Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (732 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
13.72Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
* Compare Fritzsche, Comm. in Marc., S. 23 ; De Wette exeg. Handb., 1, 2, S. 33.
+ K*llinn1 C’liiTii-ii ;n I >*n
C Q^’(t + T ;™*l,p^^<- 1^«.»
« oil ff o,.1,^^.,l,^^l,..-.-« JII.A
C Q^’(t + T ;™*l,p^^<- 1^«.»
« oil ff o,.1,^^.,l,^^l,..-.-« JII.A
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
the latter evangelist’s narrative, having ready, in lieu of the farther detail of single temptations, an addition peculiar to himself; namely, that Jesus, during his residence in the wilderness was perarCiv 6fjP’MV, with the wild beasts. •
What was Mark’s object in introducing the wild beasts, it is difficult to say.
The majority of expositors are of opinion that he intended to complete the terrible picture of the wilderness ;* but to this it is not without reason objected, that tlie clause would then have been in closer connection with the words ffv ev ry ep’/jfzy, he was in the wilderness, instead of being placed after nsipa^op.evcK;, tempted.^ Ustcri lias hazarded the conjecture that tills particularity may be designed to mark Christ as the antitype of Adam, wlio, in paradise, also stood in a peculiar relation to the animals,^ and Olshausen has eagerly laid hold on this mystical notion; but it is an interpretation which finds little support in tlie context.
Schleiermacher, in pronouncing this feature of Mark’s narrative extravagant^ doubtless means tliat tills evangelist here, as in other instances of exaggeration, borders on the style of the apocryphal gospels, for whose capricious fictions we are not seldom unable to suggest a cause or an object, and thus we must rest contented, for the present, to penetrate no farther into tlie sense of his statement.
The majority of expositors are of opinion that he intended to complete the terrible picture of the wilderness ;* but to this it is not without reason objected, that tlie clause would then have been in closer connection with the words ffv ev ry ep’/jfzy, he was in the wilderness, instead of being placed after nsipa^op.evcK;, tempted.^ Ustcri lias hazarded the conjecture that tills particularity may be designed to mark Christ as the antitype of Adam, wlio, in paradise, also stood in a peculiar relation to the animals,^ and Olshausen has eagerly laid hold on this mystical notion; but it is an interpretation which finds little support in tlie context.
Schleiermacher, in pronouncing this feature of Mark’s narrative extravagant^ doubtless means tliat tills evangelist here, as in other instances of exaggeration, borders on the style of the apocryphal gospels, for whose capricious fictions we are not seldom unable to suggest a cause or an object, and thus we must rest contented, for the present, to penetrate no farther into tlie sense of his statement.
With respect to tlie difference between Matthew and Luke in the arrangement of tlie several temptations, we must equally abide by Schleiermachcr’s criticism and verdict, namely, that Matthew’s order seems to be the original, because it is founded on tlie relative importance of tlie temptations, which is tlie main consideration,-the invitation to worship Satan, wliich is the strongest temptation, being made tlie final one; whereas tlie arrangement of Luke looks like a later and not very liappy transposition, proceeding from tlie consideration-alien to the original spirit of the narrative,-that Jesus could more readily go with the devil from the wilderness to the adjacent mountain and from thence to Jerusalem, than out of the wilderness to the city and from thence back again to the mountain. [|
While tlie first two evangelists close their narrative of tlie temptation with the ministering of angels to Jesus, Luke lias a conclusion peculiar to himself, namely, tliat the devil left Jesus for a season, Sv\f)i. naipov (v. 13.), apparently intimating that tlie sufferings of Jesus were a farther assault of tlie devil; an idea not resumed by Luke, but alluded to in John xiv. 30.
§ 54. THE HISTOBY OF THE TEMPTATION CONCEIVED IN THE SENSE
OF THE EVANGELISTS.
FEW evangelical passages have undergone a more industrious criticism, or m we, completely run through the circle of all possible
* Thus Euthymius, Kuinol, and others. \ Fritzsche, in loc. \ Beitrag znr Erklii
flor VB..e,,^h,,r.o-crro«nhi,.ht» in ITIlmBiln’a ami TTmhrpit.’a Stnrlian 18:-t4. 4 8.78!).
TEMPTATION OF JESUS.
interpretations, than tlie history in question. For the personal appearance of tlie devil, which it seems to contain, was a thorn which would not allow commentators to repose on tlie most obvious interpretation, but incessantly urged them to new efforts. The series of explanations licncc resulting, led to critical comparisons, among which tliose of Schmidt,* Fritzsche,f and Usteri,{ seem to have carried tlie inquiry to its utmost limits.
The first interpretation that suggests itself on an unprejudiced •consideration of tlie text is this ; that Jesus was led by the Divine Spirit received at his baptism, into the wilderness, tliere to undergo a temptation by tlie devil, wlio accordingly appeared to him visibly and personally, and in various ways, and at various places to wliich he was the conductor, prosecuted his purpose of temptation; but meeting with a victorious resistance, lie withdrew from Jesus, and angels appeared to minister to liim.
Sucli is the simple exegesis of the narrative, but viewed as a history it is encumbered witli difficulties.
Sucli is the simple exegesis of the narrative, but viewed as a history it is encumbered witli difficulties.
To take tlie portions of tlie narrative in their proper order: if the Divine Spirit led Jesus into the wilderness with the design of exposing liim to temptation, as Matthew expressly says, dv^O’i] elg rfjv ‘epi]fiov VTTO TOV TivEvftciro^ Treipa.aO’i’jvat (i\-. 1), of what use was this temptation ? Tliat it liad a vicarious and redeeming value will.
hardly be maintained, or that it was necessary for God to put Jesus to a trial; neither can it be consistently shown that by this temptation Jesus was to be made like us, and, according to Heb. iv. 15, tempted in all tilings like as we are; for the fullest measure of trial fell to his share in after life, and a temptation, effected by the devil in person, would rather make him unlike us, wlio are spared such appearances.
The forty day’s fast, too, is singular. One does not understand how Jesus could hunger after six weeks of abstinence from all food, witliout having liungered long before; since in ordinary cases the human frame cannot sustain a week’s deprivation of nourishment.
It is true, expositors § console themselves by calling the forty days a.
round number, and by supposing that tlie expression of Mattliew v’qarevaag, and even that of Luke, OVK Scfiayev oudw, are not to be taken strictly, and do not denote abstinence from all food, but only from tliat wliich is customary, so that the use of roots and herbs is not excluded. On no supposition, however, can so much be subtracted from the forty days as to leave only tlie duration of a conceivable fast; and tliat nothing short of entire abstinence from all nourishment was intended by the evangelists, Fritzsche lias clearly shown, by pointing out the parallel between the fast of Jesus and that of Moses and Elias, the former of wliom is said to liave eaten no bread and drunk no water for forty days (Exod. xxxiv. 28; Deut. ix. 9,
* Exegetische Beitrage, 1, S. 277 ff. f Comm. in Matt. S. 172 ff. f In the Essay minted- S. 7fiS-8 Thni o n. y,,;,,;;l f-- ••- nr-^i. - o-”
/- .~
/- .~
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
18), and tlic latter, to have gone for tlic same period in tlie strength of a meal taken before his journey (1 Kings xix. 8). Bat such a fast wants the credentials of utility, as well as of possibility. From the context it appears, tliat the fast of Jesus wag prompted by tlie same Spirit which occasioned Ills journey to tlie wilderness, and which now moved him to a holy self-discipline, whereby men of God, under tlic old dispensation, purified tliemselves, and became worthy of divine visions. But it could not be hidden from tliat Spirit, tliat Satan, in attacking Jesus, would avail himself of thia very fast, and make tlie hunger thence arising an accomplice in Ins temptation. And was not tlie fast, in tlnis case, a kind of challenge to Satan, an act of presumption, ill becoming even the best warranted self-confidence ?*
But the personal appearance of tlic devil is the great stumblingblock in tlic present narrative.
If, it is said, there be a personal devil, he cannot take a visible form; and if tliat were possible, he would hardly demean himself as lie is represented to have done in tlie gospels.
It is with tlie existence of the devil as with tliat of angels-even tlie believers in a revelation are perplexed by it, because the idea did not spring up among tlie recipients of revelation, but was transplanted by them, during exile, from a profane soil.f Moreover, to tliosc wlio have not quite shut out tlie lights of tlie present age, the existence of a devil is become in the liiglicst degree doubtful.
If, it is said, there be a personal devil, he cannot take a visible form; and if tliat were possible, he would hardly demean himself as lie is represented to have done in tlie gospels.
It is with tlie existence of the devil as with tliat of angels-even tlie believers in a revelation are perplexed by it, because the idea did not spring up among tlie recipients of revelation, but was transplanted by them, during exile, from a profane soil.f Moreover, to tliosc wlio have not quite shut out tlie lights of tlie present age, the existence of a devil is become in the liiglicst degree doubtful.
On this subject, as well as on tliat of angels, Schlciermacher
may serve as an interpreter of modern opinion. He shows tliat the idea of a being, such as the devil, is an assemblage of contradic
0’ ‘
0
0
tlons: tliat as tlie idea of angels originated in a limited observation of nature, so tliat of tlie devil originated in a limited observation of self, and as our knowledge of human nature progresses, must recede farther into tlic background, and tlie appeal to tlie devil be henceforth regarded as tlie resource of ignorance and sloth.j; Even admitting the existence of a devil, a visible and personal appearance on his part, sucli as is here supposed, lias its peculiar difficulties.
Olsliausen himself observes, that there is no parallel to it cither in the Old or New Testament. Farther, if tlic devil, tliat lie might liave some hope of deceiving Jesus, abandoned his own form, and took that of a man, or of a good angel; it may be reasonably asked whether tlie passage, 2 Cor. xi. 14, Satan is transformed into an angel of light, be intended literally, and if so, whether tills fantastic conception can be substantially true ? §
As to tlie temptations, it was early asked by Julian, how the devil could liopc to deceive Jesus, knowing, as lie must, his higher
* Usteri, uber den Taiifer Johannes, die Tanfe und Versuchung Christi. In den tlieol.
Studieii unit Kritikeu, zweiten Jahrganga (1829) dr’ittcs Heft, S. 4,’iO. De Wette, exeg.
Handli., 1, 1, 8. 38. •t” De Wette, Libl. Dogmatik, § 171. Grambcrg, Grundzuge einer EiiRullehre des A. T., § .’“>, in Winer’s Zeitsclirift f. wissenschaftlk-he Theologie, 1 Bd. S.
lu.i r+ r.i,>..i,,.^^i^i,,.t, i s ,14. 1;Y di.r zwritin Ausir.S Scliinidt, excg. Beitrage.
TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 263
nature ?* And Theodore’s answer that the divinity of Jesus was then unknown to the devil, is contradicted by tlie observation, tliat had he not then beheld a higher nature in Jesus, he would scarcely have taken the trouble to appear specially to him in person. In relation to the particular temptations, an assent cannot be withheld from llie canon, tliat, to be credible, the narrative must ascribe nothing to tlie devil inconsistent with his established cunning. f Now the •first temptation, appealing to hunger, we grant, is not ill-conceived;
if this were ineffectual, tlie devil, as an artful tactician, sliould have liad a yet more alluring temptation at hand ; but instead of this, we find him, in Matthew, proposing to Jesus the neck-breaking feat of casting himself down from tlie pinnacle of the temple-a far less inviting experiment tlian the metamorphosis of tlie stones. This proposition finding no acceptance, tliere follows, as a crowning effort, a suggestion which, whatever might be tlie bribe, every true Israelite would instantly reject with abhorrence-to fall down and worship the devil.
So indiscreet a clioicc and arrangement, of temptations has thrown most modern commentators into perplexity. ^ As the three temptations took place in three different and distant places, the question occurs: how did Jesus pass witli tlie devil from one to the other ? Even the orthodox hold tliat this cliange of place was effected quite naturally, for they suppose tliat Jesus set out on a journey, and tliat the devil followed him. § But tlie expressions, the devil takes him-sets him, vafsaka.y.ftavs.i.-la-r]cnv avr’ov b Sid/So^of, in Matthew; Hiking, avayaywv, brought, fjyayev, set, MT’TJOEV, in Luke, obviously imply tliat tlie transportation was effected by the devil, and moreover, tlie particular given in Luke, tliat tlie devil showed Jesus all tlie kingdoms of tlie world in a moment of time, points to sometliing magical; so that witliout doubt tlie evangelists intended to convey the idea of magical transportations, as in Acts viii. 29, a power of carrying away, aprrd^eiv, is attributed to the Spirit of the Lord. But it was early found irreconcileable with the dignity of Jesus tliat tlie devil should thus exercise a magical power over him, and carry him about in tlic air : || an idea which seemed extravagant even to those wlio tolerated tlic personal appearance of tlic devil. Tlie incredibility is augmented, when we consider tlie sensation which the appearance of Jesus on the roof of the temple must have excited, even supposing it to be tlie roof of Solomon’s Porch only, in wliich case tlie gilded spears on the Holy Place, and tlie prohibition to laymen to tread its roof, would not be an obstacle.^ Tlie well-known question suggested by the last
So indiscreet a clioicc and arrangement, of temptations has thrown most modern commentators into perplexity. ^ As the three temptations took place in three different and distant places, the question occurs: how did Jesus pass witli tlie devil from one to the other ? Even the orthodox hold tliat this cliange of place was effected quite naturally, for they suppose tliat Jesus set out on a journey, and tliat the devil followed him. § But tlie expressions, the devil takes him-sets him, vafsaka.y.ftavs.i.-la-r]cnv avr’ov b Sid/So^of, in Matthew; Hiking, avayaywv, brought, fjyayev, set, MT’TJOEV, in Luke, obviously imply tliat tlie transportation was effected by the devil, and moreover, tlie particular given in Luke, tliat tlie devil showed Jesus all tlie kingdoms of tlie world in a moment of time, points to sometliing magical; so that witliout doubt tlie evangelists intended to convey the idea of magical transportations, as in Acts viii. 29, a power of carrying away, aprrd^eiv, is attributed to the Spirit of the Lord. But it was early found irreconcileable with the dignity of Jesus tliat tlie devil should thus exercise a magical power over him, and carry him about in tlic air : || an idea which seemed extravagant even to those wlio tolerated tlic personal appearance of tlic devil. Tlie incredibility is augmented, when we consider tlie sensation which the appearance of Jesus on the roof of the temple must have excited, even supposing it to be tlie roof of Solomon’s Porch only, in wliich case tlie gilded spears on the Holy Place, and tlie prohibition to laymen to tread its roof, would not be an obstacle.^ Tlie well-known question suggested by the last
Other books
Highland Hope (Wild Thistle Triology Book 1) by Madelyn Hill
Slayed by Amanda Marrone
Grounds for Divorce by Helena Maeve
Songdogs by Colum McCann
Anita Mills by The Rogue's Return
One with the Wind by Livingston, Jane
The Iron Princess by Sandra Lake
The Knight Marshal (The Silk & Steel Saga) by Karen Azinger
A Special Surprise by Chloe Ryder
Superior Saturday by Garth Nix