Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (707 page)

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)

6.92Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

ads

Thus at the time at which Jesus, according to Matth. ii., 1, and Luke L, 5, 26. was born, tlie census of wliicli Luke ii., 1 f. speaks could not have taken place; so tliat if tlie former statements are correct, tlie latter must be false. But. may not tlie reverse be tlie fact, and Jesus have been born after tlie banishment of Archelaus, and at tlie time of tlie census of Quirinus ? Apart from tlie difficulties in which this hypothesis would involve us in relation to tlie chronology of the future life of Jesus, a Roman census, subsequent to tlie banishment of Archelaus, would not have taken tlie parents of Jesus from Nazareth in Gralilee to Bethlehem in Judea. For Judea only, and wliat otherwise belonged to the portion of Archelaus, became a Roman province and subjected to the census. In Galilee Herod Antipas continued to reign as an allied prince, and none of Ills subjects dwelling at Nazareth could have been called to Bethlehem by tlie census. The Evangelist therefore, in order to get a census, must have conceived tlie condition of things such as they were after tlie deposition of Archelaus; but in order to get a census extending to Galilee, lie must have imagined tlie kingdom to liavc continued undivided, as in tlie time of Herod tlie Great. Thus lie deals in manifest contradictions; or rather he lias an exceedingly sorry acquaintance with the political relations of that, period ; for lie extends tlie census not only to the whole of Palestine, but also, (which we must not forget,) to the whole Roman world.

Still these chronological incongruities do not exhaust tlie difficulties which beset this statement of Luke. His representation of the manner in which tlie census was made is subject to objection.

* Storr, opusc. acad. 3, S, 126 f. Silskind, vcrmischte Airfsiitze, S. G3. Tholuck S. 182 f. t Michaelis. Anm. z. d. St. und Einl. in d. N. T. 1, 71.t Munter, Stern der

BIKTII AND EARLY LIFE OP JESUS.

In the first place it is said, tlie taxing took Joseph to Bethlehem, Because he vas of the house and lineage of J}avid, 6ia .TO dvai a-6r’ov eS; O’IKOV HIM Trarptac Aa(3(d, and likewise every one into Ills own city, dc; r^v ISiav TTO^IV, i. e. according to the context, to tlie place wlience his family had originally spruna”.

Now, tliat every individual should be registered in his own city was required in all Jewisli inscriptions, because among the Jews tlie organization of families and tribes constituted tlie very basis of the state. Tlie Romans, on the contrary, were in the liabit of taking tlie census at the residences, and at tlie principal cities in the district. * They conformed to tlie usages of tlie conquered countries only in so far as they did not interfere witli their own objects.

In the present instance it would have been directly contrary to their design, liad they removed individuals-Joseph for example-to a great distance, where the amount of their property was not known, and their statement concerning it could not be checked.! Tlie view of Schleiermachcr is the more admissible, that tlie real occasion wliicli took tlie parents to Bethlehem was a sacerdotal inscription, which the Evangelist confounded witli the better known census of Quirinus. But tilis concession does not obviate tlie contradiction in tilis dubious statement of Luke. He allows Mary to be inscribed witli Josepli, but according to Jewish customs inscriptions had relation to men only. Thus, at all events, it is an inaccuracy to represent Mary as undertaking the journey, in order to be inscribed with lier betrothed in his own city.

Or, if with Paulus we remove tilis inaccuracy by a forced construction of the sentence, we can no longer perceive wliat inducement, could have instigated Marv, in her particular situation, to make so long a journey, since, unless we adopt tlie airy hypothesis of Olsliausen and others, that Mary was the heiress of property in Bethlehem, slie had nothing to do there.

The Evangelist, however, knew perfectly well wliat slie had to do there; namely, to fulfil the prophecy of Micali (v. 1), by giving birth, in the city of David, to tlie Messiah. Now as he set out with the supposition tliat tlie habitual abode of tlie parents of Jesus was Nazareth, so he sought after a lever which should set them in motion towards Bethlehem, at tlie time of tlie birth of Jesus, far and wide nothing presented itself but the celebrated census; lie seized it tlie more unhesitatingly because the obscurity of Ills own view of tlie historical relations of that time, veiled from him tlie many difficulties connected »yith such a combination. If tins be tlie true history of the statement in Luke, we must agree witli K. Oh. L.

Schmidt when lie says, that to attempt to reconcile tlie statement ot Luke concerning tlie dnoypa^’j with chronology, -would be to do the narrator too much honour; lie wished to place Mary in Bethlehem, and therefore times and circumstances were to accommodate themselves to his pleasure, t

* I’aulug. Wettstcin.) Crcdner.f In Schmidt’s Bililiotliek fur Kritik und F.xeK«se, 8. 1. S. 124.

See Kaisi-r. liil)!. Thfiol. 1- S. 2:-SO : Aminon. Fortbildilila-. 1. S. \W; •

THE LIFE OP JESUS.

Thus we have here neither a fixed point for tlic date of tlic birth of Jesus, nor an explanation of tlic occasion which led to his being born precisely at Bethlehem.

If then-it may justly he said-no other reason wliy Jesus should have been Lorn at Bethlehem can be adduced tlian tliat given Ly Luke, we liave absolutely no guarantee that Bethlehem was his birth-place.

§ 33.

PAETICULAE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE BIRTH OF JESUS--THE

CIRCUMCISION.

THE basis of the narrative, the arrival of Joseph and Mary as strangers in Bethlehem on account of tlic census, being once chosen by Luke, tlic farther details are consistently built upon it. In consequence of tlie influx of strangers brought to Bethlehem by the census, tliere is no room for tlie travellers in tlic inn, and they are compelled to put up with tlie accommodation of^i stable where Maryis forthwith delivered of her first-born.

But tlic clilld, who upon earth comes into being in so humble an abode, is highly regarded iu heaven. A celestial messenger announces tlic birth of tlic Messiah, to shepherds who are guarding their flocks in tlic fields by night, and directs them to tlic cliild in tlic maii’.wr. A choir of tlie heav

only liost singing hymns of praise next appears to them, after which they seek and find tlic cliild. (Luke ii. G-20.) \

Tlie apocryphal gospels and tlie traditions of tlic Fathers still further embellished tlie birth of Jesus. According to tlic Protevangdium Jacobi* Joscpli conducts Mary on an ass to Bethlehem to be taxed. As tlicy approach tlic city slie begins to make now mournful, now joyous gestures, and upon inquiry explains that(as onec in Kebccca’s womb tlic two hostile nations struggled, Gen.

xxv. l?3)-she sees two people before licr, tlie one weeping, tlie oilier laughing: i. e. according to one explanation, the two portions of Israel, to one of whom tlic advent of Jesus icas set (Luke il. 34)

elf Tr-uaiv, for the fall, to tlio other eic; avda-aciv, for the rising again.

According to another interpretation, tlie two people were the Jews wlio should reject Jesus, and tlic heathens who sliould accept liiin.t Soon, however, whilst still without tlic city-as appears from tlic context and tlie reading of several MSS-Mary is seized witli tlie pains of clii Id-bearing, and Josepli brings her into a cave situated by tlie road side, where veiled by a cloud of liglit, all nature pausing in celebration of the event, slic brings her child into tlic world, and after licr delivery is found, by women called to her assistance, still a virgin.t The legend of tlie birth of Jesus in a cave was known to JustiuS and to Origcn,|| wlio, in order to reconcile it witli tlie account in Luke tliat lie was laid in a manger, suppose a manger situated within tlie cave. Many modern commentators

* Chap. 17. Compare Historia do nativ. Mariae ct de infantia Sorvatoria, c. 13.

• “ ‘ • ••

/-t ‘ - *--..-.-.i. -VT T <

BIRTH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESL’S.

agree with them ;’* whilst others prefer to consider the cave itself as

cognovit bos possessorem sunm, et asinus praesepe domini sui. In several apocryphas, between tlie Magi and the women wlio assist at tlie birtli, tlie shepherds are forgotten ; but they are mentioned in the Evangelzu’m infantiae arcibicum^ where it saya, tliat wlicn they arrived at tlic cave, and had kindled a fire of rejoicing, tlic heavenly host appeared to them.

If we take tlie circumstances attendins; tlie birth of Jesus, nar

0 ~’

rated by Luke, in a supranaturalistic sense, many difficulties occur.

First, it may reasonably be asked, to wliat end tlic angelic apparition? Tlie most obvious answer is, to make known the birth of Jesus; but so little did it make it known that, in the neighbouring city of Jerusalem, it is the Magi who give tlie first information of tlie new-born kin^’ of tlic Jews; and in the future history of Jesus, no trace of any such occurrence at Ills birth is to be found. Consequently, tlie object of tliat extraordinary phenomenon was not to give a wide-spreading intimation of tlie fact; for if so, God failed in his object.Must we then agree witli Schlcicrmachcr, that tlie aim was limited to an immediate operation upon tlie shepherds ?

Then we roust also suppose with him, tliat tlie shepherds, equally witli Simeon, were filled witli Messianic expectations, and that God designed by this apparition to reward and confirm their pious belief.

Tlic narrative however says nothing of tills heavenly frame of mind, ncitlier docs it mention any abiding effects produced upon these men.

According to tlie whole tenor of tlie representation, the apparition seems to have liad reference, not to tlie shepherds, but exclusively to tlie glorification and the proclaiming of the birtli of Jesus, as the Mcssiali.

But as before observed, tlic latter aim was not accomplished, and tlic former, by itself, like every mere empty display, is an object unworthy of God.

So tliat this circumstance in itself presents no inconsiderable obstacle to the supranaturalistic conception of tlic history. If, to the above considerations, we add tliose already stated which oppose tlie belief in apparitions and the existence of angels in general, it is easy to understand that with respect to this narrative also rcHi