Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (700 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
11.58Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
41.),-an appellation which could only have been used in a wider sense by one who liad just related tlic miraculous conception,-but all his contemporaries in general, according to our Evangelists, regarded him as a son of Joseph, a fact wliicli was not unfrcqucntly alluded to contemptuously and by way of reproach in his presence (Matt. xiii. 55; Luke iv. 22 ; John vi. 42.), thus affording him an opportunity of making a decisive appeal to his miraculous conception, of wliicli, however, lie says not a single word. Should it, be answered, tliat lie did not desire to convince respecting tlie divinity of his person by this external evidence, and that he could have no liopc of making an impression by such means on those wlio were in heart his opponents,-it must also be remembered, that, according to tlic testimony of the fourth gospel, Ins own disciples, though tlicy admitted him to be the son of God, still regarded him as tlie actual son of Joseph. Pliilip introduces Jesus to Nathaniel as the. son of Joseph, ‘ITJUOVV -w vim ‘\vimffi (John i. 46.), manifestly in tlie same sense of real paternity wliicli tlie Jews attached to tlie designation; and nowhere is tills represented as an erroneous or imperfect notion wliicli tliese Apostles liad subsequently to relinquish ; much rather does the whole sense of the narrative, wliicli is not to be mistaken, exhibit tlie Apostles as having a right belief on this point.
Tlic enigmatical presupposition, with which, at the marriage in Gana, Mary
Tlic enigmatical presupposition, with which, at the marriage in Gana, Mary
,&
view
* This side is particulary considered in der Skiagraphie des Dogma’s von Jrsii Iihernatiirliclier Geburt, in Sciiimrlt’s Bililiotlirk i. 3, S. 400 fi’,; in den lii’merkiiiigcn uber den Olaiibciisiiiinkt: Cliristu.-. i,»t einpf’.inyn voni hcil. Geiat, in Ik’nku’s nriiriii Ma;,’.i„;.. ;,; •.i “i;-> ir . ;„ K,.i^.-’a liilil. ‘i’ln.ul. 1. S. :i31 {,: De Wutlr’s Lilil. Duc-mutik,
CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPEEXATUEAL CHAEACTEE. 121
addressed herself to Jesus,* is far too vague to prove a recollection of his miraculous conception on tlie part of tlie mother; at all events this feature is counterbalanced by the opposing one that tlie family of Jesus, and, as appears from Matt. xii. 46 ff. compared with Mark iii. 21 ff., his mother also were, at a later time, in error respecting Jlis aims ; wliicli is scarcely explicable, even of his brothers, supposing them to have had such recollections.
Just as little as in tlic Gospels, is any tiling in confirmation of the view of tlie supernatural conception of Jesus, to be found in the remaining New Testament writings. For when tlic Apostle Paul speaks of Jesus as made of a woman, yevoi.iEvov (:K yvvainb^ (Gal.
iv. 4.), tills expression is not to be understood as an. exclusion of partcrnal participation; since tlic addition inade zinder the law, •ysvofiEvov v-rb v6[iov, clearly allows tliat lie would here indicate (in tlie form wliicli is frequent in tlie Old and New Testament, for example Job xiv. 1; Matt. xi. 11.) human nature with all its conditions. When Paul (Rom. i. 3. 4. compared with ix. 5.) makes Christ according to the flesh, KaTaadpica, descend from David, but declares him to be tlic son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness, Kara TTVEV^ICI dywavv^c;; no one will here identify the antithesis flesh and spirit witli tlie maternal human participation, and tlie divine energy superseding tlic paternal participation in tlic conception of Jesus.
Finally when in the Epistle to tlic Hebrews (vii. 3.) Mclcinsedec is compared witli the son of God, vw(; -ov OEOV, because n’ithout father, d-rdrup, tlic application of tlic literally interpreted d-rdrwp to Jesus, as lie appeared upon earth, is forbidden by tlie addition without mother dft’q-wfi, wliicli agrees as little witli him as the immediately following without descent, d~yeveaXoyi]-og.
Finally when in the Epistle to tlic Hebrews (vii. 3.) Mclcinsedec is compared witli the son of God, vw(; -ov OEOV, because n’ithout father, d-rdrup, tlic application of tlic literally interpreted d-rdrwp to Jesus, as lie appeared upon earth, is forbidden by tlie addition without mother dft’q-wfi, wliicli agrees as little witli him as the immediately following without descent, d~yeveaXoyi]-og.
§ 27. EETEOSPECT OF THE GENEALOGIES.
THE most conclusive excgctical ground of decision against the supernatural conception of Jesus, which bears more closely on the point than all tlie hitherto adduced passages, is found in tlie two genealogies previously considered. Even tlie Manlchaian Faustus asserted tliat it is impossible witliout contradiction to trace the descent of Jesus from David through Josepli, as is done by our two genealogists, and yet assume that Josepli was not tlic fatlicr of Jesus;
and Augustine liad nothing convincing to answer when lie remarked tliat it was necessary, on account of the superior dignity of tlie masculine gender, to carry tlic genealogy of Jesus through” Joseph, who was Mary’s husband if not by a natural by a spiritual alliance, f In modern times also tlie construction of tlie genealogical tables in Matthew and in Luke has led many theologians to observe, tliat these authors considered Jesus as tlie actual son of Joseph, t The
* liron^lit to bear upon this point by Neander L. J. Cli., S. 12. Aue-ustinus contra FaustiimM.inidiaeiiin L. 23. 3. 4. 8. f’See Schmidt, ydileicrmafher, and Wegscheider,
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
very design of tlicse tables is to prove Jesus to be of tlie lineage of David through Joseph ; but what do they prove, if indeed Josepli was not tlie lather of Jesus ? The assertion tliat Jesus was the son of David, nof ^av’iS, which in Matthew (i. 1.) prefaces the genealogy and announces its object, is altogether annulled by tlie subsequent denial of his conception by means of tlie Davidical Joseph. It is impossible, therefore, to think it probable tliat the genealogy and the history of tlie birth of Jesus emanate from tlie same author;*
and we must concur with the theologians previously cited, tliat the genealogies arc taken from a dincrent source. Scarcely could it satisfy to oppose the remark, tliat as Joseph doubtlessly adopted Jesus, the genealogical table of tlie former became fully valid for tlie latter.
Eor adoption might indeed suffice to secure to the adopted son tho reversion of certain external family rights and inheritances; but such a relationship could in no wise lend a claim to tlie Messianic dignity, which was attached to tlie true blood and lineage of David.
lie, therefore, wlio liad regarded Joseph as nothing more than tlie adopted father of Jesus, would hardly liave given himself the trouble to seek out tlie Davidical descent of Josepli; but if indeed, besides tlie cstablislied belief that Jesns was tlie son of Crod, it still remained important to represent him as tlie son of David, tlie pedigree of Mary would have been preferred tor this purpose ; for, however contrary to custom, tlie maternal genealogy must have been admitted in a case where a human father did not exist. Least of all i.s it to be believed, that several authors would have engaged in tlie compilation of a genealogical table for Jesus which traced his descent through.
0
00
00
Joseph, so tliat two different genealogies of this kind are still preserved to us, if a closer relationship between Jesua and Joseph had not been admitted at tlie time of their composition.
Conseduently, tlie decision of the learned theologians who agree that these genealogies were composed in tlie belief tliat Jesus was the actual son of Josepli and Mary, can hardly be disputed; but the authors or compilers of our gospels, notwithstanding their own conviction of the divine origin of Jesus, received them among their materials; only tliat Mattliew (i. 1G.) changed the original Joseph begat Jesus of Mary-’IMO/)^) de ly&vvrjOE ~bv ‘\i]<5mv KK. -;yc ^ii.piag (comp. verses 3. 5. (i.) according to his own view; and so likewise Luke (iii. 23.) instead of commencing his genealogy simply with, Jesus-tlie son of Jw:-p!t-’\i]awc; v’wc; ‘Iw!^, inserts being as w(is
Supposed^ UV, d)(; KVOfU^KTO K. T. /L.
Let it not be objected that tlie view for which ~WQ contend, namely, tliat the genealogies could not have been composed under tlie notion tliat Josepli was not tlie father of Jesus, leaves no conceivable motive for incorporating them into our present gospels. Tlie original construction of a genealogy of Jesus, even though in tlie case before us is consisted simply in tlie adapting’ of foreign already cx
* F.iiilihorn thinks this probable, Einl. in (las N. T, i. S. 425, De Wette possible,
COXCEPTIOX OF JESL’S-ITS SLTEEX.VTURAL CIIAEACTEE. 123
isting genealogical tables to Jesus, required a powerful and direct inducement: this was the hope thereby to gain-the corporeal descent of Jesus from Joseph being presupposed- a main support to the belief in his Messiahship ; whilst, on tlie other hand, a less powerful inducement was sufficient to incite to tlie admission of tlie previously constructed genealogies : the expectation tliat, notwithstanding the non-existence of any real relationship between Josepli and Jesus, they might nevertheless serve to link Jesus to David. Thus we find, tliat in the histories of the birth botli in Mattliew and in Luke, tliougli tlicy cadi decidedly exclude Joseph from the conception, great stress is laid upon the Davidical descent of Joseph (M-att. i. 20, Luke i. 27, ii. 4); tliat which in fact Lad no’real significance, except in connexion with tlie earlier opinion, is retained even after the point of view is changed.
Since, in this way, we discover both the genealogies to be memorials belonging to tlie time and circle of tlie primitive church, in which Jesus was still regarded as a naturally begotten man, the sect of tlie Ebionites cannot fail to occur to us ; as we are told concerning them, tliat they held this view of the person of Christ at this early period * We should therefore liave expected, more especially, to have found tlicse genealogies in the old Ebionitish gospels, of which we liave still knowledge, and arc not a little surprised to learn that precisely in tlicse gospels tlie genealogies were wanting.
It is true Epiphanius states that tlie gospel of tlie Ebionites commenced witli tlie public appearance of tlie Baptist; f accordingly, by the genealogies, y&wa/loyfaic, wliicli tlicy are said to have cut away, might liave been meant, tliosc histories of tlie birth and infancy comprised in tlie two first chapters of Matthew; wliicli tlicy could not liave adopted in their present form, since they contained tlie fatherless conception of Jesus, wliicli was denied by the Ebionites:
It is true Epiphanius states that tlie gospel of tlie Ebionites commenced witli tlie public appearance of tlie Baptist; f accordingly, by the genealogies, y&wa/loyfaic, wliicli tlicy are said to have cut away, might liave been meant, tliosc histories of tlie birth and infancy comprised in tlie two first chapters of Matthew; wliicli tlicy could not liave adopted in their present form, since they contained tlie fatherless conception of Jesus, wliicli was denied by the Ebionites:
genealogies, might liave
and it might also have been conjectured that tills section which was in opposition to their system had alone perhaps been wanting in tlicir gospel; and tliat tlie genealogy wliieli was in harmony with tlieir view might nevertheless liave been somewhere inserted.
But tills supposition vanishes as soon as we find that Epiphanius in reference to the Nazarcncs, defines the genealogies, (of wliicli he is ignorant whether tlicy possessed them or not, as reachiizg from Abraham to CVt/’isf, Ta<; aTo TOV’A.[3paw we; Xpi.
But tills supposition vanishes as soon as we find that Epiphanius in reference to the Nazarcncs, defines the genealogies, (of wliicli he is ignorant whether tlicy possessed them or not, as reachiizg from Abraham to CVt/’isf, Ta<; aTo TOV’A.[3paw we; Xpi.
How is tlie strange phenomenon, tliat these genealogies are not
p -i
0-L ‘
00
0-L ‘
00
loiinit among tliat very sect of Christians wdio retained tlie particular opinion upon wliicli they were constructed, to be explained ? A
modern investigator lias advanced tlie supposition, tliat the Jcwish
^Jnstin.
Mart, Dial, cum Tryphone, 48; Orignes contra CelsumL.
5, 51, Euseb,
Mart, Dial, cum Tryphone, 48; Orignes contra CelsumL.
5, 51, Euseb,
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Christians omitted the genealogical tables from prudential motives, in order not to facilitate or augment the persecution which, under Domitian, and perhaps even earlier, threatened the family of David.*
But explanations, having no inherent connexion with the subject, derived from circumstances in them selves of doubtful historical validity, are admissible only as a last refuge, when no possible solution of the questionable phenomenon is to be found in tlie thing itself, as here in tlie principles of tlie Ebionitish system.
Other books
The Frog Earl by Carola Dunn
Naughty by Nature by Brenda Hampton
Zel: Markovic MMA by Roxie Rivera
Planet Urth by Martucci, Jennifer, Martucci, Christopher
One Perfect Pirouette by Sherryl Clark
Alpha Trio 3: A Special Taste by Ana Vela
Pentecost Alley by Anne Perry
Dark Game (Merikh Book 1) by C L Walker
White Space by Ilsa J. Bick
Copenhagen by Michael Frayn