Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (703 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.05Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
* Gabler, in seinem neucsten theol. Journal, 7, 3. S. 408 f; Eichhorn, Einleit. in das N. T. 1, S. 428 f; Bauer, hebr. Mythol, 1, 192 e. fl’; Kaiser, bibl. Theologie, 1, i”. 231 f; Weg?choider, Inatit. § 123; Ue Wette, bibl. Doginat, § 281, und exeg. Hand•”lA 1, 1, S. 18 f; Ammoii, Fortbildung des Christenth. S. 201 ft’; Hase, L. J. § 33;
Fritzaclie, Comment, in Matth. S. .”>(;.
Tlie latter justly remarks in tlie title to the first chapter: nun milus ille, (Jesus) lib J’vrimt dactorum Jiuiaicorum de Messia sententice, pairem fiabet spiritum divliium, mutrein rtryiiiem.•)• Jamblicli, vita Pythagoras, cap, 2, Ml. Ku.ssling.t Adv. Jovin.
1, 2(i.
Diog. Lacrt, 3, 1, 2.
§ Glaubwiirdigkeit S. 64, || Apologie des L. .1. S. 1>2, ^ Diog. Lacrt. a, a, 0.: 2”rfi’ffi7r7TOf (Sororis Pintunis jilius,.
Tlie latter justly remarks in tlie title to the first chapter: nun milus ille, (Jesus) lib J’vrimt dactorum Jiuiaicorum de Messia sententice, pairem fiabet spiritum divliium, mutrein rtryiiiem.•)• Jamblicli, vita Pythagoras, cap, 2, Ml. Ku.ssling.t Adv. Jovin.
1, 2(i.
Diog. Lacrt, 3, 1, 2.
§ Glaubwiirdigkeit S. 64, || Apologie des L. .1. S. 1>2, ^ Diog. Lacrt. a, a, 0.: 2”rfi’ffi7r7TOf (Sororis Pintunis jilius,.
Hit-ron,) if iv TU e7r^/pa^if/[i£V(fi n?,uT(JVf)C TT^pSEiTrvu K-al K’^ap^oc £V TO II^arfJVos’ EryKU
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
of such a fact, and therefore guarantee its reality, at least in one historical manifestation. Certainly, a general anticipation and representation must have truth for its basis; Tout tlie truth does not consist in any one individual fact, presenting an accurate correspondence with tliat notion, Lut in an idea which realizes itself in a series of facts, which often bear no resemblance to the general notion.
The widely spread notion of a golden age does not prove tlie existence of a golden age: so the notion of divine conceptions does not prove that some one individual was thus produced.The truth which is tlie basis of this notion is something quite different.
A more essential objection* to tlie analogy is, that. the representations of tlie heathen world prove nothing with respect to tlie isolated Jews; and that tlie idea of sons of the gods, belonging to polytheism, could not have exerted an influence on tlie rigidly monotheistic notion of the Messiah. At all events sucli an inference must not be too hastily drawn from the expression “sons of God,’’
found likewise among the Jews, w-liicli as applied in tlie Old Testament to magistrates, (Ps. Ixxxii. 6., or to theocratic kings, 2 8am.
vii. 14, Ps. ii. 7.), indicates only a theocratic, and not a physical or metaphysical relation.
Still less is importance to be attaclied to tlie language of flattery used by a Roman, in Joscphus, who calls beautiful children of the Jewisli princes children of God.f It was, however, a notion among tlie Jews, as was remarked in a former section, tliat the Holy Spirit co-operated in tlie conception of pious individuals; moreover, tliat God’s choicest instruments were conceived by divine assistance of parents, wlio could not liave liad a cluld according to the natural course of tilings. And if, according to tlie believed representation, the extinct capability on both sides was renewed by divine intervention (Rom. iv. 19.), it was only one step further to tlie belief that in the case of the conception of tlie most distinguished of all God’s agents, the Messiah, tlie total absence of participation on the one side was compensated by a more complete super-added capability on the other. Tlie latter is scarcely” a degree more marvellous than the former. And thus must it have appeared to the autlior of Luke i., since lie dissipates Mary’s doubts by the same reply with which Jehovah repelled Sara’s incredulity. :j: Neither the Jewish reverence for marriage, nor tlie prevalent representation of tlio Mcssiali as a human being, could prevent the advance to this climax; to which, on the other hand, tlie ascetic estimation of celibacy, and the idea, derived from Daniel, of the Christ as a superhuman being, contributed. But decided impulse to tlie development of the representations embodied in our histories of the birth, consisted partly in tlie title, iSon of God, at one time usually given to the Messiah. For it is the nature of such originally figurative expressions, after a wliile to come to be interpreted according
Still less is importance to be attaclied to tlie language of flattery used by a Roman, in Joscphus, who calls beautiful children of the Jewisli princes children of God.f It was, however, a notion among tlie Jews, as was remarked in a former section, tliat the Holy Spirit co-operated in tlie conception of pious individuals; moreover, tliat God’s choicest instruments were conceived by divine assistance of parents, wlio could not liave liad a cluld according to the natural course of tilings. And if, according to tlie believed representation, the extinct capability on both sides was renewed by divine intervention (Rom. iv. 19.), it was only one step further to tlie belief that in the case of the conception of tlie most distinguished of all God’s agents, the Messiah, tlie total absence of participation on the one side was compensated by a more complete super-added capability on the other. Tlie latter is scarcely” a degree more marvellous than the former. And thus must it have appeared to the autlior of Luke i., since lie dissipates Mary’s doubts by the same reply with which Jehovah repelled Sara’s incredulity. :j: Neither the Jewish reverence for marriage, nor tlie prevalent representation of tlio Mcssiali as a human being, could prevent the advance to this climax; to which, on the other hand, tlie ascetic estimation of celibacy, and the idea, derived from Daniel, of the Christ as a superhuman being, contributed. But decided impulse to tlie development of the representations embodied in our histories of the birth, consisted partly in tlie title, iSon of God, at one time usually given to the Messiah. For it is the nature of such originally figurative expressions, after a wliile to come to be interpreted according
* Ncander, L. J. Cli. 8. 10.
f Ant- 10’ 2- 6”
f Ant- 10’ 2- 6”
CONCEPTION OF JESL-S-ITS SUPERNATURAL CHARACTER. 133
to their more precise and literal signification; and it was a daily
occurrence, especially among tlie later Jews, to attacli a sensible, signification to that which originally had merely a spiritual or fif’urativc meaning.
Tills natural disposition to understand the Messianic title Son of God more and more literally, was fostered by the expression in tlie Psalms (ii. 7.), interpreted of tlie Messiah: Thou art my son ; this day have I begotten thee : words which can scarcely fail to suggest a physical relation; it was also nurtured by the prophecy of Isaiah respecting the virgin wlio should be with cliild, which it appears was applied to tlie Messiali; as were so many other prophecies of which the immediate signification liad become obscure. Tills application may be seen in tlie Greek word chosen by tlie Scptuagint, -na^iOivw;, a pure unspotted virgin, whereas by Aquila and other Greek translators tlie word veavi(; is used.*
Tills natural disposition to understand the Messianic title Son of God more and more literally, was fostered by the expression in tlie Psalms (ii. 7.), interpreted of tlie Messiah: Thou art my son ; this day have I begotten thee : words which can scarcely fail to suggest a physical relation; it was also nurtured by the prophecy of Isaiah respecting the virgin wlio should be with cliild, which it appears was applied to tlie Messiali; as were so many other prophecies of which the immediate signification liad become obscure. Tills application may be seen in tlie Greek word chosen by tlie Scptuagint, -na^iOivw;, a pure unspotted virgin, whereas by Aquila and other Greek translators tlie word veavi(; is used.*
Tims did tlie notions of a son of (rod and a son of a virgin complete one another, till at last the divine agency was substituted for human paternal participation. Wctstcin indeed affirms tliat no Jew ever applied tlie prophecy of Isaiah to tlie Messiali; and it was with extreme labour that Schoett^en collected traces of the notion that the Messiali should be tlie son of a virgin from the Rabbinical writings. Tills however, considering tlie paucity of records of tlie Mi’ssianic ideas of tliat age,f proves notliing in opposition to the presumption tliat a notion tlien prevailed, of which we have the groundwork in tlie Old Testament, and an inference hardly to be mistaken in the New.
One objection yet remains, which I can no longer designate as peculiar to Olshauscn, since other theoloa’iana have shown themselves solicitous of sharing the fame.
Tlie objection is, that. the mythical interpretation of tlie gospel narrative is especially dangerous, it being only too well fitted to engender, obscurely indeed, proianc and blasphemous notions concerning tlie origin of Jesus ; since it cannot fail to favour an opinion destructive of tlie belief in a Redeemer,-namely, tliat Jesus came into being through unholy means;
Tlie objection is, that. the mythical interpretation of tlie gospel narrative is especially dangerous, it being only too well fitted to engender, obscurely indeed, proianc and blasphemous notions concerning tlie origin of Jesus ; since it cannot fail to favour an opinion destructive of tlie belief in a Redeemer,-namely, tliat Jesus came into being through unholy means;
since, in fact, at tlie time of licr pregnancy Mary was not marricd.t In Olshauscn’s first edition of his work, he adds tliat lie willingly allows tliat these interpreters know not wdiat they do: it is therefore hut just to give linn tlie advantage of the same concession, since lie certainly appears not to know what mythical interpretation means.
How otherwise would lie say, tliat tlie mythical interpretation is fitted only to favour a blasphemous opinion; therefore that all wlio understand thenarrative mytliically, are disposed to commit tlie absurdity with which Origcn reproaches the Jewisli calumniators;
the retaining one solitary incident, namely, that Mary was not married, whilst tlie remainder of the narrative is held to be unhistorical; a particular incident wliicli evidently serves only as a support
* 1)].: Wi’tto, Exg, HaiiiHi., 1, I”, S. 1 7.-t ‘1 IIHV are to be fouiul howrvcr in tlie more roo’lmi Kaliliiiis, s. .Milttliai. lii.lisioiis!.;!. dor Apostrl •i, a, IS. ,•>.•>;•) ,fl; \ lill.l. Comm. i,
THE LIFE OF JESL’S.
to the other, that Jesus was concelvcil without human paternal participation, and with it, therefore, stands or falls.
No one among the interpreters wlio, in tills narrative, recognise a mythus in tlie full signification of tliat tcriTi, lias been thus blind and inconsistent; all have supposed a legitimate marriage between Josepli and Mary ; and Olshausen merely paints tlie mythical mode of interpretation in caricature, in order the more easily to set it aside; for he confesses tliat in relation to tills portion of tlie gospel in particular, it lias much tliat is dazzling.
No one among the interpreters wlio, in tills narrative, recognise a mythus in tlie full signification of tliat tcriTi, lias been thus blind and inconsistent; all have supposed a legitimate marriage between Josepli and Mary ; and Olshausen merely paints tlie mythical mode of interpretation in caricature, in order the more easily to set it aside; for he confesses tliat in relation to tills portion of tlie gospel in particular, it lias much tliat is dazzling.
§ 30. RELATION OF JOSEPH TO MARY-BROTHERS OF JESUS.
OUR Gospels, in tlie true spirit of the ancient legend, find it unbecoming to allow tlie mother of Jesus, so long as slic bore the licav
o’0
enly germ, to be approached or profaned by an earthly husband.
Consequently Luke (il. 5.) represents tlie connexion between Joseph and Mary, prior to tlie birth of Jesus, as a bctrothment merely.
And, as it is stated respecting the father of Plato, after Ills wife had become pregnant by Apollo: ‘uOc.v KaOapav ylflov (pvAa^cit M^ rrj(;
d-roTO/owc,’* so likewise it is remarked of Josepli in Matthew (i. 25.):
Ka’i OVK kylvwKev avTi’jv (~’/)v yvviilna avrov) ‘Ktix^ ov KTKKK ~ov viw av
-^c ~’uv tpu-oroKov. In each of these kindred passages the Greek word KU<; (till) must evidently receive the same. interpretation. Now in the tirst quotation tlie meaning is incontcstably this:-that till “the time of Plato’s birth his father abstained from intercourse with his wife, but subsequently assumed his conjugal rights, since wo hear of Plato’s brothers.
In reference, therefore, to tlie parents of Jesns, the ‘w; cannot have a different signification; in cadi case it indicates precisely tlie same limitation.So again tlie expression
In reference, therefore, to tlie parents of Jesns, the ‘w; cannot have a different signification; in cadi case it indicates precisely tlie same limitation.So again tlie expression
-poTuTOKoi; (firstborn) used in reference to Jesus in both tlie (Jospela (Matt. i. 25, Luke ii. 7.) supposes tliat Mary had other children, for as Lueian says: e( per TTp&Toc;, ov puvog ti 6c /wi’oc, ov 7Tp£iro<;.^ Fvcn in tlie same Gospels (Matt. xiii. 55, Luke viii. 19.) mention is made of dSe/^o^ ‘lijow, (f./ie brothers of Jesns.’) In the words of Fritzsclic: J^i^’iittss’tine post Jesu nataUs Mariam concessit Matt/mus (Luke does the same) ii.roivm Jowp/w, in /we ww occuputus, ne
* PioK. I-u’rt. a, a. 0.
Sec Ori^cnc? c. Culs. 1, 37.
•)• l\’inoi]ax, 29.
t S. Origrnis in Matllia’uiii a^c’ordin^ to Photius l.iui^lit, TOV ‘{uo-ij^ fiera ~//v ^juaruv Kvo^ofiiav cvva~TTtff^fti n/ Trap^ti’iJ.
This was also, ac.mrdm^ to Kpipliania:’, tlie drc-trinc of llm-y callid liy liiin Din.a.i iii-s ami .\]iliili’’iniiari:initi’s, anil ill thi; linii; ul’ .li’rnnn;, ut’ IIrSviillu-i “ml i ;. *• ii...........<•,„,,,,„,.,. ,,,i (Ins iiniiit, tin; Sammluii.u- vou Suiciir, 1111 Tlicsaurua ii., s. v.
Sec Ori^cnc? c. Culs. 1, 37.
•)• l\’inoi]ax, 29.
t S. Origrnis in Matllia’uiii a^c’ordin^ to Photius l.iui^lit, TOV ‘{uo-ij^ fiera ~//v ^juaruv Kvo^ofiiav cvva~TTtff^fti n/ Trap^ti’iJ.
This was also, ac.mrdm^ to Kpipliania:’, tlie drc-trinc of llm-y callid liy liiin Din.a.i iii-s ami .\]iliili’’iniiari:initi’s, anil ill thi; linii; ul’ .li’rnnn;, ut’ IIrSviillu-i “ml i ;. *• ii...........<•,„,,,,„,.,. ,,,i (Ins iiniiit, tin; Sammluii.u- vou Suiciir, 1111 Tlicsaurua ii., s. v.
CONCEPTION OF JESL-S--ITS SUPERNATURAL CIIARACTEE. 135
it. They contended that according to the exegetical interpretation of &>)(• ov, it sometimes affirmed or denied a thing, not merely up to a certain limit, but beyond that limitation and for ever; and that tlie words of Mattliew ovv eyivwitev avrifv {.w(; m i-ens K.. r. 1. excluded a matrimonial connexion between Joseph and Mary for all time.*
In like manner it was asserted of the term -rpo-o-o/coc, tliat it did not necessarily include tlie subsequent birth of other children, but tliat it merely excluded’ any previous birtli.f But in order to banish the thought of a matrimonial connexion between Mary and Joseph, not only grammatically but physiologically, they represented Josepli as a very old man, under whom Mary was placed for control and protection only ; and tlie brothers of Jesus mentioned in tlie New Testament they regarded as the children of Josepli by a former marriage, f But this was not all; soon it was insisted not only tliat Mary never became the wife of Josepli, but tliat in giving birth to Jesus slic did not lose her virginity.§ But even tlie conservation of Gary’s virginity did not long continue to satisfy: perpetual virginity was likewise required on tlie part of Joseph.
It was not cnou°’h tliat lie had no connexion witli Mary; it was also necessary tliat Ins entire life should be one of celibacy. Accordingly, though Epiphanius allows tliat Josepli liad sons by a former marriage, Jerome rejects tlie supposition as an impious and audacious invention ;
It was not cnou°’h tliat lie had no connexion witli Mary; it was also necessary tliat Ins entire life should be one of celibacy. Accordingly, though Epiphanius allows tliat Josepli liad sons by a former marriage, Jerome rejects tlie supposition as an impious and audacious invention ;
Other books
Dark Ritual by Patricia Scott
A Reformed Rake by Jeanne Savery
Labyrinth by A. C. H. Smith
Skin Walkers Conn by Susan A. Bliler
Mission Canyon by Meg Gardiner
Hunt Angel! (A Frank Angel Western #5) by Frederick H. Christian
Dare to Hold by Carly Phillips
The Stories of Ray Bradbury by Ray Bradbury
Life of the Party by Gillian Philip
That Despicable Rogue by Virginia Heath