Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (717 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
9.77Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
nowhere does lie appear in any relation with his alleged birth-place, or pay it the honour of a visit, which he yet does not deny to the unworthy Nazareth; nowhere does he appeal to the fact as a concomitant proof of liis messiahship, although he had the most direct inducements to do so, for many were repelled from him by his Galilean origin, and defended their prejudice by referring to the necessity that tlie Messiali should come out of Bethlehem, the city of David (John vn. 42).* John does not, it is true, say that these objections were uttered in tlie presence of Jesus ;f but as, immediatly before, he had annexed to a discourse of Jesus a comment of liis own, to the effect that tlie Holy Ghost was not yet given, so liere he might very suitably have added, in explanation of the doubts expressed by the people, tliat tlicy did not yet know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Such an observation will be thought too superficial and trivial for an apostle like John ; thus much however must be admitted : he had occasion repeatedly to mention the popular notion that Jesus
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
was a native of Nazaretli, and the consequent prejudice against him;
 
had he then known otherwise, he. must have added a corrective remark, if lie wished to avoid leaving the false impression, that lie also believed Jesus to be a Nazarene. As it is, we find Nathanael, John i. 46, alleging this objection, witliout liaving his opinion rectified either mediately or immediately, for he nowhere learns that tlie good thing did not really come out of Nazareth, and the conclusion he is left to draw is, that even out of Nazaretli something good can come.
In general, if Jesus were really born in Bethlehem, though but fortuitously, (according to Luke’s representation,) it is incomprehensible, considering the importance of this fact to the article of his measiahship, that even his own adherents should always call him the Nazarene, instead of opposing to this epithet, pronounced by his opponents witli polemical emphasis, the honourable title of the Bethle
hemite.
 
Thus the evangelical statement that Jesus was bom at Bethlehem is destitute of all valid historical evidence; nay, it is contravened by positive historical facts.We have seen reason to conclude that the parents of Jesus lived at Nazareth, not. only after the birth of Jesus, but also, as we have no counter evidence, prior to that event, and tliat, no credible testimony to the contrary existing, Jesus was probably not born at any other place than tlie home of his parents.
 
With this twofold conclusion, the supposition that Jesus was born at Bethlehem is irreconcileable: it, can therefore cost us no further effort to decide that Jesus -w&s born, not in Bethlehem, but, as we have no trustworthy indications that point elsewhere, in all probability at Nazareth.
 

The relative position of the tv^o evangelists on this point may be thus stated. Each of their accounts is partly correct, and partly incorrect; Luke is right in maintaining the Identity of the earlier with the later residence of the parents of Jesus, and herein Matthew is wrong; again, Matthew is right in maintaining the identity of the birth-place of Jesus with the dwelling-place of his parents, and here the error is on the side of Luke. Further, Luke is entirely correct in making the parents of Jesus reside in Nazareth before, as well as after, tlie birth of Jesus, wliile Matthew has only half tlie truth, namely, that they were establislied there after his birth ; but in the statement that Jesus was born at Bethlehem both are decidedly wrong. The source of all the error of their narratives, is the Jewish opinion with which they fell in, that the Messiah must be born at Bethlehem; the source of all their truth, is the fact which lay before them, that lie always passed for a Nazarene; finally, the cause of the various admixture of the true and the false in both, and the preponderance of the latter in ‘Matthew, is the different position held by the two writers in relation to the above data. Two particulars were to be reconciled-the historical fact that Jesus was universally ‘NTa^nrp.ne. and tlie prophetic requisition that, aa

FIEST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE.

which he followed, influenced by the ruling tendency to apply the prophecies, observable in his Gospel, effected tlie desired reconciliation in such a manner, that tlie greatest prominence was given to Bethlehem, the locality pointed out by the prophet; this was represented as tlie original home of the parents of Jesus, and Nazareth merely as a place of refuge, recommended by a subsequent turn of events. Luke, on the contrary, more bent on historic detail, either adopted or created that form of the legend, which attaches the greatest importance to Nazareth, making it the original dwellingplace of tlie parents of Jesus, and regarding the sojourn in Bethlehem as a temporary one, the consequence of a casual occurrence.

 

Such being tlie state of the case, no one, we imagine, will be inclined either with Schleiermacher,* to leave the question concerning tlie relation of the two narratives to the real facts undecided, or with Sieffert,f to pronounce exclusively in favour of Luke.

CHAPTER V
.

 
THE FIRST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE, AND THE EDUCATION OF
JESUS.
 
§ 40. JESUS, WHEN TWELVE YEAES OLD, IN THE TEMPLE.
 
THE Gospel of Matthew passes in silence over the entire period from the return of the parents of Jesus out of Egypt, to the baptism of Jesus by John; and even Luke has nothing to tell us of tlie long interval between tlie early childhood of Jesus and his maturity, beyond a single incident-his demeanour on a visit to tlie temple in his twelfth year (ii. 41-52). This anecdote, out of the early youth of Jesus is, as Hess has truly remarked,? distinguished from the narratives hitherto considered, belonging to his childhood, by the circumstance that Jesus no longer, a,s in the latter, holds a merely passive position, but presents an active proof of his high destination;
 
a proof which has always been especially valued, as indicating the
moment in which the consciousness of that destination was kindled in Jesus. ||
 
In liis twelfth year, the period at which, according to Jewish
* Ueher den Lukas, S. 49. There is a similar hesitation in Theile, Biographic Jesu, §• 13.•)• Ueber den Ursprung u. s. w., S. 68 f. u. S. 158.f Comp. Animon, Fortbildung, 1, S. 194 ft’.; Ue Wette, exeget. Handli., 1, 2, S. 24 f.; George, S. 84 ff. Thai different narrators may give different explanations of the same fact, and that these different explanations may afterwards be united in one book, is proved by many examples in the 0. T.Thus in Genesis, three derivations are given of tlie name of Isaac; two o( that of Jacob,(xxv. 26. xxvii. 16), and so of Edom and Beershcba (xxvi. 33). Coinp.
De Wrtte, Kritik der mos. Geseh.. !->. 1 10- I 18 ft’ im.l mi. u.t^^,-i,,;e^^ 1 i c ca «•
 
192 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
usage, the boy became capable of an independent participation in the sacred rites, the parents of Jesus, as this narrative informs us, took him for tlie first time to the Passover. At tlie expiration of the feast, the parents bent tlieir -vvay homewards ; that their son
•was missing gave them no immediate anxiety, because they supposed him to be amon”‘ their travelling companions, and it was not until after they liad accomplished a day’s journey, and in vain sought tlieir son among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, that they turned back to Jerusalem to look for him there. Tins conduct on the part of tlie parents of Jesus may witli reason excite surprise. It seems inconsistent witli the carefulness which it has been thought incumbent on us to attribute to them, that they should have allowed tlie divine child entrusted to their keeping, to remain so long out of their siglit; and hence they have on many sides been accused of neglect and a dereliction of duty, in the instance before us.* It has been urged, as a general consideration in vindication of Joseph and Mary, tliat the greater freedom permitted to tlie boy is easily conceivable as part of a liberal method of education ;f but even according to our modern ideas, it would seem more than liberal for parents to let a boy of twelve years remain out of their sight during so long an interval as our narrative supposes ; how far less rcconcileable must it then be with tlie more rigid views of education lield by the ancients, not excepting the Jews ? It is remarked however, that viewing the case as an extraordinary one, the parents of Jesus knew their child, and they could therefore very well confide in his understanding and character, so far as to be in no fear that any danger
•would accrue to him from his unusual freedom ;f but we can perceive from tlieir subsequent anxiety, that they were not so entirely at ease on tliat liead. Thus tlieir conduct must be admitted to be such as we sliould not have anticipated: but it is not consequently incredible, nor docs it suffice to render the entire narrative improbable, for the parents of Jesus are no saints to us, that we should not impute to them any fault.
 
Returned to Jerusalem, they find their son on tlie third day in the temple, doubtless in one of the outer halls, in tlie midst of an assembly of doctors, engaged in a conversation with them, and exciting universal astonishment (v. 45 f.) From some indications it would seem tliat Jesus lield a higher position in tlie presence of the doctors, than could belong to a boy of twelve years. Tlie word ica6ei;6fzevov (sitting) lias excited scruples, for according to Jewisli records, it was not until after the death of the Rabbi Gamaliel, an event long subsequent to tlie one described in our narrative, that the pupils of the rabbins sat, they having previously been required to stand§ when in the school; but this J cwisli tradition is of doubtful authority. ||
 
It has also been thought a difficulty, tliat Jesus does
* Olshausen, ut sup. 1.
150. + Hase, Leben Jeau, § 37.
 
f Heydenreicli, uber die
TT-.--I’-. .i .-^ ..
 
a i o A€\O e n.r.,,.-:n..l. f m »^.,A T;™1,*<-^A* tn !«,*II Vi;1.
Knin/il.
 
FIRST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE.
 
193
 
not merely hear the doctors, but also asks them questions, thus appearing to assume the position of their teacher.
 
Such is indeed the representation of the apocryphal Gospels, for in them Jesus, before lie is twelve years old, perplexes all tlie doctors by his questions,*
and reveals to his instructor in tlie alphabet the mystical signiiiancc of the characters ;f wliilc at the above visit to the temple lie proposes controversial questions,:): such as that toucliing tlie Messiah’s being at once David’s Son and Lord, (Mattli. xxii. 41) and proceeds to throw light on all departments of knowledge.§ If the expressions epUTav and cnroKpiveaOal implied that Jesus played tlie part of a tcaclier in this scene, so unnatural a feature in tlie evangelical narrative would render tlie whole suspicious. || But tliere is nothing to render this interpretation of tlie words necessary, for according to Jewish custom, rabbinical teaching was of such a kind that not only did tlie masters interrogate the pupils, but the pupils interrogated the masters, when they wished for explanations on any point.*!’ We may witli the more probability suppose that the writer intended to attribute to Jesus sucli questions as suited a boy, because he, apparently not without design, refers the astonishment of the doctors, not to his questions, but to that in which lie could best show himself in the liglit of an intelligent pupil-namely, to his answers. A more formidable difficulty is the statement, that the boy Jesus sat m the midst of the doctors, iv ^liw TWV 6iSaaK.d’/.uv.For we leam from Paul (Acts xxii. 3.) the position that became a pupil, when he says that he was brought up at the feet (TTapa’-ov? To6a^ of Gamaliel: it being the custom for tlie rabbins to be placed on chairs, while their pupils sat on the ground,** and did not take their places among their masters. It has indeed been thought that iv y,iaw might be so explained as to signify, either that Jesus sat between the doctors, who are supposed to have been elevated on chairs, wliile Jesus and tlie other pupils are pictured as sitting on tlie ground between them,1-t or merely that lie was in the company of doctors, that is, in the synagogue \\\ but according to the strict sense of the words, the expression icaOi^eaOal, sv f.iia(f> nvGiv appears to signify, if not as Schottgen believes, §§ in mujorem Jesu gloriam, a place of preeminent honour, at least a position of equal dignity with tliat occupied by tlie rest.It need only be asked, would it harmonize witli the spirit of our narrative to substitute iiaO^oi-ievov Trapa rovf •n66a<; wv StSaaitdXuv for naO. KV ^EOG) T. 6. ? the answer will certainly be in the negative, and it will then be inevitable to admit, that our narrative places Jesus in another relation to tlie doctors than tliat of a learner, though the latter is the only natural one for a boy of twelve, however highly gifted. For Olshausen’s
* Evang. Thomae, c. vi. ff. Ap. Thilo, p. 288 fi’i and Evang. infant, arab. c. xlviii.
P. 123, Thilo, •)• Ibid. t Evang. intant.-arab. c, 1. § Ibid. c. 1, and li; comp, ev. Tho”la’, c. xix,]| Olshausen confesses this, S. lol,
 
^ For proofs (e, g, Hieros, Taanith, lxv”‘ 4) see Western and LiKhtfbut, in loc,** Lightfoot, Horgi, p, ^Vi,f-i- Pnulus,
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
position,*-that in Jesus nothing was formed from without, by the instrumentality of another’s wisdom, because this would be inconsistent with the character of the Messiah, as absolutely self-determined,-contradicts a dogma of the church which he himself advances, namely, tliat Jesus in his manifestation as man, followed tlic regular course of human development. For not only is it in the nature of this development to be gradual, but also, and still more essentially, to be dependent, whether it be mental or physical, on tlie interchange of reception and influence. To deny this in relation to tlie physical life of Jesus-to say, for example, tliat tlie food which lie took did not serve for tlie nourishment and growth of his body by real assimilation, but merely furnished occasion for him to reproduce himself from witliin, would strike every one as Docetism; and ig the analogous proposition in relation to his spiritual development, namely, tliat lie appropriated nothing from without, and used wliat lie heard from others merely as a voice to evoke one truth after another from tlie recesses of his own mind-is tills anything else than a more refined Docetism ? Truly, if we attempt to form a conception of tlie conversation of Jesus with the doctors in tlic temple according to this theory, we make anything but a natural scene of it. It is not to be supposed tliat he taught, nor properly speaking tliat lie was taught, but that tlie discourse of tlie doctors merely gave an impetus to Ins power of teaching himself, and was tlie occasion for an ever-brightening light to rise upon him, especially on tlie subject of his own destination.
 
But in that case lie would certainly have given utterance to his newly acquired knowledge; so tliat tlie position of a teacher on tlie part of tlie boy would return upon us, a position which Olshausen himself pronounces to be preposterous. At least such an indirect mode of teaching is involved as Ness subscribes to, when he supposes that Jesus, even thus early, made tlie first attempt to combat the prejudices which swayed in “the synagogue, exposing to the doctors, by means of good-humoured questions and requests for explanation, sucli as are willingly permitted to a boy, the weakness of many of their dogmas.* But even such a position on the part of a boy of’twelve, is inconsistent with tlie true process of human development, through which it behoved tlie God-Man himself to pass. Discourse of this kind from a boy must, wo grant, have excited the astonishment of all tlie hearers; nevertheless tlio expression E^iaravro TrdvTe^ ol duovovree; avrov (v. 47.), looks too much like a panegyrical formula. §
 
Tlie narrative proceeds to tell us how the mother of Jesus reproached lier son when she liad found him thus, asking him wliy lie had not spared his parents the anguisli of their sorrowful search?
 
* Bilil. Comm. p. 151.
 
t Geschichte Jesu, S. 112. f. In the similar account also which Josephus gives us of himself when fourteen, it is easy to discern the exaggeration of a self-complacent man. Lite, 2 : Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, 1 was commended by all for the love I had to learning, on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came there frequently in me together, in order to
FIEST VISIT TO THE TEMPLE.
 
To this Jesus returns an answer which forms the point of the entire narrative; he asks whether they might not have known that he was to be sought nowhere else than in the house of his Father, in the temple ? (v. 48 f.) One might be inclined to understand this designation of God as ~ov -n-arpb^ generally, as implying that God was the. Father of all men, and only in this sense the Fatlier of Jesus.
But flits interpretation is forbidden, not only by tlie addition of the pronoun ^ov, the above sense requiring i\\iGiv (as in Matt. vi. 9.), but still more absolutely by the circumstance tliat tlie parents of Jesus did not understand these words (v. 50), a decided indication that they must have a special meaning, which can liere be no other than the mystery of the Messiahship of Jesus, wlio as Messiah, was vibf Oeov in a peculiar sense. But that Jesus in his twelfth year had already the consciousness of his Messiahship is a position which, although it may be consistently adopted from the orthodox point of view, and although it is not opposed to tlie regular human form of the development of Jesus, which even orthodoxy maintains, we are not here bound to examine. So also the natural explanation, which retains the above narrative as a liistory, though void of the miraculous, and which accordingly supposes tlie parents of Jesus, owing to a particular combination of circumstances, to have come even before his birtli to a conviction of his Messiahship, and to have instilled this conviction into their son from his earliest childhood,-this too may make it plain how Jesus could be so clear as to Ills messianic relation to God; but it can only do so by the hypothesis of an unprecedented coincidence of extraordinary accidents. We, on the contrary, who have renounced the previous incidents as historical, either in the supernatural or the natural sense, are unable to comprehend how the consciousness of his messianic destination could t>e so early developed in Jesus. For though tlie consciousness of a more subjective vocation, as that of a poet or an artist, which is dependent solely on the internal gifts of the individual, (gifts which cannot long remain latent,) may possibly be awakened very early;

Other books

Heather Song by Michael Phillips
Riptide by H. M. Ward
Wallflower at the Orgy by Nora Ephron
Plague Ship by Clive Cussler, Jack Du Brul
Tomato Red by Daniel Woodrell
CALL MAMA by Terry H. Watson
Shadows of the Past by H.M. Ward, Stacey Mosteller
The Gemini Virus by Mara, Wil