Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (735 page)

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.13Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
 
But one temptation would not suffice. Of Abraham the rabbins enumerated ten; but this number was too large for a dramatic narrative like that in the Gospels, and among lower numbers tlie sacred three must have the preference. Thrice during his spiritual contest in Gethsemane Jesus severed himself from his disciples (Matt. xxvi.);
 
thrice Peter denied his Lord, and tlirice Jesus subsequently questioned liis love (Jolm xxi.). In that rabbinical passage which represents Abraham as tempted by tlie devil in person, the patriarch parries three thrusts from him; in wliicli particular, as well as in the manner in wliich Old Testament texts are bandied by tlie parties, the scene is allied to the evangelical one.f
* Dent. viii. 3 nal enuttoce ce Kal KXifiay^ovTfffs. (T£, K. *. 7i»
 
•t” S. Fabricius, Cod. pseudepigr.
V. T. p. 398 ff.
 
t Gemara Saiih., as in note 3. The colloquy between Abraham and Satan is thus continued:
 
1. Saiarws:
 
Annon tenfare te (Deum’) in tali re agre ferasf Ecce erudiebas multosiubaiiiem friybant verba tua-quum nunc advenit ad Ie ^Detts tallter te tertians’} nonne cegre furres C.lob. iv. 2-,•>- ‘I?
 
THE LIFE OF JES-JS.
 
The second temptation (in Matthew) was not determined by its relation to the precceding; hence its presentation seems abrupt, and the clioice fortuitous or capricious. This may be true with respect to its form, but its substantial meaning is in close connection with the foregoing temptation, since it also lias reference to tlie conduct of tlie Jewish people in the wilderness. To tliem tlie warning was given in Deut. vi. 16. to tempt God no more as they liad tempted him at Massali; a warning which was reiterated 1 Cor. x. 9. to tlie members of the new covenant, though more in allusion to Numb.
xxi. 4. To this crying sin, therefore, under wliicli tlie ancient people of God liad fallen, must tlie Messiah be incited, that by resisting the incitement he might compensate, as it were, for the transgression of tlie people. Now tlie conduct wliicli was condemned in them as a temptiny of the Lord, eiCTreipd^siv Kvplov, was occasioned by a dearth of water, and consisted in their murmurs at tills deprivation. This, to later tradition, did not seem fully to correspond to the terms; something more suitable was sought for, and from this point of view there could hardly be a more eligible clioice than tlie one we actually find in our history of tlie temptation, for nothing can be more properly called a tempting of God than so audacious an appeal to his extraordinary succour, as that suggested by Satan in his second temptation. The reason why a leap from tlie pinnacle of tlie temple was named as an example of such presumption, is put into the mouth of Satan himself.
 
It occurred to the originator of tills feature in tlie narrative, that the passage Ps. xci. 11. was capable of perversion into a motive for a rash act. It is there promised to one dwelling under the protection of Jehovah, (a designation under wliicli the Messiah was preeminently understood,) tliat angels should bear Idm vp in their hands, lest at any time he should dash his foot against a stone.
Bearing up in their hands to prevent a. fall, seemed to imply a precipitation from some eminence, and this might induce tlie idea that tlie divinely-protected Messiah might hurl himself from a height with impunity. But from wliat height ? There could be no hesitation on this point. To tlie pious man, and therefore to the liead of all the pious, is appropriated, according to Ps. xv. 1; xxiv. 3, the distinction of going up to Jehovah’s lioly hill, and standing witliin his holy place: hence tlie pinnacle of tlie temple, in tlie presump
2. Safanas : Annon fimor fuus^ spcs iua (Job. iv. 6.)
?
Abraham: Kecordare qua’so, quis est iizsons, qui perifrif (v. 7.)?
 
3. Quare, yuum videret Satanus, se mhil projirere, nee A brahamum sibi obedire, cits-it ad ilium: et ad me verbum ftirtim aUatum est (v. -12.), atldwi-pecus J’uturum esse pro hoit>cat/sfo (Gen. xxii. 7.), non aufew Isancum.
 
Cm resp. Abraham : llac est plena mendacis, ut ttlam cum vera loquitur, jvks ei noa
haheaiur.
 
I am far from maintaining that tills rabbinical passage was the model of our history of tlie temptation ; but since it is impossible to prove, on the other side, that such narratives were only imitations of the New Testament ones, the supposed independent formation of i.torirs so similar shows plainly enough tlie ease witli which thev sprang out of
LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
273
 
tuous mode of inference supposed, might be regarded as the height whence the Messiah could precipitate himself unhurt.
 
The third. temptation wliicli Jesus underwent-to worship the devil-is not apparent among the temptations of God’s ancient people. But one of the most fatal seductions by which tlie Israelites were led astray in the wilderness was that of idolatry; and the apostle Paul adduces it as admonitory to Christians. Not only is this sin derived immediately from the devil in a passage above quoted ;* but in the later Jewish idea, idolatry was identical with the worship of tlie devil (Baruch iv. 7; 1 Cor. x. 20). How, then, could tlie worship of the devil be suggested to tlie Messiah in the form of a temptation ? The notion of the Messiali as he who, being tlie King of the Jewish people, was destined to be lord of all other nations, and that of Satan as tlie ruler of the heathen worldf to be conquered by the Messiah, were here combined.
 
That dominion over the world which, in tlie christianized imagination of the period, the Messiah was to obtain by a long and painful struggle, was offered him as an easy bargain if he would only pay Satan, the tribute of worship. This temptation Jesus meets with the maxim inculcated on the Israelites, Deut. vi. 13, that God alone is to be worshipped, and thus gives the enemy a final dismissal.
 
Matthew and Mark crown their history of the temptation with the appearance of angels to Jesus, and their refreshing him with nourishment after his long fast and the fatigues of temptation. This incident was prefigured by a similar ministration to Elijah after his forty days’ fast, and was brought nearer to tlie imagination by the circumstance that the manna which appeased the hunger of the people in the wilderness was named, ap-oc dv-ysXuv, angels’ food.
 
(Ps. Ixxviii. 25. LXX.; Wisdom xvi. 20).f

CHAPTER III
.

 
LOCALITY AND CHRONOLOGY OP THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
§ 57. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SYNOPTICAL WRITERS AND JOHN, AS TO THE CUSTOMARY SCENE OF THE MINISTRY OF JESUS.
 
ACCORDINO to the synoptical writers, Jesus, horn indeed at Bethlehem’in Judea, but brought up at Nazareth in Galilee, only absented himself from Galilee during the short interval between his
* Note 1. f Bertholdt, Christolog. Judseorum Jesu aetate, § 36. not. 1, and 2; FritzBche, ComiTi. in Matth. S. 1C9 f. f. Compare with the above statement the deductions of Schmidt, Fritzsuhe. and TTsteri. na n-iven a !•,! nn>»= 1-a .
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
baptism and tlic imprisonment of the Baptist; immediately after which, lie returned thither and began Ills ministry, teaching, healing, callina; disciples, so as to traverse all Galilee ; using as tlic centre of his agency, his previous dwelling-place, Nazareth, alternately with Capernaum, on tlie nortli-wcst border of the lake of Tiberias (Matt. iv. 12-25. parall.).
 
Mark and Luke liave many particulars concerning tills ministry in Galileo which arc not found in Matthew, and those which they liave in common with him are arranged in a different order; but as they all agree in tlie geograpliical circuit which they assign to Jesus, tlie account of tlie first evangelist may serve as tlie basis of our criticism. According to him tlie incidents narrated took place in Galilee, and partly in Capernaum down to viii. 18, where Jesus crosses tlie Galilcan sea, but is scarcely landed on the east side when lie returns to Capernaum.
 
Here follows a series of scenes connected by short transitions, such as -rapaydn’
KnelOev (ix. 9, 27), passing from thence, -6-e (v. 14.), then, ravro.
avTov XaXovvToc; (v. 18), rchile he spake these things ; expressions which can imply no important change of place, tliat is, of one province for another, which it is the liabit of tlie writer to mark much more carcfullv.
 
Tlie passage, ix. 35, Trept^yev 6 ‘\T]GOVI; ra(; no^eif ndaac;-SiSdcKW ev ral(; avvaywyalc; av-uv, is evidently only a repetition of iv. 23, and is therefore to be understood merely of excursions in Galilee.
 
Tlic message of tlie Baptist (cliap. xi.) is also received by Jesus in Galilee, at least such appears to be tlie opinion of the narrator, from his placing in immediate connexion the complaints of Jesus against tlie Galilean cities. When delivering the parable in chap. xiii. Jesus is by the sea, doubtless tliat of Galilee, and, as there is mention of his house, olida (v. 1.), probably in the vicinity of Capernaum.
 
Next, after having visited his native city Nazareth (xiii. 53.) he passes over the sea (xiv. 13.), according to Luke (ix.
10.), into tlie country of Bcthsaida (Julias); whence, however, after the miracle of the loaves, he speedily returns to the western border xiv. 34.). Jesus tlien proceeds to tlie northern extremity of Palestine, on the frontiers of Phoenicia (xv. 21.); soon, however, returned to tlie sea of Galilee (v. 29), he takes ship to tlie eastern side, in the coast of Magdala (v. 39), but again departs northward into tlie country of Gcsarca Pliilippi (xvi. 13.), in the vicinity of Lebanon, among tlie lower ridges of which is to be souglit the mount of the transfiguration (xvii. 1.). After journeying in Galilee for some time longer with his disciples (xvii. 22.), and once more visiting Capernaum (v. 24.), lie leaves Galilee (xix. 1) to travel (as it is most probably explained*) through Perea into Judca, (a journey which, according to Luke ix. 52, lie seems to liave made through Samaria); xx. 17, he is on his way to Jerusalem ; v. 29, lie cornea through Jericho; and xxL 1, is in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, which, v. 10, lie enters.
 
Thus, according to tlie synoptical writers, Jesus, from his return
LOCALITY OP THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
after being baptized Tby John, to his final journey to Jerusalem,
never goes beyond the limits of North Palestine, but traverses tlie countries west and east of tlie Galilcan sea and tlie upper Jordan, in tlie dominions of Herod Antipas and Philip, witliout touching on Samaria to tlic south, still less Judca, or tlic country under tlie immediate administration of tlie Romans. And within those limits, to be still more precise, it is tlie land west of tlie Jordan, and the sea of Tibcrias, and therefore Galilee, tlic province of Antipas, in.
which Jesus is especially active; only three short excursions on the eastern border of the sea, and two scarcely longer on tlic northern frontiers of tlie country, being recorded.
 
Quite otherwise is the theatre of the ministry of Jesus marked out in the fourth Gospel. It is true that here also he goes after his baptism by Jolin into Gallk-.c, to the wedding at Cana (ii. 1.), and from thence to Capernaum (v. 12); but in a few days the approaching pas?o\cr calls him to Jerusalem (v. 13.). From Jerusalem he proceeds into tlic country of Judea (iii. 22.), and after some time exercising his ministry there (iv. 1.), he returns through Samaria into Galilee (v. 43). Nothing is reported of his agency in this province but a single cure, and immediately on this a new feast summons him to Jerusalem (v. 1.), where lie is represented as performing a cure, being persecuted, and delivering long discourses, until lie betakes himself (vi. 1.) to the eastern shore of tlic sea of Tibcrias, and from thence to Capernaum (v. 17, 59). He then itinerates for some time in Galilee (vii. 1), but again leaves it, on occasion of tlie feast of tabernacles, for Jemsalein (v. 2, 10). To tills visit the evangelist refers many discourses and vicissitudes of Jesus (vii. 10;
 
x. 21.), and moreover connects with it the commencement of his public minisliy at tlie feast of dedication, witliout noticing any intermediate journey out of Jerusalem and Judca (x. 22.). After tills Jesus again retires into the country of Perca, where lie liad first been witli the Baptist (x. 40.), and there remains until the death of Lazarus recalls him to Betliany, near Jerusalem (xi. 1.), whence lie withdraws to Ephraim, in tlie vicinity of tlie wilderness of Judca,
until tlie approach of tlic passover, which lie visited as his last (xii. 1 ff.).
 
Thus, according to John, Jesus was present at four feasts in Jerusalem, before tlie final one: was besides once in Bethany, and
had been active for a considerable time in Judca and on his journey through Samaria.
 
Why, it must be asked, have tlie synoptical writers been silent on tills frequent presence of Jesus in Judca and Jerusalem ? Why have they represented tlic matter, as if Jesus, before Ills last fatal journey to Jerusalem, liad not overstepped the limits of Galileo and Pcrca’/ Tills discrepancy between tlie synoptical writers and Jolin was long overlooked in the church, and of late it lias been tliouglit feasible to deny its existence. It lias been said, tliat Matthew, at
thr1 prtmmni>^^->““+ 1--~ ^i
 
‘^ ‘“ ‘ “
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
pursues his narrative without noticing any journey into Judea until the last; but that we are not lience to conclude that Matthew was unacquainted with the earlier ministry of Jesus in Judea, for as with this evangelist the local interest is subordinate to the effort at an appropriate arrangement of his events, many particulars in the former part of his history, which he narrates without indicating any place, may have been known, though not stated by him, to have occurred in the earlier journeys and residences in Judea.* But this alleged subordination of tlic local interest in Matthew, is nothing more than a fiction of the harmonist, ;iS Schneckenburger lias recently proved.! Matthew very carefully marks (cliap. iv.) the beginning and (chap. xix.) the end of the almost exclusive residence of Jesus in Galileo; all the intervening narration must therefore be regarded as belonging to tliat residence, unless tlie contrary be expressed; and since the evangelist is on the alert to notice the’short excursions of Jesus across the lake and into the north of Galilee, he would hardly pass over in silence tlie more important, and sometimes prolonged visits to Judea, liad they been known or credited by him. Thus much only is to be allowed, that Matthew frequently neglects the more precise statement of localities, as the designation of the spot or neighbourhood in wliicli Jesus laboured from time to time: but in his more general biographical statements, such as the designation of the territories and provinces of Palestine, within the “boundaries of which Jesus exercised his ministry, he is as accurate as any other evangelist.
 
Expositors must therefore accommodate themselves to the admission of a difference between the synoptical writers and John,^
and those who think it incumbent on them to harmonize the Gospels must take care lest this difference be found a contradiction;
 
which can only be prevented by deducing tlie discrepancy, not from a disparity between the ideas of the evangelists as to the sphere of;
 
the ministry of Jesus, but from the difference of mental bias under which they severally wrote.
 
Some suppose that Matthew, being a Galilean, saw the most interest in G-alilean occurrences, and lience Confined his narrative to them, though aware of the agency of Jesus at Jerusalem.§ But wliat biographer, wlio liad himself accompanied his hero into various provinces, and belield his labours there, would confine his narration to what he had performed in his (the biographer’s) native province? Sucli provincial exclusiveness would surely be quite unexampled. Hence others have preferred the supposition that Matthew, writing at Jerusalem, purposely selected from the mass of discourses and actions of Jesus with wliicli lie was acquainted, those of which G-alilec was tlie theatre, because they were the least known at Jerusalem, and required narrating more than what had happened within tlie hearing, and was fresh in tlie memo
* Olshausen, Libl. Cornm., 1, S. 189 f. f SchneckenLurger, Beitrage, S. 38 f.i iibel den Ursprung u. 8. {. S. 7 f. f Ue Wette, Einleitimg in das N. T. (; 98 u. 10G. § Pair
LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
ries of its inhabitants.* In opposition to this it has been already remarked,! that there is no proof of Mattliew’s Gospel being especially intended for the Christians of Judea and Jerusalem: that even assuming this, a reference to tlie events which had happened in the reader’s own country could not be superfluous ; and that, lastly, tlie like limitation of the ministry of Jesus to Galilee by Mark and Luke cannot be thus accounted for, since these evangelists obviously did not write for Judea, (neither were they Galileans, so that this objection is equally valid against the first explanation ;) and were not in so servile a relation to Matthew as to have no access to independent information that might give them a more extended horizon. It is curious enough that these two attempts to solve the contradiction between the synoptical writers and John, are themselves in the same predicament of mutual contradiction. For if Matthew has been silent on the incidents in Judea, according to one, on account of his proximity, according to tlie other, on account of his remoteness, it follows that, two contrary hypotheses being made with equal ease to explain the same fact, both are alike inadequate.
 
No supposition founded on the local relations of the writers sufficing to explain the difference in question, liiglier ground must be taken, in a consideration of the spirit and tendency of the evangelical writings. From this point of view the following proposition lias been given: The cause wliicli determined tlie difference in the contents of tlie fourth Gospel and that of the synoptical ones, accounts also for their divergency as to tlie limits they assign to the ministry of Jesus; in other words, the discourses delivered by Jesus in Jerusalem, and recorded by John, required for their comprehension a more mature development of Christianity than that presented in the first apostolic period ; hence they were not retained in the primitive evangelical tradition, of which the synoptical writers were the organs, and were first restored to tlie church by John, who wrote when Christianity was in a more advanced stage.j: But neither is tills attempt at an explanation satisfactory, though it is less superficial than the preceding. For how could tlie popular and tlie esoteric in the teaching of Jesus be separated with such nicety, that tlie former should be confined to Galilee, and the latter to Jerusalem (tlie harsh discourse in the synagogue at, Capernaum alone excepted ?) It may be said: in Jerusalem he had a more enlio-htencd public around him, and could be more readily understood tlian in Galilee.But the Galileans could scarcely have misunderstood Jesus more lamentably than did tlie Jews from first to last, according to John’s representation, and as in Galileo lie liad the most undisturbed communion with Ills disciples, we should ratlier have conjectured that here would be the scene of his more profound instruc
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.13Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

American Outlaw by James, Jesse
The Insufferable Gaucho by Roberto Bolano
Harry the Poisonous Centipede by Lynne Reid Banks
Fallout by Ariel Tachna
Nude Awakening II by Victor L. Martin
Look at Me by Anita Brookner
Chesapeake Tide by Jeanette Baker