her betrothed the import of the divine message, and by tills means to anticipate the humiliating discovery of her situation, and an injurious suspicion on the part of her affianced husband. But exactly this discovery Mary allows Joseph to make from others, and thus excites suspicions ; for it is evident that the expression evpiOrj ev •yocr-p’t g^owo (Matth. i.
18.) signifies a discovery made independent of any communication oh Mary’s part, and it is equally clear that in this manner only does Joseph obtain the knowledge of her situation, since his conduct is represented as the result of that discovery (evpiaKsoOai\.
 
The apocryphal Protevangdmm Jacobi felt how enigmatical Mary’s conduct must appear, and sought to solve the difficulty in a manner wdiich, contemplated from the supranaturalistic point of view, is, perhaps the most consistent. Had Mary retained a recollection of the import of the heavenly message-upon this point the whole ingenious representation of the apocryphal gospel rests-she ought to liave imparted it to Joseph; but since it is obvious from Joseph’s demeanour that she did not acquaint him with it, the only remaining alternative is, to admit tliat tlie mysterious communication made to Mary had, owing to her excited state of mind, escaped her memory, and that she was herself ignorant of the true cause of her pregnancy.* In fact, nothing is left to supranaturalisra in the present case but to seek refuge in the miraculous and the incomprehensible.
Tlie attempts which the modern theologians of this class have made to explain Mary’s silence, and even to find in it an admirable trait in her character, are so many rash and abortive efforts to make a virtue of necessity. According to liessf it must have cost Mary much self-denial to have concealed the communication of the angel •from Joseph; and this reserve, in a matter known only to herself and to God, must be regarded as a proof of lier firm trust in God.
Without doubt Mary communed thus with herself: It is not without a purpose tliat this apparition has been made to me alone, liad it been intended that Josepli sliould liave participated in tlie communication, the angel would have appeared to him also (if each individual favoured with a divine revelation were of this opinion, how many special revelations would it not require?); besides it is an affair of
* Protev. Jac. c. 12 : Map(U|U St. i-iTcAai^ero TUV ^varftp’MV uv sl^e irpof avrrjv Ta”pt%3.. Wliun questioned by Josepli she assures him with tears: ou yivuaw, wfliv earl TOVTO T-A iv rg yaorpt fiov. c. 13.
 
f. Geschichte dur drci letzten Lebeuajalire Jesu u. a. w.
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
God alone, consequently it becomes me to leave it witli him to convince Joseph (tlie argument of indolence). Olshauscn concurs, and adds his favourite general remark, tliat in relation to events so extraordinary tlic measure of the ordinary occurrences of tlie world is not applicable: a category under which, in tins instance, the highly essential considerations of delicacy and propriety arc included.
 
More in accordance with tlie views of tlic natural interpreters, the Evanydimn de nativitate Marm* and subsequently some later writers, for example, tlic author of tlic natural history of tlic great prophet of Nazareth, have sought to explain Mary’s silence, by supposin0’ Joseph to have been at a distance from tlie abode of his atlianccd bride at tlic time of the heavenly communication. Accordin”- to them Mary was of Nazareth, Joseph of Bethlehem ; to which latter place Joseph departed after tlie betrothing, and did not return to Mary until tlic expiration of three months; when lie discovered the pregnancy which had taken place in the interim. But since tlic assumption that Mary and Joseph resided in different localities lias no foundation, as will presently be seen, in tlic canonical gospels, tlie whole explanation falls to tlie ground. Without such an assumption, Mary’s silence towards Joseph miglit, perhaps, liave been accounted for from tlic point of view of tlic naturalistic interpreters, Ly imagining her to have been held back through modesty from.
confessing a situation so liable to excite suspicion. But one wlio, like Mary, was so fully convinced of the divine agency in tlic matter, and liad shown so ready a comprehension of her mysterious destination (Luke i. 38.) could not possibly have been tongue-tied by petty considerations of false shame.
 
Consequently, ir order to rescue Mary’s character, without ‘bringin”- reproach upon Joseph’s, and at the same time to render his unbelief intelligible, interpreters have been compelled to assume that a communication, though a tardy one, was actually made by Mary, to Joscpli. Like tlie last-named apocryphal gospel, they introduce a journey, not of Josepli, but of Mary-tlic visit to Elizabeth mentioned in Luke-to account, for tlic postponement of tlic communication. It is probable, says Paulus, that Mary did not open her heart to Joscpli before this journey, because she wished rirst to consult “with her older friend as to tlie mode of making tlie disclosure to him, and whether she, as tlie. mother of the Messiah, ouglit to marry.
 
It \vas not till after her return, and tlicn most likely through the medium of others, tliat slie made Joscpli acquainted witli her situation, and with the promises she liad received. But Joseph’s mind was not properly attuned and prepared for such a disclosure;
 
he became haunted by all kinds of thoughts; and vacillated between suspicion and hope till a length a dream, (lecidod him.t But in tlie nrst place a motive is here given to Mary’s journey which is forei”-n to tlie account in Luke. Mary sets off to Elizabeth, not
CONCEPTION OF JESUS--ITS SUPEENATUEAL CHAEACTEE. Ill
to take counsel of her, but to assure herself regarding the sign appointed by tlie angel. No uneasiness which the friend is to dissipate, but a proud joy, unalloyed by the smallest anxiety, is expressed in her salutation to the future mother of tlic Baptist. But besides, a confession so tardily made can in nowise justify Mary.
What behaviour on tlie part of an affianced bride-after having received a ‘divine communication, so nearly concerning her future husband, and in a matter so delicate-to travel miles away, to absent herself for three months, and tlien to permit her betrothed to learn through third persons that which could no longer be concealed!
 
Those, therefore, wdio do not impute to Mary a line of conduct which ccrtaiiily our Evangelists do not impute to her, must allow tliat. slie imparted tlie message of the angel to her future husband as soon as it liad been revealed to her; but tliat lie did not believe her.* But now let us sec how Joscpli’s character is to be dealt witli! Even lless is of opinion tliat, since Joseph was acquainted with Mary, lie liad no cause to doubt her word, when slie told him of the apparition she liad liad. Tills scepticism presupposes a mistrust of his betrothed wliicli is incompatible witli his character as a just man (Matt. i. 19.) and an incredulity respcctino- the marvellous wliicli is difficult to reconcile with a readiness on other occasions to believe in angelic apparitions; nor, in any case, would this want of faith have escaped the censure of tlie angel who subsequently appeared to himself.
 
Since then, to suppose tliat tlie two accounts are parallel, and complete one another, leads unavoidably to results inconsistent with tlie sense of the Gospels, in so far as they evidently meant to represent tlic characters of Joseph and Mary as free from blemish;
 
tlic supposition cannot be admitted, but the accounts mutually exclude cadi other. An angel did not appear, first to Mary, and also afterwards to Josepli; he can only have appeared either to tlie one or to tlic oilier.
 
Consequently, it is only tlic ore or tlie other relation wliicli can be, regarded as historical. And here different considerations would conduct to opposite decisions.
 
The history in Matthew miglit appear tlic more probable from tlic rationalistic point of view, because it is more easy to interpret naturally an apparition in a dream; whilst that in Luke miglit be preferred by the supranaturalistic, because the manner in wliicli tlic suspicion cast upon the holy virgin is refuted is more worthy of God. But in fact, a.
nearer examination proves, tliat neither lias any essential claim to be advanced before tlie other. Botli contain an angelic apparition, and both are therefore encumbered witli all tlic difficulties wliicli, as was stated above in relation to the annunciation of the birth of tlio Baptist, oppose tlie belief in angels and apparitions. Again, in. both narrations the import of tlie angelic message is, as v/e sliall presently see, an impossibility. . Thus every criterion wliicli might determine the adoption of the one, and the rejection of tlie other, dis
lation wliicli can be, regarded as historical.
 
112 THE LIFE OF JE8US.
 
appears; and we find ourselves, in reference to both accounts, driven Tback by necessity to the mythical view.
 
From this point of view, all the various explanations, which the Rationalists have attempted to give of the two apparitions, vanish of them selves.
 
Paulus explains the apparition in Matthew as a natural dream, occasioned Tby Mary’s previous communication of the.
announcement which liad been made to her; and witli wliicli Joseph must have been acquainted, because this alone can account for Ills having heard tlie same words in his dream, which tlic angel had beforehand addressed to Mary: but much rather, is it precisely tins similarity in the language of tlie presumed second angel to tliat of the first, witli the absence of all reference by tlic latter to the former, which proves that the words of tlie first angel were not presupposed by tlie second. Besides, tlie natural explanation is annihilated the moment tlic narratives are shown to be mythical. The same remark applies to the explanation, expressed guardedly indeed by Paulas, but openly by the author of the “Natural history of the great prophet of Nazareth,” namely, that the angel who visited Mary (in Luke) was a human being; of which we must speak hereafter.
 
According to all tliat has been said, the following is the only judgment we can form of the origin of tlie two narratives of the angelic apparitions. Tlie conception of Jesus through tlie power of the Holy Ghost ought not to be grounded upon a mere uncertain suspicion; it must have been clearly and positively asserted; and to flits end a messenger from heaven was required, since theocratic decorum seemed to demand it far more in relation to the birth of the Messiali, than of a Samson or a John. Also the words which the angels use, correspond in part witli tlie Old Testament annunciations of extraordinary children.* The appearing of tlie angel in tlic one narrative beforehand to Mary, but in the other at a later period to Joseph, is to be regarded as a variation in tlie legend or in the composition, which finds an explanatory counterpart in the history of tlie annunciation of Isaac.
 
Jehovah (Gen. xvii. 15.)
promises Abraham a son by Sarah, upon which tlie Patriarch cannot refrain from laughing; but he receives a repetition of the assurance ; Jehovah (Gen. xviii. 1, ft.) makes this promise under the Terebinth tree at Mamre, and Sarah laughs as if it were something altogether novel and unheard of by her; lastly, according to Gen.

Other books

The World Series by Stephanie Peters
A Class Apart by Susan Lewis
Rocking Horse War by Lari Don
A Gentleman Undone by Cecilia Grant
A Ripple From the Storm by Doris Lessing
The City of Ember by Jeanne DuPrau
The Long Run by Leo Furey