Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (715 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
12.22Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Thus here again we find reason to doubt tlie historical character of tlie narrative, especially as we have found by a previous investigation tliat it is annexed to narratives purely mytliical.
Simeon’s real expressions, say some commentators, were probably these:
Simeon’s real expressions, say some commentators, were probably these:
Would that I might yet behold the newborn Messiali, even as I
now bear this cliild in my arms !-a simple wish which was transformed ex eventu by tradition, into tlie positive enunciations now read in Lukef. But this explanation is incomplete, for tlie reason wliy such stories became current concerning Jesus, must be shown in tlie relative position of tills portion of tlie evangelical narrative, and in tlie interest of the primitive Christian legend. As to the former, tins scene at tlie presentation of Jesus in tlie temple is obviously parallel witli that at the circumcision of tlie Baptist, narrated by tlie same evangelist; for on both occasions, at tlie inspiration
* Cap. C. Vidifque ilium Simeon sency instar cobimmG incig rej’uli/e.ntem, cum Donuwi Maria n’fY/o, mattr fjus, ulitis snis enm yrstaret^-et cii’ctundabant eum i.t-WJvli instar virCfd’t^ cd-’bi’iintes ii/um etc. Ap. Tliilo, p. 71. ^ Thus E. P. in the treatise, on the two first chapters of SIatth, and Luke.
in Ilcnke’s Slag. ;’>. llil. ti. l(i9 f. A similar half
in Ilcnke’s Slag. ;’>. llil. ti. l(i9 f. A similar half
182 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
of the Holy Spirit, God is praised, for the birth of a national deliverer, and tlie future destiny of tlie child is prophetically announced, in the one case by tlie father, in tlie oilier by a devout stranger. Tliat tills scene is in the former instance connected with tlie circumcision, in tlie latter with tlie presentation in tlie temple, seems to be accidental; when however tlie legend liad once, in relation to Jesus, so profusely adorned tlie presentation in the temple, the circumcision must be left, as we have above found it, witliout embellishment.
As to tlie second spring in the formation of our narrative, namely, the interest of the Christian legend, it is easy to conceive how this would act. He wlio, as a man, so clearly proved himself to be tlie Messiah, must also, it was thought, even as a cliild liave been recognisable in his true character to an eye rendered acute by tlie Holy Spirit; lie wlio at a later period, by Ills powerful words and deeds, manifested himself to be tlie Son of God, must surely, even before lie could speak or move witli freedom, liave borne tlie stamp of divinity. Moreover if men, moved by tlie Spirit of God, so early pressed Jesus with love and reverence in their arms, then was tlie spirit tliat animated him not an impious one, as his enemies alleged;
and if a lioly seer liad predicted, along witli the liigli destiny of Jesus, the conflict which lie liad to undergo, and tlie anguish which Ills fate would cause his mother,* then it was assuredly no chance, but a divine plan, that led him into tlie dcplits of abasement on the way to Ins ultimate exaltation.
Tills view of the narrative is tlius countenanced positively by the nature of the fact,-and negatively by the difficulties attending any other explanation. One cannot but wonder, therefore, how Schlciermachcr can be influenced against it by an observation which did not prevent him from taking a similar view of the history of tlie.
Baptist’s birth, namely, that tlie narrative is too natural to liave been fabricated ;f and how Ncander can argue against it, from exaggerated ideas of tlie more imposing traits wliicli the mytlius would liave substituted for our narrative. Far from allowing a purincation for tlie mother of Jesus, and a redemption for himself, to take place in tlie ordinary manner, Neander thinks the inythus would have depicted an angelic appearance, intended to deter Mary or tlie priest from an observance inconsistent with the dignity of Jesus.:):
As though even tlie Christianity of Paul did not maintain that Christ was born under the law, •yew^ez’oc VTT’O vopov (Gal. iv. 4.); how much more then tlie Judaic Christianity whence these narratives arc derived ! As tliougli Jesus himself liad not, agreeably to this view of his position, submitted to baptism, and according to tlie Evangelist
* With tlie words of Simeon addressed to Mary : KCU aov (if aDT7/f rf/v ij’v^v Sie^evaeTai po/Kfiaia (V. 3’i.) comii, tlie words in the messianic psalm of sorrow, x-\ii. 21 ;
fivaal ii-no /Mediae rr/v ipv^rJV fiov.f yehleicnnaelier, iilier den l.ukas, s. 37. Compare (in the other linnd tlie oliservations in § 18, with those of the. authors there quoted, w,^,> ui + x’.,ninL.r lirrii (^ 04- f’.^ mistal-Les the auoervphal for tlie mythical, as lie
BIRTH AND EAELY LIFE OF JESUS.
whose narrative is in question, without any previous expostulation on the part of tlie Baptist! Of more weight is Schleicrmacher’s other observation, tliat supposing this narrative to be merely a poetical creation, its author w^ould scarcely have placed by tlie side of Simeon Anna, of whom lie makes no poetical use, still less would he have characterized her with minuteness, after designating his principal personage with comparative negligence. But to represent the dignity of tlie child Jesus as being proclaimed by tlie mouth of two witnesses, and especially to associate a prophetess with the prophet.-this is just the symmetrical grouping tliat tlie legend loves.
Tlie detailed description of Anna may have been taken from a real person who, at tlie time when our narrative originated, was yet lield in remembrance for her distinguished piety. As to tlie Evangelist’s omission to assign her any particular speech, it is to be observed that her office is to spread abroad the glad news, while tliat of Simeon is to welcome Jesus into tlie temple: hence as tlie part of the prophetess was to be performed behind the scenes, her precise words could not be given. As in a former instance Schleiermacher supposes tlie Evangelist to liave received his history from the lips of the shepherds, so here he conceives him to have been indebted to Anna, of whose person lie has so vivid a recollection ; Ncander approves tills opinion-not the only straw thrown out by Schleiermacher, to which this theologian lias clung in tlie emergencies of modern criticism.
At tills point also, where Luke’s narrative leaves Jesus for a series of years, there is a concluding sentence on tlie prosperous growth of tlie child (v. 40); a similar sentence occurs at tlie corresponding period in the life of tlie Baptist, and botli recall tlie analogous form of expression found in tlie liistory of Sampson (Judg.
xiii. 24 f.).
§. 39. RETROSPECT--DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MATTHEW AND LUKE
AS TO THE ORIGINAL RESIDENCE OF THE PARENTS OP JESUS.
IN the foregoing examinations we have called in question the historical credibility of the Gospel narratives concerning tlie genealogy, birth, and childhood of Jesus, on two grounds : first, because tlie narratives taken separately contain much tliat will not bear an historical interpretation ; and secondly, because the parallel narratives of Matthew and Luke exclude each other, so that it is impossible for botli to be true, and one must necessarily be false; this imputation however may attach to eitlier, and consequently to both.
One of the contradictions between the two narratives extends from tlie commencement of the liistory of the childhood to the point we helve now readied; it lias therefore often come in our way, but we liave been unable hitherto to give it our consideration, because only now tliat we have completely reviewed tlie scenes in which it figures,
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
consequences. We refer to the divergency tliat exists between Matthew and Luke, in relation to the original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus.
Luke, from tlie very beginning of his history, gives Nazareth as the abode of Josepli and Mary; here the angel seeks Mary (i. 26);
here wo must suppose Mary’s liouse omoc;, to be situated (i. 56);
from hence the parents of Jesus journey to Bethlehem on account of tlie census (ii. 4); and liitlier, when circumstances permit, they return as to their own city TTO/U? av-S>v (v. 39). Thus in Luke, Nazareth is evidently the proper residence of tlie parents of Jesus, and they only visit Bethlehem for a short time, owing to a casual circumstance.
In Matthew, it is not stated in the first instance -where Joseph and Mary resided. According to ii. 1. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and since no extraordinary circumstances are said to have led his parents: thither, it appears as if Matthew supposed them to have been originally resident in Bethlehem. Here lie makes the parents with tlie cliild receive tlie visit of tlie magi; then follows tlie flight into Egypt, on returning from -which Joseph is only deterred from again seeking Judca by a special divine admonition, which directs him to Nazareth in Gralilee (ii. 22).
This last particular renders certain wliat had before seemed probable, namely, tliat Matthew did not with Luke suppose Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been the original dwelling-place of tlie parents of Jesus, and that he conceived their final settlement at Nazareth to have been the result of unforeseen circumstances.
This last particular renders certain wliat had before seemed probable, namely, tliat Matthew did not with Luke suppose Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been the original dwelling-place of tlie parents of Jesus, and that he conceived their final settlement at Nazareth to have been the result of unforeseen circumstances.
Tills contradiction is generally glided over without suspicion.
The reason of this lies in tlie peculiar character of Mattliew’s Gospel, a character on which a modern writer lias built tlie assertion that this Evana’elist does not contradict Luke concerning tlio orlgi
0
00
00
nal residence of tlie parents of Jesus, for lie says nothing at all on the subject, troubling himself as little about topographical as chronological accuracy,lie mentions tlie later abode of Joseph and Mary, and the birth-place of Jesus, solely because it was possible to connect with them Old Testament prophecies; as the abode of the parents of Jesus prior to his birth furnished no opportunity for a similar quotation, Matthew lias left it entirely unnoticed, an omission which however, in his style of narration, is no proof tliat lie was ignorant of their abode, or tliat lie supposed it to have been Bethlehem.* But even admitting tliat the silence of Matthew on tlie earlier residence of the parents of Jesus in Nazareth, and on the peculiar circumstances tliat caused Bethlehem to be his birth-place, proves nothing; yet tlie above supposition requires tliat tlie exchange of Bethlehem for Nazareth should be so represented as to give some intimation, or at least to leave a possibility, tliat we should understand tlie former to be a merely temporary abode, and the journey to the latter a return homeward.
Such an intimation would liave
Such an intimation would liave
BIETH AND EARLY LIFE OF JEgUS.
185
185
Taee^n given, had Matthew attributed to the angelic vision, that determined Joseph’s settlement in Nazareth after his return from Egypt, such communications as tlie following: Return now into the land of Israel and into your native city Nazaretli, for there is no further need of your presence in Bethlehem, since tlie prophecy that your messianic cliild should be born in tliat place is already fulfilled.
But as Mattlicw is alleged to be generally indifferent about localities, we will be moderate, and demand no positive intimation from him, but simply make tlie negative requisition, tliat lie should not absolutely exclude tlie idea, that. Nazareth was the original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus. This requisition would be met if, instead of a special cause being assigned for the choice of Nazaretli as a residence, it liad been merely said tliat the parents of Jesus returned by divine direction into the land of Israel and betook themselves to Nazareth.
It would certainlv seem abrupt enough, if without any preamble Nazaretli were all at once named instead of Bethlehem : of tills our narrator was conscious, and for this reason lie lias detailed the causes that led to’ the change (ii. 22). But instead of doing this, as we have shown tliat he must have done it, had he, witli Luke, known Nazaretli to be tlie original dwellingplace of tlie parents of Jesus, his .account has precisely tlie opposite bearing, which undeniably proves tliat his supposition was the reverse of Luke’s. Eor when Mattliew represents Josepli on his return from Egypt as being prevented from going to Judea solely by his fear of Archclaus, lie ascribes to him an inclination to proceed to that province--an inclination wliicli is unaccountable if tlie affair of the census alone liad taken him to Bethlehem, and wliicli is only to be explained by tlie supposition tliat he liad formerly dwelt there.
But as Mattlicw is alleged to be generally indifferent about localities, we will be moderate, and demand no positive intimation from him, but simply make tlie negative requisition, tliat lie should not absolutely exclude tlie idea, that. Nazareth was the original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus. This requisition would be met if, instead of a special cause being assigned for the choice of Nazaretli as a residence, it liad been merely said tliat the parents of Jesus returned by divine direction into the land of Israel and betook themselves to Nazareth.
It would certainlv seem abrupt enough, if without any preamble Nazaretli were all at once named instead of Bethlehem : of tills our narrator was conscious, and for this reason lie lias detailed the causes that led to’ the change (ii. 22). But instead of doing this, as we have shown tliat he must have done it, had he, witli Luke, known Nazaretli to be tlie original dwellingplace of tlie parents of Jesus, his .account has precisely tlie opposite bearing, which undeniably proves tliat his supposition was the reverse of Luke’s. Eor when Mattliew represents Josepli on his return from Egypt as being prevented from going to Judea solely by his fear of Archclaus, lie ascribes to him an inclination to proceed to that province--an inclination wliicli is unaccountable if tlie affair of the census alone liad taken him to Bethlehem, and wliicli is only to be explained by tlie supposition tliat he liad formerly dwelt there.
Other books
Battle Earth: 11 by Nick S. Thomas
A Bride for Two Mavericks by Finn, Katrina
The Best American Mystery Stories 2012 by Otto Penzler
Red by Libby Gleeson
Rain & Fire by Chris d'Lacey
Cartilage and Skin by Michael James Rizza
His Unexpected Family by Patricia Johns
Ray Hoy - Jack Frost 01 - The Vegas Factor by Ray Hoy
Summer Vows (Arabesque) by Alers, Rochelle
1920 by Eric Burns