Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (705 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
9.42Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
CONCEPTION OF JESL-S--ITS SCPEEyATCEAL CHARACTER. 139
which represents James tlie Just, a brother of Jesus, as the first head of tlie church at Jerusalem, agrees.* But admitting tlie James of tlie Acts to be identical with the distinguished Apostle of that name, then is lie tlie son of Alpheus, and not tlie son of Joseph;
consequently if lie be at tlie same time a6eX(^o<; rov ‘K.vpiov, then d6e^(f)oc cannot signify a brother.
Now if Alpheus and Cleophas are admitted to be tlie same individual, the husband of the sister of Mary tlie mother of Jesus, it is obvious that dJc/l^bc, used to denote tlie relationship of his son to Jesus, must be taken in the signification, cousin. If, ‘after tills manner, James tlie Apostle tlie son of Alpheus be identified with the cousin, and the cousin be identified witli tlie brother of Jesus of tlie same name, it is obvious that ‘lov6a(; ‘laiM^ov in tlie catalogue of tlie Apostles in Luke (Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13,) must be translated brother of Jnines (son of Alpheus);
Now if Alpheus and Cleophas are admitted to be tlie same individual, the husband of the sister of Mary tlie mother of Jesus, it is obvious that dJc/l^bc, used to denote tlie relationship of his son to Jesus, must be taken in the signification, cousin. If, ‘after tills manner, James tlie Apostle tlie son of Alpheus be identified with the cousin, and the cousin be identified witli tlie brother of Jesus of tlie same name, it is obvious that ‘lov6a(; ‘laiM^ov in tlie catalogue of tlie Apostles in Luke (Luke vi. 16, Acts i. 13,) must be translated brother of Jnines (son of Alpheus);
and tins Apostle Jude must be lield as identical witli tlie Jude a6eA.(ft)g ‘ITJOOV, tliat is, witli tlie cousin of the Lord and son of Mary Cicophas ; (though tlie name of Jnde is never mentioned in connexion with tins Mary.) If the Epistle of Jude in our canon be authentic, it is confirmatory of tlie above deduction, that tlie author (verse 1) designates himself as tlie d6eXipb(; ‘laKupov (brother of James).
Some moreover have identified tlie Apostle Simon 6 i,r]XwTT]<; or K.avavirrj(; (Zeiotes or the Cannanitc) witli tlie Simon enumerated among the brothers of Jesus (Mark vi. 3,) and who according to a tradition of tlie church succeeded James as licad of tlie church at Jerusalem;! so that Joscs alone appears witliout further designation or appellative.
Some moreover have identified tlie Apostle Simon 6 i,r]XwTT]<; or K.avavirrj(; (Zeiotes or the Cannanitc) witli tlie Simon enumerated among the brothers of Jesus (Mark vi. 3,) and who according to a tradition of tlie church succeeded James as licad of tlie church at Jerusalem;! so that Joscs alone appears witliout further designation or appellative.
If, accordingly, those spoken of as aOEAffiol ‘I^oov were merely cousins, and tin-ee of these were Apostles, it must excite surprise that not only in tlie Acts, (i. 14,) after an enumeration of tlie Apostles, tlie brothers of Jesus are separately particularized, but that also (1 Cor. ix. 5.) they appear to be a class distinct from tlie Apostles.
Perhaps, also, tlie passage Gal. 1. 19 ought to be understood as indicating that James, tlie Lord’s brother, was not an Apostle.^ It therefore, tlio dSeX(j)ol ‘I’i]aov seem thus to be extruded from the number of tlie Apostles, it is yet more difficult to regard them merely as tlie cousins of Jesus, since they appear in so many places immediately associated witli tlie mother of Jesus, and in two or three passages only are two men bearing tlie same names mentioned in connexion with tlie other Mary, wlio accordingly would be their real mother. The Greek word d(5e/t0oc, may indeed signify, in language which pretends not to precision, as well as the Hebrew nx a more distant relative; but as it is repeatedly used to express the relationship of tliese persons to Jesus, and is in no instance replaced by dveiptbi;-a word wliicli is not foreign to tlie New Testament language when the relationship of cousin is to be denoted (Col. iv. 10.)
it cannot well be” taken in any oilier than its proper signification.
I’urther, it need only be pointed out that tlie highest degree of un
H 1 + T7,,a, TT T1 H + 1;’r;t»e,.ht in MatHl. n .tRI
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
certainty exists respecting not only the identity of tlie names AlpliCTis anil Cicophas, •upon which the identity of James tlic cousin of Jesus and of tlie Apostle James tlie Less rests, lint also regarding the translation of ‘lovSac; ‘laicu^ov by tlie brother of James ;
and likewise respecting the assumed identity -of the author of the last Catholic Epistle with tlic Apostle Jude.
Thus tlie web of tills identification gives way at all points, and we are forced back to the position whence we set out; so that we have again real brothers of Jesus, also two cousins distinct from these brothers, though bearing the same names with two of them, besides some Apostles of the same names with both brothers and cousins.
To find two pairs of sons of tlic same names in a family is, indeed, not so uncommon as to become a source of objection. It is, however, remarkable that tlie same James wlio in the Epistle to tlie G-alatians is designated aSe^’w Kvpibv (the Lord’s brother’), must unquestionably, according to the Acts of tlie Apostles, be regarded as tlie son of Alplieus; which lie could not be if this expression signified a brother. So that there is perplexity on every side, which can be solved only (and tlien, indeed, but negatively and without historical result) by admitting tlic existence of obscurity and error on tilis point in the New Testament writers, and even in the very earliest Christian traditions; error which, in matters of involved relationships and family names, is far more easily fallen into than avoided.*
A\”e have consequently no ground for denying tliat the mother of Jesus bore her husband several other children besides Jesus, younger, and perhaps also older; the latter, because the representation in the New Testament that Jesus was the first-born may belong no less to tlic mythus tlian the representation of the Fathers that lie was an only son.
§ 31. VISIT OF MAKY TO ELIZABETH.
THE angel who announced to Mary her own approaching pregnancy, at tlie same time informed her (Luke i. 36.) of that of her relative Elizabeth, witli whom it was” already the sixth month.
Hereupon Mary immediately set out on a journey to her cousin, a visit which was attended by extraordinary occurrences; for when Elizabetli heard tlic salutation of Mary, tlie babe leaped in her womb for joy; slic also became inspired, and in her exultation poured torth an address to Mary as the future mother of the Messiah, to which Mary responded by a hymn of praise (Luke i. 39-56).
The rationalistic interpreter believes it to be an easy matter to
Sive a natural explanation of tills narrative of tlie Gospel of Luke.
Ie is of opinion f tliat tlic unknown individual wlio excited such peculiar anticipations in Mary, had at tlic same time acquainted her with tlie similar situation of her cousin Elizabetli. Tilis it was
VISIT OF MARY TO ELIZABETH. 141
which impelled Mary the more strongly to confer on the subject with her older relative. Arrived at her cousin’s dwelling, she first of all made known wliat liad liappened to herself; but upon this the narrator is silent, not wishing to repeat what he had just before described. And here, tlic Rationalist not only supposes the address of Elizabeth to have been preceded by some communication from Mary, but imagines Mary to have related lier history piecemeal, so as to allow Elizabeth to throw in sentences during the intervals.
The excitement of Elizabetli-such is tlie continuation of the rationalistic explanation-communicated itself, according to natural laws, to the cliild, who, as is usual witli an embryo of six months, made a movement, which -was first regarded by tlic mother as significant, and as the consequence of tlie salutation, after Mary’s farther communications. Just as natural does it appear to the Rationalist that Mary should have given utterance to licr Messianic expectations, confirmed as they were by Elizabetli, in a kind of psalmodic recitative, composed of reminiscences borrowed from various parts of the Old Testament.
But there is much in tilis explanation which positively contradicts tlie text. In the first place, tliat Elizabetli should have learned tlie heavenly message imparted to Stary from Mary herself. There is no trace in tlie narrative cither of any communication preceding Elizabetli’s address, or of interruptions occasioned by farther explanations on tlie part of Mary. On tlie contrary, as it is a supernatural revelation, which acquaints Mary witli tlic pregnancy of Elizabetli, so also it is to a revelation that Elizabetli’s immediate recognition of Mary, as the chosen mother of the Messiah, is attributed.* As little will tlie other feature of tilis narrative-that the entrance of tlie mother of tlie Messiah occasioned a responsive movement in liis mother’s womb on the part of Ilia forerunner-bear a natural explanation. In modern times indeed even orthodox interpreters have inclined to tilis explanation, but with tlie modification, tliat Elizabetli in tlie first place received a revelation, in which however tlie cliild, owing to tlic mother’s excitement, a. matter to be physiologically explained, likewise took part.f But tlie record does not represent tlie tiling as if tlic excitement of tlie mother were tlie determining cause of the movement of tlie cliild; on tlie contrary (v. 41.) tlie emotion of the mother follows tlie movement of the, cliild, and Elizabetli’s own account states, that it was the salutation of Mary (v. 44.’i, not indeed from its particular signification, but merely as the voice, of the mother of tlic Messiah, which produced tlie movement of tlic unborn babe: undeniably assuming something supernatural. But even herein tlic supranaturalistic view of tilis miracle is not free from objection, even on its own ground;
.3
utcd.*
and hence tlie anxiety of tlie above mentioned modern orthodox interpreters to evade it. It may be possible to conceive tlie human
• S. Olshausen und de Wette, z. d. St.+ Hess, Geschichto Jesu, 1, S. 26; Ols.
THE LIFE OF JESS’S.
mind immediately acted upon by tlic divine inind, to winch it is related, but how solve tlic diniculty of an immediate communication of the divine mind to an uniiitclliscnt, embryo? And if we inquire tlie object of so strange a miracle, none which is worthy presents itself. ‘Should it be referred to tlic necessity that, tlie Baptist should receive the earliest possible intimation of tlic work to which lie was destined; still we know not how such an. impression could have been made upon an embryo.
Should tlic purpose be supposed to centre in tlic other individuals, in Mary or Elizabeth ; they had been tlic recipients of far higher revelations, and were consequently already possessed of an adequate measure of insight and faith.
Should tlic purpose be supposed to centre in tlic other individuals, in Mary or Elizabeth ; they had been tlic recipients of far higher revelations, and were consequently already possessed of an adequate measure of insight and faith.
No fewer difficulties oppose the rationalistic tlian the supranaturalistic explanation of tlic hymn pronounced by Mary. For though it is not, like tlic Canticle of Zacliarlas (v, G7.) and tlic address of Elizabeth (v. 41.) introduced by tlie formula E-lfpOr] -vevwTOf dyiov she. was filUd with the JIoly Ghost, still tlio similarity of these utterances is so great, tliat tlie omission cannot be adduced as a pro3f that the narrator did not, intend to represent tills, equally witii tlic other two, as the operation of tlie TTvevpa (spirit). But apart from the intention of tlic narrator, can it be thought natural tliat two friends visiting one another should, even in tlic midst of the most extraordinary occurrences, break forth into long hymns, and that. their conversation should entirely lose tlic character of dialogue, the natural form on such occasions’? By a supernatural influence alone could tlic minds of tlic two friends be attuned to a state of elevation, so foreign to their every day life. But if indeed Mary’s hymn is to be understood as tlie work of tlie Holy Spirit, it is surprisina: tliat a speech emanating immediately from tlic divine source of inspiration should not be, more striking for its originality, but should be so interlarded with reminiscences from the Old Testament, borrowed from tlic song of praise spoken by the mother of Samuel (1 Sam. ii.) under analogous circumstances.’* Accordingly we must admit that tlic compilation of tills hymn, consisting of recollections from tlie Old Testament, was put together in a natural way; but allowinc its composition toJiavc been perfectly natural, it cannot be ascribed to tlic artless Mary, but to him wlio poetically wrought out tlic tradition in circulation respecting tlic scene in question.
Since then we tind all tlic principal incidents of this visit inconceivable according to tlic supernatural interpretation ; also that they will not bear a natural explanation ; we arc led to seek a mythical exposition of this as well as tlic preceding portions of the gospel history.
Tills path lias already been entered upon by others.
Tlic view of this narrative given by tlie anonymous E. F. in Hcnkc’s Ma2;azinc,t is, tliat it docs not pourtray events as they actually did
Tills path lias already been entered upon by others.
Tlic view of this narrative given by tlie anonymous E. F. in Hcnkc’s Ma2;azinc,t is, tliat it docs not pourtray events as they actually did
Other books
Lonely Girl by Josephine Cox
Golem in the Gears by Piers Anthony
Going Down (Quickies #1) by Cassie Cross
Close To Home (Westen Series) by Ferrell, Suzanne
Strictly Confidential by Roxy Jacenko
Pursuit Of Honor by Vince Flynn
The Kabul Incident: A Weir Codex Novella by Mat Nastos
Pride and Consequence by Altonya Washington
Budapest Noir by Kondor, Vilmos
Dead Magic by A.J. Maguire