Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (720 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.71Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
Tlie natural view of tlie person of Jesus had an opposite interest, which was also very early manifested botli among Jewish and heathen opponents of Christianity, and wliicli consisted in explaining hiu appearance conformably to tlie laws of causality, by comparing it with prior and contemporaneous facts to which it liad a relation, and thus exhibiting tlic conditions on which Jesus depended, and the sources from which he drew.It is true that in tlie first centuries of tlie Christian era, the whole region of spirituality being a supernatural one for heathens as well as Jews, tlie reproach tliat Jesus owed his wisdom and seemingly miraculous powers, not to himself or to God, but to a communication from without, could not usually take tlie form of an assertion tliat he liad acquired natural skill and wisdom in tlie ordinary way of instruction from others.§
Instead of the natural and the liuman, tlie unnatural and the demoniacal were opposed to tlie divine and tlie supernatural (comp. Matt.
xn. 24.), and Jesus was accused of working his miracles by the aid of magic acquired in his youth. This charge was the most easily attaclied to tlie journey of his parents witli him into Egypt, that native land of magic and secret wisdom, and thus we find it both in Celsus and in the Talmud. Tlie former makes a Jew allege
* Evang. infant, arab. c. i. p. GO f. ap. Thilo, and the passages quoted ^ 40. out of the same Gospel, and the Evang Thomae.•j- Cap. ii. p. 278 Thilo.} Cap. x. ff. | E.
g. Evang. Thomas, c. iii.-v. Evimg. infant, arah. c. xlvi. f. Evang. Thoma;, c. ii.
Evang. inf. arab. c. xxxvi. || Yet some isolated instances occur, vid. Semler, Bauingar
206 THE LIFE OF JESCS.
 
against Jesus, amongst other things, that he had entered into service for wages in Egypt, that lie had there possessed himself of some magic arts, and on the strength of tliese had on his return vaunted himself for a God.* The Talmud gives him a member of tlie Jewish Sanhedrim as a teacher, makes him journey to Egypt with tills companion, and bring magic charms from thence into Palestine.f
The purely natural explanation of tlie intellectual development of Jesus could only become prevalent amid the enlightened culture of modern times. In working out this explanation, tlie chief points of difference are the following: either tlie character of Jesus is regarded in too circumscribed a. viev/, as tlie result of only one among tlie means of culture which Ills times afforded, or more comprehensively, as tlie result of all tliese combined; again, in tracing tills external influence, either the internal gifts and self-determination of Jesus arc adequately considered, or they are not.
 
In any case, the basis of tlie intellectual development of Jesus was furnished by tlie sacred writings of his people, of which the discourses preserved to us in the Gospels attest Ills zealous and profound study.
 
His Messianic ideas seem to have been formed chiefly on Isaiali and Daniel: spiritual religiousness and elevation above the prejudices of Jewish nationality were impressively shadowed forth in tlie prophetic writings senerally, together with tlie Psalms.
 
Next among tlie influences affecting mental cultivation in the native country of Jesus, must be reckoned tlie three sects under which tlie spiritual life of his fellow-countrymen may be classified.
Among tliese, the Pharisees, whom Jesus at a later period so strenuously combated, can apparently have liad only a negative influence over him ; yet along with their fondness for tradition and legal pedantry, their sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy, by wliicli Jesus was repelled from tliem, we must remember their belief in angels and in immortality, and their constant admission of a progressive development of tlie Jewisli religion after Moses, wliicli were so many points of union between them and Jesus.
 
Still as tliese tenets were only peculiar to tlie Pharisees, in contradistinction to tlie Sadducecs, and, for the rest, were common to all orthodox Jews, we abide by tlie opinion that the influence of tlie Pharisaic sect on the development of Jesus was essentially negative.
 
In tlie discourses of Jesus Sadduceeism is less controverted, nay, he agrees with it in rejecting the Pharisaic traditions and hypocrisy;
 
* Orig. c. Cris. I. 28 : ndl (Ae’yci) on oiroc (o ‘Ir/dorc) ola Trei’iav elf; AlyvJrrov /”;•i3apl’7/(7ac, Kami 6vvufi£uv 1’i.vuv 7r£;pa^e^ e(^ at-^ Ai^i’Trnoi ae^ivvvovrai, i7ruv7/Ai}£v, iv rait; SvvuuEdL usya d)povuv^ Kal 61 avTuac ^sbv avrbv uvfj~yop£va€.
 
^ Sanhidr. f. evil. 2:R. Josua f. Pefuchju et ‘\’^ Alerandiium Aer/ypti profr^ti sunf - - ^^ ex il’.o iempwe
mnglam exernfif^ ef I-frn’lltns ad pfssimfl qUfKczs pi-rdti.rif. (An important anachronism, as this Josua Ben Perachja lived about a century earlier.
 
See Jost. deschiclite dkr Isr., 3, S. 80 ft’, and 1+2 of the Appendices.) Sehabiiath f. civ. 2: Truditiii est, R. Klle.serem dhiysc, cid firon dodos : annon J’. ^atdne (i. e. Jesus} mafJiizm ex Ai’tpJpto cuUuxit per inci.tioncm in ca-rne fsucf, f’actam? vid. Schuttgen, hora1, ii. p. (il)7 ff. Eiseiitiicnyer, entdecktes
EDUCATION OF JESUS. 207
 
hence a few of the learned have wished to find him a school in this sect.* But the merely nagative agreement against the errors of the Pharisees,-an agreement which, moreover, proceeded from quite another principle in Jesus than in the Sadducees,-is more than counterbalanced by the contrast which their religious indifference, their unbelief in immortality and in spiritual existences, formed with the disposition of Jesus, and his manner of viewing tlie world. That tlie controversy with tlie Sadducees is not prominent in the Gospels, may be very simply explained by the fact that their sect had very slight influence on the circle with wdiich Jesus was immediately connected, the adherents of Sadduceeism belonging to the higher ranks alone, f
Concerning one only of tlie then existing Jewish sects can the question seriously arise, whether we ought not to ascribe to it a positive influence on the development and appearance of Jesus-the sect, namely, of the Esseues. ^ In the last century tlie derivation of Christianity from Esscnism was very much in vogue ; not only English deists, and among tlie Germans, Bahrdt and Venturini, but even theologians, such as Staudlin, embraced tlie idea.§
 
In the
days of freemasonry and secret orders, there was a disposition to transfer their character to primitive Christianity. The concealment of an Essenc lodge appeared especially adapted to explain the sudden disappearance of Jesus after the brilliant scenes of his infancy and boyhood, and again after Ills restoration to life. Besides the forerunner John, tlie two men on the Mount of Transfiguration, and tlie angels clotlied in white at the grave, and on the Mount of Ascension, were regarded as members of tlie Essene brotherhood, and many cures of Jesus and the Apostles were referred to tlie medical traditions of tlie Essenes. Apart, however, from these fancies of a bygone age, there are really some essential characteristics wliicli seem to speak in favour of an intimate relation between Essenism and Christianity. The most conspicuous as sucli are the prohibition of o.iths and the community of goods: with the former was connected fidelity, peaceablcness, obedience to every constituted authority; witli tlie latter, contempt of riches, and the custom of travelling witliout provisions. These and other features, such as tlie sacred meal partaken in common, the rejection of sanguinary sacrifices and of slavery, constitute so strong a resemblance between Esscnism and Christianity, that even so early a writer as Eusebius mistook tlie Therapeutic, a sect allied to the Essenes, for Christians. || But there are very essential dissimilarities which must not be overlooked. Leaving out of consideration the contempt of marriage, vTTEpoi{ila “yd^ov, since Joseplius ascribes it to a part only of tlie Essenes; tlie asceticism, the punctilious observance of tlie Sab
* K. g. Des Cotes, Schutzschrift fur Jesus vou Nazaret, S. 128 ff:f Ncandur, L.
J. Chr. S. 39 tr.t Vid. Joseph, li. j.-ii. viii. 2-13. Antiq. xviii. i. .’). Comp.
Philo, quod (mwis prabus liver and de vita cout’implaticn.. § This opinion is judiciously developed by ytilndlin, Ueschichte der Sittenlehre Jcsu 1, S. 570 tt:: and in a romiini.ir innnnrr in
208 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
bath, tlie purifications, and other superstitious usages of tins sect, their retention of the names of tlie angels, the mystery which they affected, and their contracted, exclusive devotion to their order, arc so foreign, nay so directly opposed to the spirit of Jesus, that, especially as tlie Essencs arc nowhere mentioned in tlie New Testament, the aid which this sect also contributed to the development of Jesus, must The limited to the uncertain influence which might be exercised over him Toy occasional intercourse with Essenes.*
 
Did other elements than such as were merely Jcwisli, or at least confined to Palestine, operate upon Jesus ? Of the heathens settled in Galilee of the Gentiles, TaAiXaia -S)Y iOvw, there was hardly much to be learned beyond patience under frequent intercourse with them. On tho other hand, at the feasts in Jerusalem not only foreign Jews, some of whom, as for example the Alexandrian and Cyrenian Jews, had synagogues there (Acts vi. 9.), but also devout heathens were to be met with (John xii. 20.); and tliat intercourse witli tliesc had some influence in extending the intellectual horizon of Jesus, and spiritualizing his opinions, lias, as we have already intimated, all historical probability, f
But why do we, in the absence of certain information, laboriously seek after uncertain traces of an influence which cotemporary means of development may have exercised on Jesus ? and yet more, why, on tlie other side, are these labours so anxiously repudiated ?
Whatever amount of intellectual material may be collected, tlie spark by which genius kindles it, and fuses its various elements into a consistent whole, is neither easier to explain nor reduced in value. Thus it is with Jesus. Allow him to have exhausted tlie means of development which Ills age afforded: a comprehensive faculty of reception is with great men ever the reverse side of their powcrfill originality; allow him to have owed far more to Essenism and Alexandrianism, and whatever other scliools and tendencies existed, than we, in our uncertainty, are in a condition to prove:still for tlie reformation of a world tliese elements were all too little ;
 
the leaven necessary for tins he must obtain from the depth of his own mind.t
But we have not yet spoken of an appearance to wliicli our Gospels assign a most important influence in developing the activity of Jesus-tliat of Jolm tlie Baptist. As his ministry is first noticed in the Gospels in connexion with the baptism and public appearance, of Jesus, our inquiry concerning him, and his relation to Jesus, must open the second part.
 
* Comp. Bcngel, Bemcrkungen uber den Versuch, das Christcntlnnn aus dem Easaisirtus abzuleitm, in Flatt’a Magazin, 7, S. 126 ff.; Neandcr, L. J. Clir. S. 41 f. -i- This ia stated with exaggeration by Bahrdt, Briefe uber die Bibel, zweitea Biindchen, ISter, SOster Brief ff. 4tca Biiiulchen, 4’Jstcr Brief, t Comp. Paulus ut sup. 1, a, 273 ff. Planck, Geschichte dea Christenthuins in der Periode seiner ersten Einfuhrung 1, S. St. Dii Wette, bibl. Dogm. § 212. llase L. J. § 38. Winer, liibl. Kealw. S. 677 f. Seander, L. J. Chr.
 
S. 88 ff.

SECOND PART
.

 
HISTORY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.

CHAPTER
L

 
RELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.
 
§ 44. CHEONOLOGICAL RELATIONS BETWEEN JOHN AND JESUS.
 
FOR the ministry of John the Baptist, mentioned in all the
Gospels, the second and fourth evangelists fix no epoch; the first gives us an inexact one; the third, one apparently precise. According to Matt. iii. 1. John appeared as a preacher of repentance, in.
those dans, EV rcTiv; fj^epai-g siceivaK;, that is, if we interpret strictly this reference to the previous narrative, about the time when the parents of Jesus settled at Nazareth, and when Jesus was yet a child. We are told, however, in the context, that Jesus came to John for baptism; hence between the first appearance of the Baptist, which was cotemporary with the childhood of Jesus, and the period at which the latter was baptized, we must intercalculate a number of years, during which Jesus might have become sufficiently matured to partake of John’s baptism. But Matthew’s description of the person and work of the Baptist is so concise, the office attributed to him is so little independent, so entirely subservient to that of Jesus, that it was certainly not the intention of the evangelist to assign a long series of years to his single ministry. His meaning incontestably is, that John’s short career early attained its goal in the baptism of Jesus.
 
It being thus inadmissible to suppose between the appearance of John and the baptism of Jesus, that is, between verses 12 and 13 of the 3rd chapter of Matthew, the long interval which is in every case indispensable, nothing remains but to insert it between the close of the second and the beginning of the third chapter, namely, between the settlement of the parents of Jesus at Nazareth and the appearance of the Baptist. To this end we may presume, with Paulus, tliat Matthew has here introduced a fragment from a history of the Baptist, narrating many particulars of his life immedi
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
with the words, in those days, KV T(W? fnispaif sitstva^, which connecting phrase Matthew, although he omitted that to which it referred, lias nevertheless retained ;* or we may, witli Sfiskind, apply the words, not to the settlement, but to tlic subsequent residence of Jesus at Nazareth ;f or better still, ev rate; ruiKpaic; enelvaic;, like the corresponding Hebrew expression, Wl o’1’?^? e. g., Exod. ii. 11. is probably to be interpreted as relating indeed to the establishment at Nazareth, but so that an event happening thirty years afterwards may yet be said, speaking indefinitely, to occur in those days.^ In neither case do we learn from Matthew concerning the time of John’s appearance more than the, very vague information, tliat it took place in the interval between the infancy and manhood of Jesus.
 
Luke determines tlie date of John’s appearance by various synchronisms, placing it in the time of Pilate’s government in Judea;
 
in the sovereignty of Herod (Antipas), of Philip and of Lysanias over the other divisions of Palestine ; in the high priesthood of Annas and Gaiaphas ; and, moreover, precisely in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius, which, reckoning from the death of Augustus, corresponds with the year 28-29 of our era§ (iii. 1. 2). With this last and closest demarcation of time all tlie foregoing less precise .ones agree. Even that which makes Annas high priest together witli Caiaplias appears correct, if we consider the peculiar influence which, according to John xviii. 13. Acts iv. 6., that ex-liigh priest retained, even when deposed, especially after the assumption of •office by his son-in-law, Caiaphas.
 
A single exception occurs in the statement about Lysanias, whom Luke makes cotemporary with Antipas and Pliilip as tetrarch of Abilene. Josephus, it is true, speaks of an ‘A)3(Aa T] Avaaviov, and mentions a Lysanias as governor of Clialcis in Lebanon, near to which lay the territory of Abila ; so that the same Lvsanias was probably master of the latter. But this Lysanias was, at the instigation of Cleopatra, put to death 34 years before tlie birth of Christ, and a second Lysanias is not mentioned either by Josephus, or by any other writer on tlie period in question. || Tlius, not only is tlie time of his government earlier by 60 years than tlie loth year of Tiberius, but it is also at, issue with tlie other dates associated with it by Luke. Hence it has been conjectured that Luke here speaks of a younger Lysanias, the descendant of the earlier one, wlio possessed Abilene under Tiberius, but who, being less famous, is not noticed by Josephus.^
 
We cannot indeed prove what Saskind
* Exeget. Handbuch. 1, a, S. 46. Schneckenburger agrees with him, iiber den Uraprung des ersten kanon. Evang. S. 30.^ Vermisehte Aufsafcze, S. 76 ft’. Compare Schneckenburger, ut sup. ^ Ue Wette and Fril.zsche, in loc. § See Paulus, ut sup. 336.
|| I here collect all the passages in Josephus relative to Lysaniaa, with the parallel passages in Dio Cassius. Antiq. xiii. xvi. 3, xiv. iii. 2, vii. 8-Aiitiq. xv. iv. 1, B. j. i. xiii.
1 (Dio Cassius xlix. 33). Antiq. xv. x. 1-3. B. j. i. xx. 4 (Dio Cass. liv. 9). Antiq.
xvii. xi. 4. B.j. ii. vi. 3. Antiq. xviii. vi. 10. B. j. ii. ix. 6 (Dio Cass. lix.
S) Antiq.
xix. v. 1. B i. ii. xi. 5. Anti
EELATIONS BETWEEN JESUS AND JOHN THE BAPTIST.211
 
demands for the refutation of this hypothesis, namely, that had
such a younger Lvsanias existed, Joseplius must have mentioned him ; yet that lie had more than one inducement to do so, Paulus has satisfactorily shown. Especially, when in relation to the times of the first and second Agrippa lie designates Abila, •f] Avaaviov, he must have been reminded that he ha,d only treated of the elder Lysanias, and not at all of the younger, from whom, as the later ruler, the country must at tliat time liave derived its second appellation.*
If, according to tills, the younger Lysanias is but an historic fiction, the proposed alternative is but a pliilological one.f For when it is said in tlie first place: iX’i,n~ov-rsrpap^ovv-og T?^ ‘IrovpatcK;, K. r. X., and wlien it follows: nal Avaaviov rrjr; ‘A;3(/b;r?)c Terpap^ovvroy : we cannot possibly understand from this, that Philip reigned also over the Abilene of Lysanias. Por in that case tlie word re-pap^owroc ought not to have been repeated,^ and rij<; ouglit to have been placed before Lysanias, if tlie author wished to avoid misconstruction. The conclusion is therefore inevitable that the writer himself erred, and, from tlie circumstance that Abilene, even in recent times, was called, after tlie last ruler of the former dynasty, f] Avaaviov, drew the inference tliat a monarch of that name was still existing; wliile, in fact, Abilene either belonged to Pliilip, or was immediately subject to tlie E,omans.§
 
The above chronological notation relates directly to John the Baptist alone; a similar one is wanting wlien Luke begins farther on (v. 21 ff.) to speak of Jesus. Of him it is merely said tliat he was about thirty years of age, masi er&v -pidnovra, on his public appearance, (dp^Ojuevo?), but ‘no date is given; while, in tlie case of John, there is a contrary omission. Thus even if John commenced his ministry in the 15th year of Tiberius, we cannot thence gatlier anything as to the time when Jesus commenced his, as it is nowhere said how long John liad been baptizing wlien Jesus came to him on tlie Jordan; wliile on the other hand, although we know that Jesus, at his baptism, was about 30 years old, this does not help us to ascertain the age of John wlien he entered on his ministry as Baptist. Remembering, however, Luke i. 26, according to which John was just half a year older than Jesus, and calling to our aid
* Tlioluck thinks he has found a perfectly corresponding example in Tacitus. When this historian, Annal. ii. 43 (A. D. 17), mentions the death of an Arehelaus, king of Cappodocia, and yet, Annal. vi. 41 (A. D. 36), cites an Archelans, also a Cappadocian, as ruler of the Clittie, the same historical conjecture, says Tholuck, is necessary, viz. that there •were two Cappadocians named Arehelaus. But when the same historian, after noticing the death of a man, introduces another of the same name, under different circumstances, it is no conjecture, but a clear historic datum, that there were two such persons. It is quite otherwise when, as in the case of Lysanias, two writers have each one of the same name, but assign him distinct epochs. Here it is indeed a conjecture to admit two successive persons; a conjecture so much the less historial, the more improbable it is shown to be that one of the two writers “would have been siient respecting the second of the likenamed men, had such an one existed.•}• Michaelis, Paulus, in loc. Schneckenburger, in Ullmann’s und Umlireit’s Studien, 1833, 4. Heft. S. 1036 ff. Tholuck, S. 201 ff. t For, on the authority of a single manuscript to erasp, with Schneckenburger and others, the secend vsTpap^ovvrof, is too evident violence.§ Compare with this view, Allgem. Lit,
Zt-cr]R(l:-t
 
\n Sll
 
« r.KO. n- W,,**- -.-- tr...,.ll...l. :-1».,
THE LIFE OF JESU8.
 
the fact tliat Jewish usage •would, scarcely permit the exercise of public functions before the thirtieth year, we miglit infer that the Baptist could only have appeared half a year before the arrival of Jesus on the banks of the Jordan, since he would only so much earlier have attained the requisite age. But no express law forbade a public appearance previous to the thirtieth year; and it has been justly questioned whether we can apply to the freer office of a Prophet a restriction which concerned the Priests and Levites, for whom the thirtieth year was fixed for tlieir entrance on regular service* (Num.
iv. 3. 47.
 
Compare besides 2 Chron. xxxi. 17. where the 20th year is named). This then would not hinder us from placing the appearance of Jolin considerably prior to that of Jesus, even presupposing the averred relation between their ages. Hardly, however, could tills be the intention of the Evangelist. For to ascertain so carefully tlie date of the Forerunner’s appearance, and leave that of the Messiah himself undetermined, would be too great an oversight,! and we cannot but suppose that his design, in the particulars he gives concerning John, was to fix the time for the appearance of Jesus. To agree with this purpose, he must have understood that Jesus came to the banks of tlie Jordan and began to teach, shortly after the appearance of John.} For that the above chronological determination was originally merely the introduction to a document concerning John, quoted by Luke, is improbable, since its exactness corresponds with the style of him who had perfect understanding of alt things from the very first, •napi]iio’^.ovQi]K6-i avuOev •KOOIV
wpipSx;, and who souglit to determine, in like manner, tlie epoch of the Messiah’s birth.
 
It is not easy, however, to imagine, in accordance with this statement, that John was by so little the predecessor of Jesus, nor is it without reason that tlie improbability of his having had so short an agency is maintained. For he had. a considerable number of disciples, wliom he not only baptized but taught (Luke xi. 1.), and he left behind a party of his peculiar followers (Acts xviii. 25.
xix. 3.), all which could hardly be the work of a few months. There needed time, it lias been observed, for the Baptist to become so well known, that people would undertake a journey to him in the wilderness ; there needed time for his doctrine to be comprehended, time for it to gain a footing and establish itself, especially as it clashed with the current Jewish ideas; in a word, the deep and lasting veneration in which John was held by his nation, according to Josephus §
as well as the evangelists, could not have been so hastily won.jj
But the foregoing considerations, although they demand, in general, a longer agency for the Baptist, do not prove tliat the evangelists err in placing the commencement of his ministry shortly before
* See Paulus, S. 294. f See Schleiermacher, ilber den Lulsas, S. 62. :{ Bengel waa also of this opinion. Ordo temporum, S. 204 f. ed. 2.§ Antiq. xviii. v, 2,|| So Cludiua, ubcr die Zeit und Lebensdauer Johannis und Jesiii In Ueuke’s Museum, iii iii,