Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (731 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
7.3Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
In tact, those primitive Christians whom, in a former discussion, we found to have known nothing, or to have believed nothing, of the supernatural conception of Jesus, were also those wlio connected the first communication of divine powers to Jesus with his baptism in the Jordan. For no other doctrine did tlie orthodox fathers of tlie churcli more fiercely persecute the ancient Ebionites,f with their gnostic fellow-believer Cerinthus,§ than for tills: that the Holy Spirit first united himself with Jesus at Ills baptism. In the gospel
• Comm. zum Evang. Joh. 1, S. 378 f.•)- From the orthodox point of view, it cannot be consistently said, with Hotrmann (p. 301), tliat for the conviction of his messiahBhip and the maintenance of the right position, amid so many temptations and adverse circumstances, an internally wrought certainty did not suffice Jesus, and external confirmation by a fact was requisite,j: Epiphan. lucres xxx. 14 : imtSfj -yap pov^ovrai TOV f^’ev ‘liJaovv OVTUC uvi)puirov elvai, XptCTOi’ de tv avru }’£~yevfia-3ai. TOV iv elfin •irepiaTspuf (cnm8e/3linoTa K. r. /<,.:-They maintain that Jesus was reul’y man, but that that which descended
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
of the Ebionites it was written that the TrveVfia not only descended on Jesus in the form of a dove, but entered into him ;* and according to Justin, it was the general expectation of the Jews, that higher powers would first be granted to the Messiah, when he should be anointed by his forerunner Elias.f
The development of tliese ideas seems to liave been tlic following. When the messianic dignity of Jesus began to be acknowledged among the Jews, it was thought appropriate to connect his coming into possession of the requisite gifts, with the epoch from which he. was in some degree known, and which, from tlie ceremony that marked it, was also best adapted to represent tliat anointing with the Holy Spirit, expected by the Jews for their Messiah: and from flits point of view was formed the legend of the occurrences at the baptism. But as reverence for Jesus was heightened, and men appeared in the Christian church who were acquainted with more exalted messianic ideas, this tardy manifestation of messiahship was no longer sufficient; his relation with the Holy Spirit was referred to his conception: and from this point of view was formed the tradition of the supernatural conception of Jesus. Here too, perhaps, the words of tlie heavenly voice, which might originally be tliosc of Ps. ii. 7, were altered after Isaiali xlii. 1. For the words, o’/ifiepov yeyevvrjKa ae, This day have I begotten, thee, were consistent with the notion that Jesus was constituted tlie Son of God at his baptism ; but they were no longer suitable to that occasion, when tlie opinion had arisen that tlie origin of his life was an immediate, divine act. By this later representation, however, tlie earlier one was by no means supplanted, but on the contrary, tradition and her recorders being large-hearted, both narratives-tliat of tlie miracles at the baptism, and tliat of tlie supernatural conception, or the indwelling of the /loyoc in Jesus from tlie commencement of his life, although, strictly, they exclude each other, went forth peaceably side by side, and so were depicted by our evangelists, not excepting even tlie fourth. Just as in the case of the genealogies: the narrative of the imparting of tlie Spirit at the baptism could not arise after the formation of tlie idea that Jesus was engendered by the Spirit; but it might be retained as a supplement, because tradition is ever unwilling to renounce any of its acquired treasures.
§. 53. PLACE AND TIME OF THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS-DIVERGENCIES OF THE EVANGELISTS ON THIS SUBJECT.
THE transition from the baptism to the temptation of Jesus, as it is made by the synoptical writers, is attended with difficulty in relation both to place and time.
With respect to the former, it strikes us at once, that according to all the synoptical gospels, Jesus after his baptism was led into
“‘ Epiphan. haeres. xxx. 13 :-vepw-epuf Kare^ouo-:]! Kal elae^Sovaw “‘(• avrbv:-of a
BAPTISM OP JESUS.257
the wilderness to be tempted, implying that he was not previously in the wilderness, although, according to Matt. iii. 1, John, by whom he was baptized, exercised his ministry there. This apparent contradiction has been exposed by the most recent critic of Matthew’s gospel, for tlie sake of proving the statement that John baptized in the wilderness to be erroneous.* But they who cannot resolve to reject this statement on grounds previously laid down, may here avail themselves of tlie supposition, that John delivered his preliminary discourses in tlie wilderness of Judea, but resorted to the Jordan for tlie purpose of baptizing; or, if the banks of the Jordan be reckoned part of tliat wilderness, of the presumption that the evangelists can only have intended tliat tlie Spirit led Jesus farther into tlic recesses of the wilderness, but have neglected to state tills with precision, because their description of the scene at the baptism had obliterated from their imagination their former designation of the locality of John’s agency.
But there is, besides, a chronological difficulty: namely that wliile, according to tlie synoptical writers, Jesus, in the plenitude of tlie Spirit, just communicated to him at the Jordan, betakes liimself, in consequence of that communication, for forty days to the wilderness, where the temptation occurs, and then returns into Galilee;
John, on tlie contrary, is silent concerning tlie temptation, and appears to suppose an interval of a few days only, between the baptism of Jesus and his journey into Galilee; thus allowing no space for a six weeks’ residence in the wilderness.
The fourth evangelist commences his narrative w-ith tlie testimony which the Baptist delivers to the emissaries of tlie Sanhedrim (i. 19.); the next day (r^ ETravpiov\
The fourth evangelist commences his narrative w-ith tlie testimony which the Baptist delivers to the emissaries of tlie Sanhedrim (i. 19.); the next day (r^ ETravpiov\
lie makes the Baptist recite tlie incident which in the synoptical gospels is followed by the baptism (v. 29.): again, the next day (rfj erravplov) lie causes two of his disciples to follow Jesus (v. 35); farther, the. next day (rfj sTravplov, y. 44), as Jesus is on the point of journeying into Galileo, Pliilip and Nathanael join him; and lastly, on, the thzrd day, rf] fjizepa rij ~piry (ii. 1.), Jesus is at the wedding in Cana of Galilee.
The most natural inference, is, tliat the baptism took place immediately before John’s narrative of its attendant occurrences, and as according to the synoptical gospels the temptation followed close on tlie baptism, both tliese events must be inserted between v. 28 and 29, as Euthymius supposed. But between that which is narrated down to v. 28, and the sequel from v. 29 inclusive, there is only the interval of a morrow, s-^avpwv, while the temptation requires a period of forty days; hence, expositors have thought it necessary to give enavptov the wider sense of va-repov afterwards;
The most natural inference, is, tliat the baptism took place immediately before John’s narrative of its attendant occurrences, and as according to the synoptical gospels the temptation followed close on tlie baptism, both tliese events must be inserted between v. 28 and 29, as Euthymius supposed. But between that which is narrated down to v. 28, and the sequel from v. 29 inclusive, there is only the interval of a morrow, s-^avpwv, while the temptation requires a period of forty days; hence, expositors have thought it necessary to give enavptov the wider sense of va-repov afterwards;
this however is inadmissible, because tlie expression Ty iifispa ry Tpiry, the. third day, follows in connexion with Eiravplov, and restricts its meaning to the morrow. We might therefore be inclined, with Kuinol, to separate, tlie baptism and the temptation, to place the baptism after v. 28, and to regard the next day’s interview between
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Jesus and John (v. 29) as a parting visit from the former to the latter: inserting after this the journey into tlie wilderness and tlie temptation.But without insisting tliat tlie first three evangelists seem not to allow even of a day’s interval between the baptism and the departure of Jesus into tlie wilderness, yet even later we liave tlie same difficulty in finding space for tlie forty days.
For it is no more possible to place the residence in tlie wilderness between tlie supposed parting visit and tlie direction of the two disciples to Jesus, tliat is, between v. 34 and 35, as Kuinol attempts, tlian between v. 28 and 29, since tlie former as well as tlie latter passages are connected by Tfj ETravplov, on the morrow. Hence we must descend to v. 43 and 44; but here also there is only tlie interval of a morrow, and even cliap. ii. 1, we are shut out by an f]ftKpa Tpiri], third day, so that, proceeding in tills way, tlie temptation would at last be carried to the residence of Jesus in Galilee, in direct opposition to the statement of tlie synoptical writers; wliile, in farther contradiction to them, tlie temptation is placed at a farther and farther distance from the baptism.Tlius neither at v. 29, nor below it, can the forty days’ residence of Jesus in tlie wilderness with the temptation be intercalated ; and it must therefore be referred, according to the plan of Liicke and others,* to the period before v. 19, whicli seems to allow of as large an interpolation as can be desired, inasmuch as tlie fourth evangelist there commences his liistory.
For it is no more possible to place the residence in tlie wilderness between tlie supposed parting visit and tlie direction of the two disciples to Jesus, tliat is, between v. 34 and 35, as Kuinol attempts, tlian between v. 28 and 29, since tlie former as well as tlie latter passages are connected by Tfj ETravplov, on the morrow. Hence we must descend to v. 43 and 44; but here also there is only tlie interval of a morrow, and even cliap. ii. 1, we are shut out by an f]ftKpa Tpiri], third day, so that, proceeding in tills way, tlie temptation would at last be carried to the residence of Jesus in Galilee, in direct opposition to the statement of tlie synoptical writers; wliile, in farther contradiction to them, tlie temptation is placed at a farther and farther distance from the baptism.Tlius neither at v. 29, nor below it, can the forty days’ residence of Jesus in tlie wilderness with the temptation be intercalated ; and it must therefore be referred, according to the plan of Liicke and others,* to the period before v. 19, whicli seems to allow of as large an interpolation as can be desired, inasmuch as tlie fourth evangelist there commences his liistory.
Now it is true tliat wliat follows from v. 19 to 28 is not of a kind absolutely to exclude tlie baptism and temptation of Jesus as earlier occurences; but from v. 29 to 34, tlie evangelist is far from making the Baptist speak as if there liad been an interval of six weeks between tlie baptism and his narrative of its circumstances, f That the fourth evangelist sliould have omitted, by chance merely, the history of tlie temptation, important as it was in tlie view of the other evangelists, seems improbable; it is rather to be concluded, either that it was dogmatically offensive to him, so that lie omitted it designedly, or that it was not current in the circle of tradition from which he drew his materials.
The period of forty days is assigned by all tliree of the synoptical writers for tlie residence of Jesus in tlie wilderness; but to this agreement is annexed the not inconsiderable discrepancy, tliat, according to Matthew, tlie temptation by tlie devil commences after the lapse of the forty days, while, according to tlie others, it appears to have been going forward during this time; for the words of Mark (L 13), he was in, the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan, rfV
ev rrj eprifzw rfyiEpac; rsaaapdK.ovTa Treipa^ouevoc VTTO rov Sa-ava and the similar ones of Luke i. 2, can have no other meaning.
Added to tills, there is a difference between tlie two latter evangelists; Mark only placing tlie temptation generally within tlie duration of forty days, without naming tlie particular acts of the tempter, whicli according to Matthew, were subsequent to the forty days; while Luke
Added to tills, there is a difference between tlie two latter evangelists; Mark only placing tlie temptation generally within tlie duration of forty days, without naming tlie particular acts of the tempter, whicli according to Matthew, were subsequent to the forty days; while Luke
BAPTISM OF JESUS.
mentions both the prolonged temptation (neipa^ea9ai\ of tlie forty days, and tlie three special temptations (TTeipaap.ol\ wdiich followed.*
It has been thought possible to make tlie three accounts tally by supposing tliat tlie devil tempted Jesus during tlie forty days, as Mark states; that after the lapse of tliat time he approached him with tlie tliree temptations given by Matthew; and tliat Luke’s narrative. includes tlie whole, fFurther, the temptations liave been distinguished into two kinds; tliat wliicli is only generally mentioned, as continued through tlie forty days being considered invisible, like tlie ordinary attempts of Satan against men; and the tliree particularized temptations being regarded as personal and visible assaults, resorted to on the failure of tlie first.t But this distinction is evidently built on the air; moreover, it is inconceivable why Luke should not specify one of the temptations of the forty days, and sliould only mention tlie tliree subsequent ones detailed by Matthew.
We might conjecture that tlie tliree temptations narrated by Luke did not occur after the six weeks, but were given by way of specimen from among tlie many that took place during tliat time; and that Matthew misunderstood them to be a sequel to the forty days’
temptation. § But the challenge to make stones bread must in any case be placed at the end of that period, for it appealed to tlie hunger of Jesus, arising from a forty days’ fast (a cause omitted by Mark alone.) Now in Luke also this is the first temptation, and if tills occurred at tlie close of the forty days, the others could not liave been earlier. For it is not to be admitted that tlie separate temptations being united in Luke merely by KCU, and not by “rd-s and Tfrf/Uy as in Maithew, we are not bound to preserve the order of them, and that witliout violating tlie intention of tlie third evangelist we may place the second and tliird temptation before the first. Thus Luke is convicted of a want of historical tact; for after representing Jesus as tempted by tlie devil forty days, lie lias no details to give concerning this long period, but narrates later temptations; lience we are not inclined, with tlie most recent critic of Matthew’s Gospel to regard Luke’s as tlie original, and Matthew’s as the traditional and adulterated narrative. || .Rather, as in Mark the temptation is noticed witliout farther details than that it lasted forty days, and in Mattlicw the particular cases of temptation are narrated, the hunger winch induced tlie first rendering it necessary to place them after tlie forty days; Luke has evidently tlie secondary statement, for lie unites tlie two previous ones in a manner scarcely tolerable, giving tlie forty days’ process of temptation, and then su^c’-Huously bringing forward particular instances as additional facts. It is not on this account to be concluded tliat Luke wrote after Mark, and in dependence on him; but supposing, on the contrary, that Mark here borrowed from Luke, lie extracted only the first and general part of
Other books
Dearest Cousin Jane by Jill Pitkeathley
Minerva's Voyage by Lynne Kositsky
Poison Frog Mystery by Gertrude Chandler Warner
Healing Promises by Prince, Joseph
The Dead Path by Stephen M. Irwin
The Lovegrove Hermit by Rosemary Craddock
Black Widow by Chris Brookmyre
Double Dutch by Sharon M. Draper
The Dead Boyfriend by R. L. Stine
Hiding in the Shadows by Kay Hooper