Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (702 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
5.55Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
* Br . . ., die Nachricht, dass Jesus durch den heil. Gcist und von einer Jungfrau geboten sci, aus Zcitbegrift’en eriautert. In Schmidt’s Bibl. 1, 1. S. 101 ft’.-Horst, in Henkc’s Museum 1, 4, 497 ft’., uber die beiden ersten Kapitel in Evang. Lukas.f Benierkungen iibcr den Glaubcnspunkt: Christus ist empt’angen vom heil. Geist. In Henke’s
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
sage is found to contain no decided ihtimation of the su.pematu.ral
conception.*
It” consequently, the difficulty of the natural explanation of the
two accounts be equally great, still, with respect to both it must be alike attempted or rejected; and for the consistent Rationalist, a Paulus for example, tlic latter is tlie only course. Tins commentator considers the participation of Josepli indeed excluded by Matt. i. 18, but by no means that of every oilier man ; neither can lie find a supernatural divine intervention in tlie expression of Luke i. 35. The.
JIoly Ghost ~rvEvT]a aytov is not with him objective, an external influence operating upon Mary, but her own pious imagination. Tlie power of the Highest-Swap.^ v^iarov is not tlie immediate divine omnipotence, but everv natural power employed in a manner pleasing to God may be so called. Consequently, according to Paulus, the meaning of tlic angelic announcement is simply tills: prior to her union with Joseph, Mary, under the influence of a pure enthusiasm in sacred things on tlie one hand, and by a human co-operation pleasing to God on the other, became the mother of a cliild who on account of tills holy origin was to be called a son of God.
Let us examine rather more accurately the view which this representative of rationalistic interpretation takes of tlie particulars of the conception of Jesus. He begins with Elizabetli, tlie patriotic and wise daughter of Aaron, as he styles her.
She, having conceived the hope that slie might give birth to one of God’s prophets, naturally desired moreover that he might be the first of prophets, the forerunner of the Messiah; and that the latter also might speedily be bom. Now there was among lier own kinsfolk a person suited in every respect for the mother of the Messiah, Mary, a young virgin, a descendant of David; nothing more was needful than to inspire her likewise with such a special hope. Whilst these intimations prepare us to anticipate a cleverly concerted plan on the part of Elizabeth in reference to her young relative, in which we hope to become initiated; Paulus here suddenly lets fall tlie curtain, and remarks, that the exact manner in which Mary was convinced that she should become the mother of the Messiah must be left historically undetermined; thus much only is certain, that Mary remained pure, for slic could not with a clear conscience have stationed herself, as she afterwards did, under tlie Cross of her Son, had slie felt that a reproach rested on her concerning the origin of the hopes she had entertained of him. The following is the only hint subsequently given of the particular view held by Paulus. It is probable, he thinks, that the angelic messenger visited Mary in the evening or even at night; indeed according to tlie correct reading of Luke i. 28, which has not the word angel, ical elae^Ouv Trpbg MTTJV elwe, without 6 cy-yg/loc, the evangelist here speaks only of some one who had come in. (As if in this case, the participle elae^Ow must not ncces---.-----’i i..,.T-5/.. m. in the absence of tlic pronoun be
She, having conceived the hope that slie might give birth to one of God’s prophets, naturally desired moreover that he might be the first of prophets, the forerunner of the Messiah; and that the latter also might speedily be bom. Now there was among lier own kinsfolk a person suited in every respect for the mother of the Messiah, Mary, a young virgin, a descendant of David; nothing more was needful than to inspire her likewise with such a special hope. Whilst these intimations prepare us to anticipate a cleverly concerted plan on the part of Elizabeth in reference to her young relative, in which we hope to become initiated; Paulus here suddenly lets fall tlie curtain, and remarks, that the exact manner in which Mary was convinced that she should become the mother of the Messiah must be left historically undetermined; thus much only is certain, that Mary remained pure, for slic could not with a clear conscience have stationed herself, as she afterwards did, under tlie Cross of her Son, had slie felt that a reproach rested on her concerning the origin of the hopes she had entertained of him. The following is the only hint subsequently given of the particular view held by Paulus. It is probable, he thinks, that the angelic messenger visited Mary in the evening or even at night; indeed according to tlie correct reading of Luke i. 28, which has not the word angel, ical elae^Ouv Trpbg MTTJV elwe, without 6 cy-yg/loc, the evangelist here speaks only of some one who had come in. (As if in this case, the participle elae^Ow must not ncces---.-----’i i..,.T-5/.. m. in the absence of tlic pronoun be
CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. . 12!)
referred to the subject, the angel Gabriel-6 ayyeXw; Taftpi^X, v. 26.!)
Paulus adds: tliat this visitant was the angel Gabriel was the sulisequcnt suggestion of Mary’s own mind, after slic had lieard of the
vision of Zacharias.
G abler in a review of Paulus’s Commentary* lias fully exposed.
•with commensurate plainness of speech, tlie transaction which lies concealed under tins explanation. It is impossible, says lie, to imagine any other interpretation of Paulus’s view than tliat some one passed himself off for the angel Gabriel, and as tlic pretended Messenger of God remained witli Mary in order that slie might become the mother of tlic Messiah. What! asks Gabler, Is Mary, at tlie very time slic is betrothed, to become pregnant by another and is tills to be called an innocent holy action, pleasing to God and irrcprochable ? Mary is here pourtrayed as a pious visionary, and tlie pretended messenger of heaven as a deceiver, or lie too is a gross fanatic.
Tlic reviewer most justly considers such an assertion as revolting, if contemplated from tlie Christian point of view7; if from the scientific, as at variance, both with the principles of interpretation and of criticism.
Tlic reviewer most justly considers such an assertion as revolting, if contemplated from tlie Christian point of view7; if from the scientific, as at variance, both with the principles of interpretation and of criticism.
Tlie author of the “Natural Plistory of the Great Prophet of Nazareth” is, in flits instance, to be considered as tlie most worthy interpreter of Paulus; for though tlie former could not, in tills part of his work, have made use of Paulus’s Commentary, yet, in exactly tlie same spirit, he unreservedly avows wliat tlie latter carefully veils. He brings into comparison a story in Josephus,f according to which, in the very time of Jesus, a Roman knight won the chaste wife of a Roman noble to his wishes, by causing her to be invited by a priest of Isis into the temple of the Godde’-s, under the pretext tliat tlie god Anubis desired to embrace her. In innocence and faith, the woman resigned herself, and would perhaps afterwards have believed slie had given birth to the cliild of a god, liad not the intriguer, witli bitter scorn, soon after discovered to her the true state of tlie case. It is the opinion of tlie author tliat M.ary, tlic betrothed bride of the aged Josepli, was in like manner deceived by some amorous and fanatic young man (in the sequel to tlie history lie represents liirn to be Joseph of Arimathea), and that she on her part, in perfect innocence, continued to deceive others.:): It is evident that this interpretation does not differ from tlie ancient Jewisli blasphemy, which we find in Celsus and in the Talmud; that Jesus falsely represented himself as born of a pure virgin, whereas, in fact, he was tlie offspring of the adultery of Mary with a certain Panthera.§
This wliole view, of which the culminating point is in the cal
* Im neuesten tlieol. Journal 7. Bd. 4.. St. 8. 407 {. f Antiq. xviii. 3, 4. ^ Iter Thei], S. 140 ft’. § The legend lias undergone various modifications, Lut tlie name of Puntlttra or Pandira has been uniformly retained. Vid. Origenes c. Cris. 1, 28. 32.
Scliott^eii, Horas 2, (;93 ff, aus Tract., Sanhedrin u. A,; Eisenmenger, entdf-cktes Judenthum, 1, S. 10.’) ft, aus der Sehmilhsclirift: Toledoth Jesehu; Thilo, cod. apocr. S. 528.
Comp. my Alihandlung tibcr die Namen Panther, Panthcras, Pandera, in judischen und
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
iimny of the Jews, cannot be Letter judged than in the words of Origen. If, says tills author, they wished to substitute something else in tlic place of tlic liistory of the supernatural conception of Jesus, they should at any rate have made it happen in a more probable manner; they ought not, as it were against tlieir “will, to admit tliat Mary knew not Josepli, but they might have denied this feature, and yet have allowed Jesus to have been born of an ordinary human marriage: whereas, tlie forced and extravagant character of
0’
‘ c5
‘ c5
tlieir hypothesis betrays its falsehood.* Is not flits as much as to say, that if once some particular features o.f a marvellous narrative arc doubted, it is inconsequent to allow7 others to remain unquestioned ? eacli part of such an account ought to be subjected to critical examination.
Tlic correct view of the narrative before us is to be found, tliat is indirectly, in Origen. For wlien at one time he places togctlier, as of tlic same kind, tlie miraculous conception of Jesus and the story of Plato’s conception by Apollo (though here, indeed, tlic meaning is tliat only ill-disposed persons could doubt such tilings f), and when at another time lie savs of the story concerning Plato, that it belongs to tliosc mythi by which it was sought to exhibit tlie distinguished wisdom and power of great men (but here lie does not include tlic narrative of Jesus’s conception), lie in fact states tlie two premises, namely, tlie similarity of the two narratives and tlie mythical character of the one ;t from which the inference of the merely mythical worth of tlic narrative of tlie conception of Jesus follows; a conclusion wliicli can never indeed have occurred
Tlic correct view of the narrative before us is to be found, tliat is indirectly, in Origen. For wlien at one time he places togctlier, as of tlic same kind, tlie miraculous conception of Jesus and the story of Plato’s conception by Apollo (though here, indeed, tlic meaning is tliat only ill-disposed persons could doubt such tilings f), and when at another time lie savs of the story concerning Plato, that it belongs to tliosc mythi by which it was sought to exhibit tlie distinguished wisdom and power of great men (but here lie does not include tlic narrative of Jesus’s conception), lie in fact states tlie two premises, namely, tlie similarity of the two narratives and tlie mythical character of the one ;t from which the inference of the merely mythical worth of tlic narrative of tlie conception of Jesus follows; a conclusion wliicli can never indeed have occurred
to his own mind.
§ 29. HISTORY OF THE CONCEPTION OF JESUS VIEWED AS A MYTIIUS.
IF, says Gabler in his review of the Commentary of Paulus, we must relinquish tlie supernatural origin of Jesus, in order to escape the ridicule of our contemporaries, and if, on the oilier hand, the natural explanation leads to conclusions not only extravagant, but revolting; tlie adoption of the mytlius, by which all tliesc difficulties arc obviated, is to be preferred. In tlic world of mythology many great men had extraordinary births, and were sons of tlie gods.
Jesus himself spoke of his heavenly origin, and called God his father ; besides, his title as Messiah was-Son of God. From Matthew i. 22., it is further evident that the passage of Isaiah, vii. 14.
was referred to Jesus by the early Christian Church. In conformity with tills passage the belief prevailed that, Jesus, as tlie Messiah, should be born of a virgin by means of divine agency ; it was therefore taken for granted tliat wliat was to be actually did occur; and thus originated a pliilosopliical (dogmatical) mytlius concerning tlie birth of Jesus. But according to historical truth, Jesus was tlie offspring of an ordinary marriage, between Joseph and Mary; an
CONCEPTION OF JESUS-ITS SUPEENATUEAL CHARACTER. 131
explanation which, it has been justly remarked, maintains at once tlie dignity of Jesus and tlic respect due to his mother.”*
The pronencss of tlic ancient world to represent the great men and benefactors of tlieir race as the sons of tlie gods, lias therefore been referred to, in order to explain tlic origin of such a mytlius.
Our theologians have accumulated examples from tlie Greco-Roman mythology and history. They have cited Hercules, and tlic Dioscuri; Romulus, and Alexander; but above all Pythagoras,! and Plato. Of the latter philosopher Jerome speaks in a manner quite applicable to Jesus : sapientia’ principem non ahtcr arbitrantur, nisi de partu virginis editum.^:
From these examples it misrht have been inferred tliat the narratives of tlie supernatural conception liad possibly orglnated in a similar tendency, and had no foundation in liistory. Here Iiowevci tlie orthodox and tlic rationalists arc unanimous in denying, though indeed upon different grounds, the, validity of tlie analogy. Origen, from a perception of tlie identical character of the two classes of narratives, is not far from regarding tlie heathen legends of the sons of tlie, gods as true supernatural histories.
Paulus on Ills side is more decided, and is so logical as to explain botli classes of narratives in tin; same manner, as natural, but still as true histories. At least lie says of tlic narrative concerning Plato: it cannot be affirmed that tlie groundwork of tlie liistory was a subsequent creation ; it is far more probable tliat Perictionc believed herself to be pregnant by one of her gods. Tlie. fact that her son became a Plato might indeed have served to confirm that belief, but not to have originated it.
Paulus on Ills side is more decided, and is so logical as to explain botli classes of narratives in tin; same manner, as natural, but still as true histories. At least lie says of tlic narrative concerning Plato: it cannot be affirmed that tlie groundwork of tlie liistory was a subsequent creation ; it is far more probable tliat Perictionc believed herself to be pregnant by one of her gods. Tlie. fact that her son became a Plato might indeed have served to confirm that belief, but not to have originated it.
Tholuck invites attention to the important distinction that tlie mythi concerning Romulus and others were formed many centuries after tlie lifetime of these men: tlie mythi concerning Jesus, on the contrary, must have existed shortly after Ills death. § He cleverly fails to remember tlie narrative of Plato’s birth, since he is well aware tliat precisely in tliat particular, it is a dangerous point.
Oaiander however approaches tlie subject with much patlios, and affirms that Plato’s apotlieosis as son of Apollo did not exist till several centuries after him: [] whereas in fact Plato’s sister’s son speaks of it as a prevailing legend in Athens. I Olshauscn, with whom Neander coincides, refuses to draw any detrimental inference from this analogy of the mythical sons of tlie gods; remarking tliat though these narratives are unhistorical, they evince a general anticipation and desire
Oaiander however approaches tlie subject with much patlios, and affirms that Plato’s apotlieosis as son of Apollo did not exist till several centuries after him: [] whereas in fact Plato’s sister’s son speaks of it as a prevailing legend in Athens. I Olshauscn, with whom Neander coincides, refuses to draw any detrimental inference from this analogy of the mythical sons of tlie gods; remarking tliat though these narratives are unhistorical, they evince a general anticipation and desire
Other books
The Adventures of Kid Combat Volume Two: The Heist of Spring Road Toys by Christopher Helwink
The New Year's Quilt (Elm Creek Quilts Novels) by Chiaverini, Jennifer
The Mill River Recluse by Darcie Chan
The Girl Next Door by Ruth Rendell
Lanherne Chronicles (Prequel): To Escape the Dead by Charlick, Stephen
Belle Moral: A Natural History by Ann-Marie Macdonald
Shattered by Jay Bonansinga
Preludio a la fundación by Isaac Asimov
Revenge by Fiona McIntosh
The Painted Kiss by Elizabeth Hickey