Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (708 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
9.51Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
This explanation rests altogether on the assumption, that tlie sheplierds were previously acquainted witli Mary’s expectation that she should give birth to the Messiah. How otherwise should they have been led to consider tlie sia;n as referring particularly to tlie birth of the Messiali in their manger ? Yet tills very assumption is the most direct contradiction of tlie gospel account.
For, in the first place, tlie Evangelist evidently does not suppose the manger to belong to tlie shepherds : since after lie lias narrated tlie delivery of Mary in the manger, lie then goes on to speak of tlie shepherds as a new and distinct, subject, not at all connected with the manger.
For, in the first place, tlie Evangelist evidently does not suppose the manger to belong to tlie shepherds : since after lie lias narrated tlie delivery of Mary in the manger, lie then goes on to speak of tlie shepherds as a new and distinct, subject, not at all connected with the manger.
His words arc: and there mere in, the same country shepherds, nal Trot^evec yaav iv ry %wpa vy av-rj. If this explanation were correct he would, at all events, have said, the shepherds cC’c. ot 6s Trot/.tEye?
K. r. /L; besides lie would not have been wholly silent, respecting the comings and goings of these shepherds during the day, and their departure to guard tlie flock at tlie approach of night. But, grant these presupposed circumstances, is it consistent in Paulus to represent Mary, at first so reserved concerning her pregnancy as to conceal it even from Joseph, and then so communicative that, just arrived among strangers, slie parades the whole history of her expectations ? Again tlie sequel of tlie narrative contradicts tlie assumption that the shepherds were informed of the matter by Mary herself, before her delivery. Eor, according to tlic gospel history, the shepherds receive tlic first intelligence of tlie birth of tlie Saviour au-i’ip from the angel who appears to them, and wlio tells them, as a sign of the truth of Ills communication, tliat they sliall find tlie babe lying in a manger. Had they already heard from Mary of the approaching birth of the Messiah, tlie meteoric appearance would have been a confirmation to them of Mary’s words, and not the finding of the child a proof of the truth of the apparition. Finally, may we so far confide in the investigations already made as to
vtp.ninl n.ihiral nlienomenoH 80
BIETH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESUS.
inquire, whence, if neither a miraculous announcement nor a supernatural conception actually occurred, could Mary have derived tlie confident anticipation that she should give birth to the Mcssiali ?
In opposition to this natural explanation, so full of difficulties on every side, Bauer announced his adoption of tlie mythical view ;*
in fact, however, ho did not advance one step beyond the interpretation of the Rationalists, but actually repeated Paulus’s exposition point, for point. To tills mixed mythical explanation Gabler justly objected that, it, equally with the natural interpretation, multiplies improbabilities: by tlie adoption of the pure, dogmatic mythus, every tiling appears simpler; thereby, at tlie same time, greater harmony is introduced into the early Christian history, all the preceding narratives of which ouglit equally to be interpreted as pure mytlii.t Gabler, accordingly, explained tlie narrative as tlie product of tlic ideas of tlie age, which demanded the assistance of angels at the birth of tlie Messiah. Now had it been known that Mary was delivered in a dwelling belonging to shepherds, it would also have been concluded tliat angels must have brought tlie tidings to these good shepherds that the Messiali was born in their manger;
and tlic angels, who cease not praising God, must have sung a hymn of praise on the occasion. Gabler thinks it impossible, tliat a Jcwisli Christian wlio sliould liave known some of tlic data of tlie birth of Jesus, could have thought of it otherwise than as here depicted, j:
This explanation of Gabler shows, in a remarkable manner, how difficult it is entirely to extricate oneself from the natural explanation, and to rise completely to tlie mythical; for whilst tins theologian believes lie treads on pure mythical ground, lie still stands witli one foot upon that of the natural interpretation. He selects from tlie account of Luke one incident as historical which, by its connexion witli other unhistorical statements and its conformity to the spirit of the primitive Christian legend, is proved to be merely mythical; namely, tliat Jesus was really born in a shepherd’s dwelling. He also borrows an assumption from tlic natural explanation, which tlie mythical needs not to obtrude on the text: tliat tlic sheplierds to whom it is alleged the angels appeared, were tlie possessors of tlie manger in which Mary was delivered. Tlie first detail, upon which tlic second is built, belongs to the same machinery by which Luke, witli the help of the census, transported the parents of Jesus from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Now we know wliat is the fact respecting the census; it crumbles away inevitably before criticism, and with it tlie datum built entirely upon it, that Jesus was born m a manger. For liad not tlie parents of Jesus been strangers, and liad they not come to Bethlehem in company with so large a concourse of strangers as the census might have occasioned, the
* IIeliraische Mythologic, 2. Till. S, 223 ff.
i- Eecension von Bauer’s hebr. Mythologio in U.ililer’s Journal fur auserlesene tlieol. Literatur, 3, 1, S. OS f. ^ Neucstes thcol
i- Eecension von Bauer’s hebr. Mythologio in U.ililer’s Journal fur auserlesene tlieol. Literatur, 3, 1, S. OS f. ^ Neucstes thcol
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
cause which obliged Mary to accept a stable for her place of delivery would no longer liave existed. But, on the other hand, tlie incident, that Jesus was Lorn in a stable and saluted in the first instance by shepherds, is so completely in accordance with tlic spirit, of the ancient legend, tliat it is evident the narrative may have been derived purely from this source. Theophylact, in his time, pointed out its true character, when he says : tlie angels did not appear to the scribes and pharisees of Jerusalem wlio wore full of all malice, Lut to the shepherds, in the fields, on account of their simplicity and innocence, and because tlicy by their mode of life were tlic successors of tlie patriarchs.* It was in tlie field by tlic flocks tliat Moses was visited by a heavenly apparition (Exod. iii. 1 ff.); and God took David, tlie forefather of tlic Messiah, from his shcepfolds (at BcthIclicm), to be tlie shepherd of his people. Psalm Ixxviii. 70. (comp.
1 Sam. xvi. 11.). The mytlii of tlic ancient world more generally ascribed divine apparitions to countrymen f and shepherds; :j: the sons of tlic gods, and of great men were frequently brought up among slicplicrds.§ In tlie same spirit of the ancient legend is tlie apocryphal invention tliat Jesus was born in a cave, and we are at once reminded of tlic cave of Jupiter and of tlic other gods; even though tlie misunderstood passage of Isaiah xxxiii. 1G. may liave been tlic immediate occasion of tills incident.ll Moreover the night, in which the scene is laid,-(unless one refers here to the rabbinical representations, according to which, the deliverance by means of the Messiah, like tlic deliverance from Egypt, should take place by nigilt,^)-forms the obscure background against wliicli tlic manifested glory of the .Lord slionc so much the more brilliantly, wliich, as it is said to liave glorified the birth of Moses,** could not have been absent from that of tlic Messiah, his exalted antitype.
The mythical interpretation of this section of the gospel liistory lias found an opponent in Sclilcicrmacher.tt He thinks it improbable tliat tills commencement of tlie second chapter of Luke is a continuation of tlie first, written by tlic same author; because tlic frequent opportunities of introducing lyrical effusions-as for example, wlicu tlie shepherds returned glorifying and praising God, v. 20are not, taken advantage of as in tlie first chapter; and here indeed we can in some measure agree witli him. But wlicn lie adds that a decidedly poetical character cannot be ascribed to this narrative, since a poetical composition would oi’ necessity have contained more of tlie lyrical, tills only proves tliat Sclilclermaclicr lias not justly apprehended tlie notion of tliat kind of poetry of which lie here treats, namely, tlie poetry of tlie mytlius. In a word, mythical poetry is objective: the poetical exists in tlie substance of
* In Luc. 3. in Suiccr 3, p. 789 f.t Servius ad Virg. Eel. 10, 2R.{ Liban proRymn. p. l;i8, in Wetstein, S. (i62.§ Thus Cvrus, see llerod. 1, 111) It’,
lluniiilus, see Livy, 1, 4.
|| Thilo, Codex, Apocr. N. T. 1, S^ 38;{, not.
lluniiilus, see Livy, 1, 4.
|| Thilo, Codex, Apocr. N. T. 1, S^ 38;{, not.
•** >Sota, 1, 4S: Supii-ntes nostri perhll/ent, circii horam nnliiilatii Miw’if tiitnm d’liiiunt ™»7..»o,,, <•„;„,„ ;„„<> /\v,,tai,,;n\ -H- I’pl.pr ih,n I.ukas. S. 29 f. Wiili wlioni Xriuidiir
BIRTH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS.
the narrative, and may therefore appear in the plainest form, free from all tlie adornments oflvrical effusions; which latter are rather only tlic subsequent additions of a more intelligent and artificially elaborated subjective poetry.* Undoubtedly tills section seems to have been preserved to us more nearly in its original legendary form, wliilst tlic narratives of the first chapter in Luke bear rather the stamp of having been re-wrought by some poetical individual;
but historical truth is not on tliat account to be sought here any more than there. Consequently tlic obligation wliicli Sclilclermaclicr further imposes upon himself, to trace out tlic source of tills narrative in tlie gospel of Luke, can only be regarded as an exercise of ingenuity.
He refuses to recognize tliat source in Mary, though a reference to her might liave been found in tlie observation, v. 19, she Jcept all these sayings in, Jier heart; wherein indeed lie is tlic more right, since tliat observation (a fact to which Schlciermacher does not advert) is merely a phrase borrowed from tlic liistory of Jacob and his son Joseph, f For as the narrative in Genesis relates of Jacob, tlic father of Joseph, tliat cliild of miracle, tliat, wlien the latter told Ills significant dreams, and his brethren envied him, his father observed the saying: so tlie narrative in Luke, both here and at verse 51, relates of Mary, tliat slie, whilst others gave utterance aloud to their admiration at tlie extraordinary occurrences wliich happened to lier cliild, Iwpt all these things and pondered them in he/’ heart.
But tlie above named theologian points out the shepherds instead of Mary as tlic source of our narrative, alleging tliat all tlie details are given, not from Mary’s point of view, but from tliat of tlie shepherds. More truly however is tlie point of view tliat of the legend wdiich supersedes both.
If Schleicrmachcr finds it impossible to believe tliat tills narrative is an air bubble conglomerated out of nothing; he must include under the word nothing the Jewish and early Christian ideas-concerning Bethlehem, as tlie necessary birtliplace of tlie Messiah; concerning tlie condition of the shepherd, as being peculiarly favoured by communications from heaven; conccrnin”‘ angels, as tlie intermediate agents in such communications-notions, we on our side cannot possibly hold in so little estimation, but we find it easy to conceive tliat something similar to our narrative might liave formed itself out of them.
Finally, when lie finds an adventitious or designed invention impossible, because tlie Christians of that district might easily have inquired of Mary or of the disciples concerning the truth of tlie matter: he speaks too nearly tlie language of the ancient apologists, and pre
He refuses to recognize tliat source in Mary, though a reference to her might liave been found in tlie observation, v. 19, she Jcept all these sayings in, Jier heart; wherein indeed lie is tlic more right, since tliat observation (a fact to which Schlciermacher does not advert) is merely a phrase borrowed from tlic liistory of Jacob and his son Joseph, f For as the narrative in Genesis relates of Jacob, tlic father of Joseph, tliat cliild of miracle, tliat, wlien the latter told Ills significant dreams, and his brethren envied him, his father observed the saying: so tlie narrative in Luke, both here and at verse 51, relates of Mary, tliat slie, whilst others gave utterance aloud to their admiration at tlie extraordinary occurrences wliich happened to lier cliild, Iwpt all these things and pondered them in he/’ heart.
But tlie above named theologian points out the shepherds instead of Mary as tlic source of our narrative, alleging tliat all tlie details are given, not from Mary’s point of view, but from tliat of tlie shepherds. More truly however is tlie point of view tliat of the legend wdiich supersedes both.
If Schleicrmachcr finds it impossible to believe tliat tills narrative is an air bubble conglomerated out of nothing; he must include under the word nothing the Jewish and early Christian ideas-concerning Bethlehem, as tlie necessary birtliplace of tlie Messiah; concerning tlie condition of the shepherd, as being peculiarly favoured by communications from heaven; conccrnin”‘ angels, as tlie intermediate agents in such communications-notions, we on our side cannot possibly hold in so little estimation, but we find it easy to conceive tliat something similar to our narrative might liave formed itself out of them.
Finally, when lie finds an adventitious or designed invention impossible, because tlie Christians of that district might easily have inquired of Mary or of the disciples concerning the truth of tlie matter: he speaks too nearly tlie language of the ancient apologists, and pre
* Comp. Ue Wette, Kritik der mosaischen Geschichte, s. ll(i; George, Mythus u.
Sage, s. 3;i f.
t Gen. xxxvii. ll(LXX):
Luc. 3, 18 f.
Luc. 3, 18 f.
‘E^^OCTcn’ SE aiirbv ol u^T^ot avtov. 6 6^
Kai TTUVT£<; ol uKovcavTeo E{}ar^aaav. •
Kai TTUVT£<; ol uKovcavTeo E{}ar^aaav. •
? (ie M-apiu/z TTuvTa ciiverr/pu TO p-^uara raiiTff, fWu3a}J^ovn(i (•v ry /(Op(^i avr^. 2, 51 i Kai T] fir/T7jt) a’i’rov (^srp/pE’t Trui-’ra ra peuaTd
naTijp O.VTOV Svniprjae TO firjfia.-Schcettgen, horse, 1, 262,
THE LIFE OP JESCS.
supposes the ubiquity of tliese persons,* already alluded to in the Introduction, who however could not possibly liave been in all places rectifying tlie tendency to form Christian legends, wherever it manifested itself.
The notice of the circumcision of Jesus (Luke ii. 21.), evidently proceeds from a narrator who liad no real advice of the fact, but who assumed as a certainty that, according to Jewish custom, the ceremony took place on tlie eiglitli day, and wlio was desirous of commemorating this important event in the life of an Israelitish boy ;t in like manner as Paul (Pliil. iii. 5.) records his circumcision on tlie eighth day. The contrast however between tlie fullness of detail witli wliicli tills point is elaborated and coloured in tlie life of the Baptist, and tlie barrenness and brevity with which it is stated in” reference to Jesus, is striking, and may justify an agreement with tlie remark of Schleiermaclier, that. here, at least tlie author of the first cliaptcr is no longer tlie originator.
Such being tlie state of the case, this statement furnishes nothing for our object, wliicli we might not already have known; only we have till now had no opportunity of observing, distinctly, tliat tlie pretcntcd appointment of tlie name of Jesus before his birth likewise belongs merely to the mythical dress of the narrative. When it is said A.is name was called t/rA’M.s, zcJdch u’as so named of the angel before Jie ‘was conceived in tlie wornb, the importance attached to tlie circumstance is a clear sign, that, a dogmatic interest lies at the bottom of this feature in tlie narrative; which interest can be no other than that which gave rise to the statement-in the Old Testament concerning an Isaac and Ishmael, and in the New Testament concerning a Jolin-that tlie names of these children were, respectively, revealed to their parents prior to their birth, and on account of which interest the rabbins in particular, expected that the same thing sliould occur in relation to tlie name of tlie Messiah.^ Without doubt there were likewise other far more natural reasons which induced tlie parents of Jesus to give him this name (‘‘a^n an abbreviation of SW; o Kvpto?
Such being tlie state of the case, this statement furnishes nothing for our object, wliicli we might not already have known; only we have till now had no opportunity of observing, distinctly, tliat tlie pretcntcd appointment of tlie name of Jesus before his birth likewise belongs merely to the mythical dress of the narrative. When it is said A.is name was called t/rA’M.s, zcJdch u’as so named of the angel before Jie ‘was conceived in tlie wornb, the importance attached to tlie circumstance is a clear sign, that, a dogmatic interest lies at the bottom of this feature in tlie narrative; which interest can be no other than that which gave rise to the statement-in the Old Testament concerning an Isaac and Ishmael, and in the New Testament concerning a Jolin-that tlie names of these children were, respectively, revealed to their parents prior to their birth, and on account of which interest the rabbins in particular, expected that the same thing sliould occur in relation to tlie name of tlie Messiah.^ Without doubt there were likewise other far more natural reasons which induced tlie parents of Jesus to give him this name (‘‘a^n an abbreviation of SW; o Kvpto?
Other books
Shallow Graves - Jeremiah Healy by Jeremiah Healy
Husband Hunting 101 by Rita Herron
Traitor's Chase by Stuart Gibbs
The Diary of Lexi Ashford (Lexi Ashford: Part One) by Jessica Sorensen
Gertrude and Claudius by John Updike
The Weight of Water by Sarah Crossan
Tale of Elske by Jan Vermeer
A Perfect Scandal by Tina Gabrielle
POPism by Andy Warhol, Pat Hackett
They Call Me Baba Booey by Gary Dell'Abate