Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (704 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.89Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
and from tliat time tlie brothers of Jesus were degraded to tlie rank of cousins. ||
Some modern theologians agree with tlie Fathers of tlie Church in maintaining tliat no matrimonial connexion subsisted at any time between Joseph and Mary, and believe themselves able to explain tlie gospel expressions which appear to assert tlie contrary. In reference to tlie term first born, (Jlshauscn contends that it signifies an only son : no less than tlie eldest of several. Paulus allows that here lie is right, and Clemcnl and Fritzsche seek in vain to demonstrate tlie impossibility of this signification. For when it is said in Exod. xiii. 2, BIT-T^B ••;;a ^’isa-iss •^•wp (TTpu~6~oicov TrpuToyevs^
LXXX.) it was not merely a firstborn followed by others subsequently born, wlio was sanctified to Jehovah, but tlie fruit of the body of that mother of whom no other cliild liad previously been born.
Therefore the term -pu-o-o/i-or must of iicccssitY bear also tins significationTruly however we must confess with Winer**
Therefore the term -pu-o-o/i-or must of iicccssitY bear also tins significationTruly however we must confess with Winer**
and others, on the other side, that if a narrator who was acquainted witli tlie whole sequel of tlie history used tliat expression, we should be tciiipt.e.d to understand it in its primitive sense; since had the author intended to exclude other children, lie would rather have em
* Ccnip. Hu.rnii. adY, Helv. 6, 7, Tlieophylact and Suulaa in Suierr, 1, s. v, Sn^f, Fol. 1-J’U t, t HiiTon. z, d. St. f Scu Urig, in Mattli, Toin, 10, 17; Epiphan. ha.’i-i..-,. 7t>, 7; llistoria J
§ Clirysostoiiius, liom. 1!2, ill Suiucr, s. v.
§ Clirysostoiiius, liom. 1!2, ill Suiucr, s. v.
Mapta, iii(i!.t rrpul.-ivcly ilrsciiln’il in t’lr 1’rotcv. Jac, xix, ami xx,
|] llirron. ad Matth.
|] llirron. ad Matth.
12, uiid adi-w. IIrlviil. 1’).
«[ Die Bradcr Jrsu, In Winer’s Zfit.schrit’t f’lir wissuiischaftliclie ‘lliculun’if, 1, 3. S. 3(it f.** Biblis.cbcs Eealworterbudi, 1, Ud, S. UU4., Anm. DC
«[ Die Bradcr Jrsu, In Winer’s Zfit.schrit’t f’lir wissuiischaftliclie ‘lliculun’if, 1, 3. S. 3(it f.** Biblis.cbcs Eealworterbudi, 1, Ud, S. UU4., Anm. DC
Wclte, z, d, St.
Ncandrr I.. .1. Ch., S, 84.
Ncandrr I.. .1. Ch., S, 84.
THE LIFE Or’ JESCS.
ploved the word /wwyer’/jc, or would have connected it with Trpu-roTOKOC. It” tills be not quite decisive, tlie reasoning of Fritzsche in reference to the wg w, K. r. X., is more convincing. He rejects the citations adduced in support of the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, proving that this expression according to its primitive signification affirms only to a given limit, and beyond tliat limit supposes tlic logical opposite of tlie affirmation to take place; a signification which it loses only when the context shows clearly tliat tlic opposite is impossible in tlic nature of tilings.* For example, when it is said OVK Kyivuanev av-t^v, w(; ov amOavsv, it is self-evident that tlic negation, during tlic time elapsed till death-cannot be transformed aftsr death into an affirmation; but when it is said, as in Matthew, OVK e. d. w(; ov £~KKEV, tlie giving birth to tlic divine fruit opposes no impossibility to tlic establishment of tlic conjugal relations ; on the contrary it renders it possible i. c. suitable f for them
now to take place.
Olshauscn, impelled by tlie same doctrinal motives which influenced tlic Fathers, is led in this instance to contradict both the evidence of grammar and of logic.
lie thinks tliat Josepli, without wisliing to impair tlic sanctity of marriage, must have concluded after tlie experiences he liad liad (?) tliat his marriage with Alary liad “another object than tlie production of children; besides it was but natural (?) in tlic last descendant of tlic house of Uavid, and of tliat particular branch from which tlie Messiah should come forth, to terminate her race in tills last and eternal offshoot.
lie thinks tliat Josepli, without wisliing to impair tlic sanctity of marriage, must have concluded after tlie experiences he liad liad (?) tliat his marriage with Alary liad “another object than tlie production of children; besides it was but natural (?) in tlic last descendant of tlic house of Uavid, and of tliat particular branch from which tlie Messiah should come forth, to terminate her race in tills last and eternal offshoot.
A curious ladder may be formed of these different beliefs and superstitions in relation to tlic connexion between Mary and Josepli.
1. Contemporaries of Jesus and composers of the genealogies:
Joseph and Mary man and wife-Jesus tlic offspring of their marriage.
2. Tlic age and authors of our histories of tlie birth of Josns:
Mary and Josepli betrothed only; Josepli having no participation in tlic conception of tlie cliild, and previous to its birth no conjugal
connexion with Mary.
3. Olshauseii and others: subsequent to the birth of Jesus,
Josepli, though then tlie husband of Mary, relinquishes Ids matrimonial rights.
4. Epiplmnius, Protcvangeliura Jacob! and others: Joseph a
decrepit, old man, no longer to be thought of as a husband; tlie children attributed to him are of a former marriage. More especially it is not as a bride and wife tliat lie receives Mary; lie takes her
merely under his guardianship.
> 5. Protevang., Chrysostom and others: Mary’s virginity was not only not destroyed by any subsequent births of children by Jo
* Comment, in Muttll. S. 53 ff., vgl. auch S. 83.”).
•(• Olshausen is exceedingly 1111Iiiippy m the example fbosen by him in support of Ills interpretation of wf ov. Fur wlicn it i-’ s^id, ir<- ir.iitr’l fill •iiuiluiijkt f’nf nu orie CHHK^ certiiiniy this liy no menus implies that .’ft. r .,.;,ii.i..lit sunn- out’ dill mine, but it dors imply that after midnight we waited no
•(• Olshausen is exceedingly 1111Iiiippy m the example fbosen by him in support of Ills interpretation of wf ov. Fur wlicn it i-’ s^id, ir<- ir.iitr’l fill •iiuiluiijkt f’nf nu orie CHHK^ certiiiniy this liy no menus implies that .’ft. r .,.;,ii.i..lit sunn- out’ dill mine, but it dors imply that after midnight we waited no
CONCEPTION OF JESUS--ITS SUPERNATURAL CHAKACTEI;. 137
scph, it” was not in. the slighest degree impaired by the birth of
Jesus..
..
. ‘‘.
..
. ‘‘.
6. Jerome: not Mary only but Joseph also observed an absolute virginity, and tlie pretended brothers of Jesus were not his sons
but merely cousins to Jesus.
.
.
Tlic opinion tliat tlie aSs^ol. (brothers) and a^eXal ‘lifmv (sisters of Jesus) mentioned in tlie New Testament, were merely half brothers or indeed cousins, appears in its origin, as shown above, together witli tlie notion tliat no matrimonial connexion ever subsisted between Joseph and Mary, as tlic mere invention of superstition, a circumstance highly prejudicial to such an opinion.
It is however no less true tliat purely cxegctical grounds exist, in virtue of which theologians wlio were free from prejudice have decided, that tlie opinion tliat Jesus actually liad brothers is untenable.*
It is however no less true tliat purely cxegctical grounds exist, in virtue of which theologians wlio were free from prejudice have decided, that tlie opinion tliat Jesus actually liad brothers is untenable.*
Had we merely the following passages-Matth. xiil. 55, Mark vi. 3, where the people of Nazareth astonished at tlie wisdom of their countryman, in order to mark his well known origin, immediately after having spoken of TEKTW (the carpenter) Ills father, and Ins mother Mary, mention by name his drfe/li^twc ^brothers) James, Joscs, Simon, and Judas, together witli his sisters wliosc names arc not given;! again Mattli. xii. 4G, Luke viii. 19, when Ins mother and his brethren come to Jesus ; John ii. 12, where Jesus journcvs with his mother and his brethren to Capernaum; Acts i. 14, where they are mentioned in immediate connexion with Ills mother-if we liad these passages only, we could not for a moment hesitate to recognize here real brothers of Jesus at least on tlic mother’s side, children of Josepli and Mary; not only on account of tlic proper signification of tlic word dde/u^oc, but also in consequence of its continual conjunction wi’th Mary and Josepli. Even tlic passages-John vii.
5, in wliicli it is remarked tliat his brethren did not believe on Jesus, and Mark iii. 21, compared with 31, where according to the most probable explanation, tlic brothers of Jesus witli his mother •went out to lay liold of him as one beside himself-furnish no adequate grounds for relinquishing tlie proper signification of dde/l^oc.
Many theologians have interpreted d6eX(f>ov<; ‘Irfaov in tlic last cited passage half brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage, alleging tliat tlic real brothers of Jesus must have believed on him, but tins is a mere assumption.
Tlic difficulty seems greater wlien we read in John xix. 26 f. tliat Jesus on tlie cross, enjoined John to be a son to his mother; an injunction it is not easy to regard as suitable,,under tlic supposition tliat Mary liad other children, except indeed these were half brothers and unfriendly to Jesus.
Nevertheless we can imagine tlic existence both of external circumstances and of individual feelings wliicli might have influenced Jesus to conOn this subject compare in particular Clemen, die Brudt’r Jesu, in Winer’s Zcitschrift fur wissensch. Theol. 1, 3, S. S’-iy 11;; Paulus, exeg, Handbueh 1 Bd, S. .’>.”»7 ff.i Fritzche, a. a. 0. S. 4SO ft’.; Wincr’bibl. llealwurterbuch, in den A. A.: Jesus, Jacobua, Apostrl. •I- See (In. dill’urcnt names assigned them in the legend in Thilo, Codex apocryplius N. T.. 1 S- XliS iii,tr.
Tlic difficulty seems greater wlien we read in John xix. 26 f. tliat Jesus on tlie cross, enjoined John to be a son to his mother; an injunction it is not easy to regard as suitable,,under tlic supposition tliat Mary liad other children, except indeed these were half brothers and unfriendly to Jesus.
Nevertheless we can imagine tlic existence both of external circumstances and of individual feelings wliicli might have influenced Jesus to conOn this subject compare in particular Clemen, die Brudt’r Jesu, in Winer’s Zcitschrift fur wissensch. Theol. 1, 3, S. S’-iy 11;; Paulus, exeg, Handbueh 1 Bd, S. .’>.”»7 ff.i Fritzche, a. a. 0. S. 4SO ft’.; Wincr’bibl. llealwurterbuch, in den A. A.: Jesus, Jacobua, Apostrl. •I- See (In. dill’urcnt names assigned them in the legend in Thilo, Codex apocryplius N. T.. 1 S- XliS iii,tr.
THE LIFE OF JESLS.
13S
fide his mother to John rather than to his brothers. That tliese brothers appeared in company with Ins Apostles after the ascension (Acts i. 14,) is no proof that they must liave believed on Jesus at
the time of his death.
The real perplexity in the matter, however, originates in this:
that besides the James and Joscs spoken of as the brothers of Jesus, two men of the same name are mentioned as tlie sons of another Mary (Mark xv. 40, 47, xvi. 1, Matt. xxvii. 56,) witliout doubt tliat Mary who is designated, John xix. 25, as the sister of the mother of Jesus, and tlie wife of Cicophas: so that we liave a James and a Joscs not. only among tlie children of Mary tlie mother of Jesus, but again among her sister’s childcrn. We meet with several others among those immediately connected with Jesus, whose names are identical. In the lists of tlie Apostles (Matth. x. 2 ff., Luke vi. 14
ft.) we have two more of tlie name of James: that is four, tlie brother and cousin of Jesus included; two more oftlic name of Judas:
tliat is three, tlie brother of Jesus included; two of the name of Simon, also making three with tlie brother of Jesus of tlie sime name. Tlie question naturally arises, wlictlicr tlie same individual is not here taken as distinct persons ? Tlie suspicion is almost unavoidable in reference to James. As James tlie son of Alpheus is, in the list of tlie Apostles, introduced after tlie son of Zebcdcc, as tlie second, perhaps tlie younger; and. as James tlie cousin of Jesus is called 6 pinpoc; (“the less”) Mark. xv. 40; and since by comparing John xix. 25, we find tliat tlie latter is called tlie son of Cleoplias, it is possible tliat tlie name K^co-rac (Cicophas) given to tlie husband of Mary’s sister, and tlie name ‘A-^olo^ (Alpheus) given to tlie father of tlie apostle, may be onlv different forms of tlie Hebrew ?a”;”]i. Thus would tlie second James enumerated among tlie Apostles and tlie cousin of Jesus of tliat name be identical, and there would remain besides him only tlie son of Zebcdcc and the brother of Jesus. Now in tlie Acts (xv. 13) a James appears wlio takes a prominent part in tlie so-called apostolic council, and as, according to Acts xil. 2, tlie son of Zcbcdce had previously been put to death, and as in the foregoing portion of the book of tlie Acts no mention is made of any other James besides tlie son of Alpheus (i. 13) so this James, of whom (Acts xv. 13,) no more precise description is given, can be no other than tlie son of Alpheus.
iiut Paul speaks of a James (Gal. i. 19) the, .Lord’s brother, whom lie saw at Jerusalem, and it, is doubtless lie of whom lie speaks in connexion with Ceplias and John as the arv^ot (pillars) of tlie church-for this is precisely in character witli tlie (Apostle) James as he appeared at tlie apostolic council-so tliat this James may be considered as identical with the Lord’s brother, and tlie rather as tlie expression e-cpor 6s -fair aTrooro^uv OVK Etdov, d fitf ‘Idnuftov ~uv aSsX^ov rov K-vpiov (but other of the apostles saio I none, save •Tames the .Lord’s brother. Gal. i. 19,) makes it appear as if tlie Lord’s brother were i i --,.,„ 4.1,., ,.,^.,iinc,. •uritl, wliipli ;ilso tlie ancient tradition
iiut Paul speaks of a James (Gal. i. 19) the, .Lord’s brother, whom lie saw at Jerusalem, and it, is doubtless lie of whom lie speaks in connexion with Ceplias and John as the arv^ot (pillars) of tlie church-for this is precisely in character witli tlie (Apostle) James as he appeared at tlie apostolic council-so tliat this James may be considered as identical with the Lord’s brother, and tlie rather as tlie expression e-cpor 6s -fair aTrooro^uv OVK Etdov, d fitf ‘Idnuftov ~uv aSsX^ov rov K-vpiov (but other of the apostles saio I none, save •Tames the .Lord’s brother. Gal. i. 19,) makes it appear as if tlie Lord’s brother were i i --,.,„ 4.1,., ,.,^.,iinc,. •uritl, wliipli ;ilso tlie ancient tradition
Other books
Doctor Who: The Romans by Donald Cotton
Fear of Frying by Jill Churchill
The Silver Siren by Chanda Hahn
Torched by Shay Mara
The Orchard Keeper (1965) by McCarthy, Cormac
InformedConsent by Susanna Stone
HellKat by Roze, Robyn
Sin Límites by Alan Glynn
The Advocate's Conviction by Teresa Burrell
Forever My Love by Heather Graham