Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (716 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
3.88Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
On tlie other hand as Mattliew makes tlie danger from Archelaus (together with tlie fulfilment of a prophecy) tlie sole cause of the settlement of Josepli and Mary at Nazaretli, lie cannot have supposed tliat tins was their original home, for in tliat case there would have been an independently decisive cause wliicli would have rendered any other superfluous.
Thus tlie difficulty of reconciling Mattliew with Luke, in the present instance, turns upon tlie impossibility of conceiving how the parents of Jesus could, on their return from Egypt, liave it in contemplation to proceed a second time to Bethlehem unless this place liad formerly been their home.
The efforts of commentators have accordingly been chiefly applied to tlie task of finding other reasons for tlie existence of such an inclination in Josepli and Mary.
The efforts of commentators have accordingly been chiefly applied to tlie task of finding other reasons for tlie existence of such an inclination in Josepli and Mary.
Such efforts arc of a very early date. Justin Martyr, holding by Luke, who, while lie decidedly states Nazareth to be, tlie dwellingplace of tlie parents of Jesus, yet does not represent Joseph as a complete stranger in Bethlehem, (for he makes it tlie place from wliicli lie lineally sprang,) seems to suppose tliat Nazaretli was the dwelling-place, and Bethlehem tlie birth-place of Josepli,* and Cred
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
ner thinks that this passage of Justin points out tlie source, and.
presents the reconciliation of the divergent statements of our two evangelists.* But. it is far from presenting a reconciliation. For as Nazareth is still supposed to be the place which Joscpli had chosen as his home, no reason appears why, on his return from Egypt, he sliould all at once desire to exchange his former residence for his birth-place, especially as, according to Justin himself, the cause of his former journey to Bethlehem had not been a plan of settling there, but simply the census-a cause wliicli, after the flight, no longer existed.
Thus the statement of Justin leans to the side of Luke and does not suffice to bring him into harmony with Matthew.
That it was the source of our two evangelical accounts is still less credible ; for how could the narrative of Matthew, which mentions neitlier Nazareth as a dwelling-place, nor tlic census as tlie cause of a journey to Bethlehem, originate in tlie statement of Justin, to which tliese facts are essential ? Arguing generally, where on the one hand, there are two diverging statements, on the Other, an insufficient attempt to combine them, it is certain that tlie latter is not tlie parent and the two former its offspring, but vice versa. Moreover, in this department of attempting reconciliations, we liave already, in connexion with the genealogies, learned to estimate Justin or his authorities.
Thus the statement of Justin leans to the side of Luke and does not suffice to bring him into harmony with Matthew.
That it was the source of our two evangelical accounts is still less credible ; for how could the narrative of Matthew, which mentions neitlier Nazareth as a dwelling-place, nor tlic census as tlie cause of a journey to Bethlehem, originate in tlie statement of Justin, to which tliese facts are essential ? Arguing generally, where on the one hand, there are two diverging statements, on the Other, an insufficient attempt to combine them, it is certain that tlie latter is not tlie parent and the two former its offspring, but vice versa. Moreover, in this department of attempting reconciliations, we liave already, in connexion with the genealogies, learned to estimate Justin or his authorities.
A more thorough attempt at reconciliation is made in tlie Evangelium de nutivitate Marice, and lias met with much approval from modern theologians. According to tills apocryphal book, tlie house of Mary’s parents was at Nazareth, and although slie was brought up in tlie temple at Jerusalem and there espoused to Joscpli, she returned after this occurence to lier parents in Gahlee. Joscpli, on the contrary, was not only born at Bethlehem, as Justin seems to intimate, but also lived there, and thither brought home his betrothed.f But this mode of conciliation, unlike the other, is favourable to Mattlicw and disadvantageous to Luke. For the census with its attendant circumstances is left out, and necessarily so, ^because if Josepli were at home in Bethlehem, and only went to Nazareth to fetch Ills bride, tlie census could not be represented as the reason wliy lie returned to Bethlehem, for lie would have done so in tlie ordinary course of tilings, after a few days’ absence.^ Above all, had Bethlehem been his home, lie would not on his arrival liave souglit an inn where tlicre was no room for him, but would liave taken Mary under Ills own roof. Hence modern expositors who wisli to avail themselves of tlic outlet presented by the apocryphal book, and yet to save tlie census of Luke from rejection, maintain that Joseph did indeed dwell, and carry on Ills trade, in BcA
vhrnre he. was, to be enrolled, uvs^.v-Sei (-loc^) UTTO Na?aptr, h-Sawel, el: Bni^y, oQev TIV, d7roypai/xroi?at. The words o9i:v TIV mi^ht however be understood as si;?iiit^”i, mei-civ the place of Ills trite, especially if .lustin’s addition be considered : tor his race mis nflhf tribe of .fud,,h, vhi.’k i^fitit. thai hml, UTO yup TV KaTOWovaw TT]V fyv eauw-iv ^,„•.:.J•1..i.A„ ^ ,;.„„,- {„,* 11,., i,w zur Einlrit. in das N. T. 1. S. 217. Cump. Hoft
BIETH AND EAELY LIFE OP JESUS.
lehem, but that he possessed no house of his own in tliat place, and the census recalling him thither sooner than he had anticipated, he had not yet provided one.* But Luke makes it appear, not only tliat the parents of Jesus were not yet settled in Bethlehem, but (hat they were not even desirous of settling there ; tliat, on tlie contrary, it was their intention to depart after tlie shortest possible stay.
This opinion supposes great proverty on the part of Joseph and Mary; Olshauscn, on tlie other hand, prefers enriching them, for tlie sake of conciliating tlic difference in question. He supposes that they liad property both in Bethlehem and Nazareth, and could therefore liave settled in either place, but unknown circumstances inclined them, on their return from Egypt, to fix upon Bethlehem, until tlie divine warning came as a preventive. Thus Olshausen declines particularizing the reason wliy it appeared desirable to tlie parents of Jesus to settle in Bethlehem; but lleydenreich and others have supplied his omission, by assuming tliat it must liave seemed to them most fitting for him, who was pre-eminently tlie Son of David, to be brought up in David’s own city.
This opinion supposes great proverty on the part of Joseph and Mary; Olshauscn, on tlie other hand, prefers enriching them, for tlie sake of conciliating tlic difference in question. He supposes that they liad property both in Bethlehem and Nazareth, and could therefore liave settled in either place, but unknown circumstances inclined them, on their return from Egypt, to fix upon Bethlehem, until tlie divine warning came as a preventive. Thus Olshausen declines particularizing the reason wliy it appeared desirable to tlie parents of Jesus to settle in Bethlehem; but lleydenreich and others have supplied his omission, by assuming tliat it must liave seemed to them most fitting for him, who was pre-eminently tlie Son of David, to be brought up in David’s own city.
Here, however, theologians would do well to take for their model the honesty of Neander,f and to confess with him that of this intention on tlie part of Joseph and Mary to settle at Bethlehem, and of tlie motives which induced them to give up tlie plan, Luke knows nothing, and tliat they rest on tlie authority of Matthew alone. But what reason docs Mattliew present for this alleged change of place ?
The visit of the magi, tlie massacre of tlie infants, visions in dreams-events whose evidently unhistorical character quite disqualifies them from serving as proofs of a change of residence on the part of tlie parents of Jesus. On the other hand Neander, while confessing tliat tlie author of tlie first Gospel was probably ignorant of the particular circumstances wliicli, according to Luke, led to the journey to Bethlehem, and hence took Bethlehem to be tlie original residence of tlie parents of Jesus, maintains that there may be an essential agreement between tlie two accounts though tliat agreement did not exist in the consciousness of tlie writers, f But, once more, wliat cause does Luke assign for the journey to Bethlehem?
The census, which our previous investigations have shown to be. as frail a support for this statement, as the infanticide and its consequences for tliat of Matthew. Hence here again it is not possible by admitting tlie inacquaintance of tlie one narrator with what the other presents to vindicate the statements of both; since each has against him, not only tlie ignorance of tlie other, Liu. the improba- .
bihty of Ills own narrative.
But we must distinguish more exactly tlie respective aspects and elements of tlie two accounts. As, according to tlie above observations, tlic change of residence on the part of the parents of Jesus, is in Mattliew so linked witli the unhistorical data of tlie infanticide
* p-i.ii,
TTon/n, T
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
and the flight into Egypt, that. without tlicse every cause for the migration disappears, we turn to Luke’s account, which makes the parents of Jesus resident in the same place, both after and before the birth of Jesus. But in Luke, the circumstance of Jesus being born in anotlier place than where his parents dwelt, is made to depend on an event as unhistorical as the marvels of Matthew, namely i the census. If this be surrendered, no motive remains tliat could induce tlie parents of Jesus to take a formidable journey at so critical a period for Mary, and in this view of tlie case Matthew’s representation seems tlie more probable one, that Jesus was born in the home of his parents and not in a strange place. Hitherto, however, we have ordy obtained tlie negative result, that tlie evangelical statements, according to which tlie parents of Jesus lived at first in another place than that in which they subsequently settled, and Jesus was born elsewhere than in tlie home of his parents, are destitute of any guarantee ; we have yet to seek for a positive conclusion by inquiring wliat was really tlie place of his birth.
On tills point we are drawn in two opposite directions. In both Gospels we find Bethlehem stated to be tlie birth-place of Jesus, and there is, as we have’seen, no impediment to our supposing that it was the habitual residence of his parents; on the other hand, the two Gospels again concur in representing Nazareth as tlie ultimate dwelling-place of Joscpli and Ills family, and it is only an unsupported statement that forbids us to regard it as their original residence, and consequently as the birth-place of Jesus. It would be impossible to decide between these contradictory probabilities were both equally strong, but as soon as tlie slightest inequality between them is discovered, we are wan-anted to form a conclusion.
Let us first test the opinion, that the Galilean city Nazareth was the final residence of Jesus. This is not supported barely by tlie passages immediately under consideration, in the 2nd chapters of Matthew and Luke ;-it rests on an uninterrupted scries of data drawn from tlie Gospels and from tlie earliest church history. Tlie Galilean, tlie Nazarene-were the epiplicts constantly applied to Jesus.
As Jesus of Nazareth he was introduced by Philip to Natlianiel, wliosc responsive question was, Can any good tiling come out of Nazareth ? Nazareth is described, not only as the place whore he was •
brought, up, ov ^v TeOpa^Kvoc; (Luke iv. 16 f.), but also as Ills country, Tra-pic (Matt. xii. 34, Mark vi. 1.). He was known among the populace as Jesus of Nazareth (Luke xvili. 37.), and invoked under tills name by the demons (Mark i. 24.). The inscription on tlie . cross stvles him a Nazarene (John xix. 19.), and after his resurrection Ills apostles everywhere proclaimed him as Jesus of Nazareth (Acts ii. 22.) and worked miracles in his name (Acts iii. 6.) His disciples too were long called Nazarencs, and it was not until a late period tliat this name was exclusively applied to a heretical sect.*
Tills a-Ducllation proves, if not tliat Jesus was born in Nazareth, at
BTETH AND EARLY LIFE OF JESUS.
least that he resided in that place for a considerable time; and as, according to a probable tradition (Luke iv. 16 f. parall.), Jesus, during his public life, paid but transient visits to Nazareth, this prolonged residence must be referred to the earlier part of his life, which he passed in the bosom of his family. Thus his family, at least his parents, must have lived in Nazareth during hia childhood; and if it be admitted that they once dwelt there, it follows that they dwelt there always, for we liave no historical grounds for supposing a change of residence : so that this one of the two contradictory propositions lias as much certainty as we can expect, in a fact belonging to so remote and obscure a period.
Neither does the other proposition, however, that Jesus was bom in Bethlehem, rest solely on tlie statement of our Gospels ; it is sanctioned by an expectation, originating in a prophetic passage, that the Messiah would be born at Bethlehem. (Comp. with Matt. ii. 5. f., John vii. 42). But this is a dangerous support, which they who wish to retain as historical the gospel statement, that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, will do well to renounce. For wherever we find a narrative which recounts tlie accomplishment of a long-expected event, a strong suspicion must arise, tliat the narrative owes its origin solely to the pre-cxistent belief that that event would be accomplished. But our suspicion is converted into certainty when we find this belief to be groundless; and this is tlie case here, for the alleged issue must have confirmed a false interpretation of a prophetic passage. Thus this proplietic evidence of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, deprives the historical evidence, wliich lies in the 2nd chapters of Matthew and Luke, of its value, since the latter seems’
to be built on the former, and consequently shares its fall. Any other voucher for this fact is however sought in vain. Nowhere else in tlie New Testament is the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem mentioned;
Other books
The Story of Britain: From the Romans to the Present by Rebecca Fraser
Edible Espionage by Shaunna Owens
I Kissed The Boy Next Door by Suzanne D. Williams
Guardian of My Soul by Elizabeth Lapthorne
Dorothy Parker Drank Here by Ellen Meister
Nobody's Prize by Esther Friesner
Under the Skin by James Carlos Blake
Shoot, Don't Shoot by J. A. Jance
Promoted to Wife? by Paula Roe
Marrying the Marine-epub by Sabrina McAfee