Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (701 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.84Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
But in tills case the matter is by no means so difficult. It is known that tlie Fathers speak of two classes of Ebionites, of which tlie one, besides strenuously maintaining the obligation of tlie Mosaic law, lield Jesus to be tlie naturally begotten Son of Joseph and Marv; the other, from that time called also Nazarcncs, admitted witli the orthodox church tlie conception by tlie Holy Ghost.f But besides this distinction there existed yet another.
Tlie most ancient ecclesiastic writers, Justin Martyr and Irenanis for example, are acquainted with tliose Ebionites only, who regarded Jesus as a naturally born man first endowed with divine powers at his baptism. ^
Tlie most ancient ecclesiastic writers, Justin Martyr and Irenanis for example, are acquainted with tliose Ebionites only, who regarded Jesus as a naturally born man first endowed with divine powers at his baptism. ^
In Epiphanius and tlie Clementine Homilies, on the other liand, we meet with Ebionites wlio liad imbibed an element of speculative -Gnosticism.
This tendency, which according to Epiphanius is to be dated from one Elxai, has been ascribed to Esscnic intlucncc,§
This tendency, which according to Epiphanius is to be dated from one Elxai, has been ascribed to Esscnic intlucncc,§
and traces of tlie same have been discovered in the heresies referred to in tlie Epistle to tlie Colossians; whereas the first class of Ebionites evidently proceeded from Common Judaism. Which form of opinion was the earlier and which tlie later developed is not so easily determined; witli reference to the last detailed difference, it might seem, since tlie speculative Ebionites arc mentioned first by tlie Clementines and Epiphanius, wliilst Ebionites holding a simpler view are spoken of by Justin and by IreiiEcus, that tlie latter were tlie earlier; nevertheless as Tertullian already notices in his time the Gnosticising tendency of the opinions of tlie Ebionites respecting Christ, 1| and as tlie germ of such views existed among the Esscnes in tlie time of Jesus, the more probable assumption is, tliat both opinions arose side by side about the same period. IT As little can it be proved witli regard to the other difference, that the views concerning Christ held by the Nazarencs became first, at a later period, lowered to tliose of tlie Ebionites ;’’’* since tlie notices, partly confused and partly of late date, of tlie ecclesiastical waiters, may be naturally explained as arising out of what may be called an optical delusion of tlie church, which,-wliilst slie in fact made con
* Credner, in (k’n Pn’itragen zur Einleitung in das N. T. 1, S. 443. A.nm.
^ Orig.
^ Orig.
lit sup,
^ !Sec NraiKk’r, K. G. 1; 2, S. G15 f. § Credner, liber Essener und Eliionifen mid cinen theilwrisen Kusaninieiihaiig beider. in Winer’s Zeitschrit’t f. wissunsuliat’tlirhe Theologie, 1. Bd. ^itcs uinl 3tes Keft; sec nailer, Frof/i: de Ebzonltarain orif/itie t’f doclritia ab A’.s,5(-«^ repftfiidit, und christl. Gnosis, S. 4U3.
|| De carne Christi, c. 14 : 1’olerif- h(ec opinio coiH’euii’e, qui ntidit,in honwtcm, e; tanf/nn ex yemme David, i. e. noil et Dei jilium, cwistilult Jv.-ncit, ut i/z illo anyl/im J’u’ifse niiratt
^J Iseandcr and Schneckcnburg.’r are ^ tlii- l,itti.r dicaeler and Crednrr of tlie former opinion.
** I here refer to til” account
^ !Sec NraiKk’r, K. G. 1; 2, S. G15 f. § Credner, liber Essener und Eliionifen mid cinen theilwrisen Kusaninieiihaiig beider. in Winer’s Zeitschrit’t f. wissunsuliat’tlirhe Theologie, 1. Bd. ^itcs uinl 3tes Keft; sec nailer, Frof/i: de Ebzonltarain orif/itie t’f doclritia ab A’.s,5(-«^ repftfiidit, und christl. Gnosis, S. 4U3.
|| De carne Christi, c. 14 : 1’olerif- h(ec opinio coiH’euii’e, qui ntidit,in honwtcm, e; tanf/nn ex yemme David, i. e. noil et Dei jilium, cwistilult Jv.-ncit, ut i/z illo anyl/im J’u’ifse niiratt
^J Iseandcr and Schneckcnburg.’r are ^ tlii- l,itti.r dicaeler and Crednrr of tlie former opinion.
** I here refer to til” account
CONCEPTION Of JESUS-IT8 SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 125
tinual advances in the glorification of Christ, but a part of the Jewish Christians remained stationary,-made it appear to her as if she herself remained stationary, wliilst the others fell back into
heresy. :•
By thus distinguishing tlie simple and the speculative Ebionites, so much is gained, that tlie failure of tlie genealogies among the latter class, mentioned by Epiphanius, docs not prove them to have been also wanting among tlie former.And the less if we should be able to make it appear probable, that tlie grounds of their aversion to the genealogical table, and the grounds of distinction between them and tlie other class of Ebionites, were identical. One of tliese grounds was evidently the unfavourable opinion, which the Ebionites of Epiphanius and of tlie Clementine Homilies liad of David, from whom tlie genealogy traces tlie descent of Jesus. It is well known tliat they distinguished in tlie Old Testament a twofold prophecy, male and female, pure and impure, of which the former only promised tilings heavenly and true, tlie latter things earthly and delusive; that proceeding from Adam and Abel, this from Eve and Cain; and both constituted and under current through the wliole history of the revelation.” It was only the pious men from Adam to Joshua whom they acknowledged as true prophets:
the later prophets and men of God, among whom David and Solomon are named, were not only not recognized, but abhorred, f We even find positive indications tliat David was an object of their particular aversion. There were many tilings which created in them a detestation of David (and Solomon). David was a bloody warrior;
but to slied blood -was, according to the doctrines of these Ebionites, oue of tlie greatest of sins; David w^s known to have committed adultery, (Solomon to have been a voluptuary); and adultery was even more detested by this sect than murder. David was a performer on stringed instruments; tills art, the invention of the Canaanites (Gen. iv. 21.), was held by these Ebionites to be a sign of false prophecy; finally, tlie prophecies announced by David and those connected with him, (and Solomon,) ha’d reference to the kingdoms of this world, of which tlie Gnosticising Ebionites desired to know notliing4 Now the Ebionites who had sprung from common Judaism could not have shared this ground of aversion to the genealogies; since to i the orthodox Jew David was an object of the highest veneration.
Concerning a second point the notices are not so lucid and accordant as they should be; namely, whether it was a further development of the general Ebionitish doctrine concerning tlie person
•*• Hornil. 3, 23-37. f Epiphan. haeres, 30, 18. comp. 15, }: That these were the traits in David^s character, which displeased the Christian sect in question, is sufficiently evident from a passage in the Clementine Homilies, though, the name is not given ; Homil»
3, 25 : en p)v Kal ol UTTO TI/C TOVTOV (rpfi Kuiv) dtadoy/c irpoeAtf^ufforef Tpuroi. fioi^ol £}fVOVTO, Kal ifia’^TfJpia, nai ncSupal, Hat ^aAxcif oTrAor Trof.efieim.iv k’/ivavTo. Ai 6 nai ^ r£n£Yy6vuv Trpo^y/rfta, uoi^uv aal TJ/a^rTfpluv yiuovaa^ ^•a.v’Qa.vovTfJf; 6iu ~L}T ^SvTTa^Eiuv u^ TOI’S
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
of the Christ, which led. these Ebionites to reject tlie genealogies.
According to Epiphanius, they •fully rccognizecl tlie Gnostic distinction between Jesus the son of Joscpli and Mary, and tlie Christ who descended upon him ;’“ and consequently miglit have been withheld from referring tlie genealogy to Jesus only perhaps by their abhorrence of David.
On tlie other liand, from tlie wliole tenor of tlie Clementines, and from one passage in particular,! it lias recently been inferred, and not without apparent reason, tliat the author of tlicse writings had himself abandoned the view of a natural conception, and even birth of Jesus ; ^ whereby it is yet more manifest that tlie ground of the rejection of the genealogies by tills sect was peculiar to it, and not common to tlie oilier Ebionites.
On tlie other liand, from tlie wliole tenor of tlie Clementines, and from one passage in particular,! it lias recently been inferred, and not without apparent reason, tliat the author of tlicse writings had himself abandoned the view of a natural conception, and even birth of Jesus ; ^ whereby it is yet more manifest that tlie ground of the rejection of the genealogies by tills sect was peculiar to it, and not common to tlie oilier Ebionites.
Moreover positive indications, that the Ebionites wlio proceeded from Judaism possessed the genealogies, do not entirely fail. Whilst the Ebionites of Epiphanius and of the Clementines called Jesus only Son of God, but rejected tlie appellation Son of David, as belonging to tlie common opinion of tlie Jews; § other Ebionites were censured by tlie Fathers for recognizing Jesus only as tlie Son of David, to whom he is traced in the genealogies, and not likewise as tlie Son of Grod. || Further, Epiphanius relates of tlie earliest Judaising G-nostics Ccrinthus and Carpocrates, that theY used a gospel tlie same in other respects indeed as tlie Ebionites, but that they adduced tlie genealogies, which they therefore read in the same, in attestation of the human conception of Jesus by Joseph.*!
Also tlie dTTc>iwr]iJ,oveviJ,a-a cited by Justin, and which originated upon JudaM-christian ground, appear to have contained a genealogy similar to that in our Matthew; since Justin as well as Mattliew speaks, in relation to Jesus, of a yevoi; -rov i\aftl6 K.OA. ‘A,3pa£Ut, of a (JTEpf.ia f^
‘Icu£G);3, S’LO, ‘lov6a, K.al ape^ sal ‘leava’i nw, Aa;31d na-ep^ofiEvov ;** only that at tlie time, and in the circle of Justin, tlie opinion of a supernatural conception of Jesus had already suggested tlie reference of
the genealogy to Mary, instead of to Josepli.
Hence it appears that we have in tlie genealogies a memorial, agreeing with indications from other sources, of the fact that in the very earliest Christian age, in Palestine, a body of Christians, numerous enough to establish upon distinct fundamental opinions two different Messianic tables of descent, considered Jesus to have been a naturally conceived human being. And no proof is furnished to us in tlie apostolic writings, that the Apostles would have declared
* Epiphan, IIaer, 30, 14. 16. 34,
f IIomil, 3, 17, t Sclmeckenburger, iilier das Evangelium der Aegypter, S. 7; Bauer, christlk’hc Gnosis, S. 7ti0 ft’.
See on tlie other side Crcdner und IIott’niann. § Orig. Comm. in Matth. T. 16. 13. Tertullian, 1)^ carne Christi, 14, S. Amn. 13 (a passage in which indeed the speculative and ordinary Ehionites are mingled together). || Clement, homil. IS, 13. They referred the words of Mattli.
f IIomil, 3, 17, t Sclmeckenburger, iilier das Evangelium der Aegypter, S. 7; Bauer, christlk’hc Gnosis, S. 7ti0 ft’.
See on tlie other side Crcdner und IIott’niann. § Orig. Comm. in Matth. T. 16. 13. Tertullian, 1)^ carne Christi, 14, S. Amn. 13 (a passage in which indeed the speculative and ordinary Ehionites are mingled together). || Clement, homil. IS, 13. They referred the words of Mattli.
xi. 27 : ovSc’i^ ?yvu rov irarcpa, el fiff 6 vlAc t. T. ‘k. to rat’s naTEpa vop.i!,ovTaf Xpiarov rOv ^aptS, Kal auTov (^ rov ^pc-^rov vlov ovra^ /cat vlov ‘Oeov f^ e^i-’u/vorar, and cumplaiiu-d that alri TOV •Scov rov Aa,3«i vu.vrc.i; c^eyov. ^ Hacres, 30, 14-: o ft’sv yup V.i/pivf)o(; Kal KapTTOKpaf TU avT(-> ;t’p6/2fi’cii irap’ avTOlf; (TO(C ‘E/3iui-’aioif) cva-y-fellu, UTTO rf/s ap.vc TOU KarH
“/ ^
i-..--. ..„,.„„,, ^ n^rit)nnrcir ‘l(.)(T7’/ffl KO.I Ma
i-..--. ..„,.„„,, ^ n^rit)nnrcir ‘l(.)(T7’/ffl KO.I Ma
CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 127
this doctrine to be unchristian: it appeared so first from the point of view adopted by the authors of the histories of the birth in the first and third Gospels: notwithstanding which however, it is treated with surprising lenity by the Fathers of tlie church.
§ 28. NATURAL EXPLANATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTION.
IF, as appears from the foregoing statements, so many weighty difficulties, philosophical as well as exegetical, beset the supranaturalistic explanation, it is well worth while to examine whether it be not possible to give an interpretation of the gospel history which shall obviate these objections. Recourse lias been had to tlie natural explanation, and tlie two narratives singly and coniointly have been successively subjected to the rationalistic mode of interpretation.
In the first place, tlie account in Matthew seemed susceptible of sucli an interpretation. Numerous rabbinical passages were cited to demonstrate, tliat it was consonant witli Jewish notions to consider a son of pious parents to be conceived by the divine co-operation, and tliat he should be called the son of tlie Holy Spirit, without its being ever imagined that paternal participation was thereby excluded. It was consequently contended, that tlie section in Matthew represented merely the intention of tlie angel to inform Joseph, not indeed tliat Mary had become pregnant in the absence of all human intercourse, but that notwithstanding her pregnancy she was to be regarded as pure, not as one fallen from virtue. It was maintained that the exclusion of paternal participation-which is an embellishment of the original representation-occurs first in Luke in the words dviSpa ov ywuaub) (i. 34.)’“ When however tills view was justly opposed by the remark, tliat the expression Trp’iv ^
ovve.\Q€w dv-ova in Matthew (i. 18) decidedly excludes tlie participation of the only individual in question, namely Joseph; it was then thought possible to prove that even in Luke the paternal exclusion was not so positive: but truly this could be done only by an unexegetical subversion of’the clear sense of the words, or else by uncritically tin-owing suspicion on a part of a well-connected narrative. The first expedient is to interpret Mary’s inquiry of tlie angel i. 34, thus: Can I who am already betrothed and married give birth to tlie Messiah, for as tlie mother of tlie Messiah I must have no husband? whereupon the angel replies, tliat God, through his power, could make something distinguished even of the cliild conceived of her and Joseph.f The other proceeding is no less arbitrary. Mary’s inquiry of the angel is explained as an unnatural interruption of his communication, which being abstracted, the pas
Other books
His Royal Secret by Lilah Pace
Messed Up by Molly Owens
My Charming Stepbrother by Grace Valentine
The Salvagers by John Michael Godier
Catnip (Dunbarton Mysteries Book 1) by Valerie Tate
Beneath the Secrets, Part Two (Tall, Dark & Deadly) by Lisa Renee Jones
And One Wore Gray by Heather Graham
Thirty-Four and a Half Predicaments: Rose Gardner Mystery #7 by Denise Grover Swank
Karavans by Jennifer Roberson
Blind Needle by Trevor Hoyle