Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (736 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
6.56Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
* Guerike, Beitriige zur Einleitung in das N. T., S. 33 ; Tholuck, GlauhwUrdigkeit, S. 303.f Schneckenburger, ulier den Ursprung u. s. w., S. 9.{ Kern, uber den Ur.
sprung des Evang. Matthai, in der Triliinger Zeitschrift, 1834, 2tes Heft S. 198 ff Comp Hug, Einl. in das N. T., 2, S. 203 ff. (3te Ausg.)
 
T;I;: LIFE OF JESUS.
 
tion. Besides, as tlic synoptical writers have given a plentiful gleaning of lucid and popular discourses from the final residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, there is no ground whatever for believing tliat his earlier visits were devoid of such, and that his converse on these occasions took throughout a higher tone.But even allowing that all the earlier discourses of Jesus in Judea and Jerusalem were beyond the range of tlic first apostolic tradition, deeds were performed there, such as tlic cure of tlic man who Iiad liad an infirmity thirtyeight years, the conferring of siglit on the man Lorn blind, and the raising of Lazarus, wliicli, from their imposing rank among tlic evidences of Christianity, must almost have necessitated the mention of tliosc early visits of Jesus to Judea during wliieli tlicy occurred.
 
Thus it is impossible to explain why the synoptical writers, if they knew of tlic earlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, should not have mentioned them, and it must be concluded tliat if John be right, the first three evangelists knew nothing of an essential part of the earlier ministry of Jesus; if, on tlic other hand, tlic Lritcr be right, file author of tlic fourth Gospel, or of tlic tradition by which lie was giiidcd, fabricated a large portion of wliat lie lias narrated concerning the ministry of Jesus, or at least assigned to it a false locality.
 
On a closer examination, however, tlie relation between Jolin and the synoptical writers is not simply sucli, tliat tlic latter might not know wliat tlic former records, but such, that they must have proceeded from positively opposite data. For example, tlic synoptical writers, Matthew especially, as often as Jesus leaves Galllcc, from the time tliat lie takes up his abode there after tlic Baptist’s imprisonment, seldom neglect to give a particular reason; such as that lie wislied to escape from tlie crowd by a passage across the sea (Matt. viii. 18), or tliat lie withdrew into tlie wilderness of Pcrea to avoid tlic snares of Herod (xiv. 13), or tliat lie retired into the region of Tyre and Sidon on account of tlie offence taken by the scribes at his preaching (xv. 21.) : John, on tlic contrary, generally alleges a special reason wliy Jesus leaves Judea and retires into Galilce. Not to contend tliat his very iirst journey thither appears to be occasioned solely bv tlie invitation to Cana, his departure again into Galileo after tlie tirst passovcr attended by him in his public character, is expressly accounted for by tlic ominous attention which tlie increasing number of his disciples liad excited among tlie Pharisees (iv. 1 ff.).
 
His retirement after tlie second feast also, into tlie country cast of tlie Sea of Tibcrias (vi. 1.), must be viewed in relation to tlic iy^rovv avTov ol ‘lovSaloi aTTOfcmrai (v. 18.), since immediately after, tlic evangelist assigns as a reason for tlic continuance of Jesus in Galllee, tlie malignant designs of his enemies, winch rendered his abode in Judea perilous to his life (vii. 1.).
 
The interval between tlic Feast of Tabernacles and tlic Feast of tlio Dedication seems to have been spent by Jesus in tlie capital,* no unpro
LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
pitious circumstances compelling him to absent Iiimself (x. 22.); on the other hand his journey into Perca (x. 40.) and tliat into Ephraim (xi. 54.) are presented as effects of his persecution by tlie Jews.
 
Thus precisely tlie same relation as tliat which exists between Matthew and Luke, witli respect to tlic original dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus, is found between tlie first three evangelists and the fourth, with respect to the principal theatre of his ministry.
As, in the former instance, Matthew presupposes Bethlehem to be tlie original place of abode, and Nazareth tlie one subsequently adopted through fortuitous circumstances, while Luke gives tlie contrary representation ; so in tlie latter, tlie entire statement of the synoptical writers turns on the idea tliat, until his last journey, Galilee v/as tlie cliosen rield of tlie labours of Jesus, and tliat lie only left it occasionally, from particular motives and for a short time ;
 
while that of John, on tlie contrary, turns on tlie supposition, tliat Jesus would have taught solely in Judea and Jerusalem had not prudence sometimes counselled him to retire into tlie more remote provinces.*
 
Of tlicsc two representations one only can be true. Before they were perceived to be contradictory, tlie narrative of John was incorporated with tliat of tlic synoptical writers ; since they have been allowed to be in-cconcileable, the verdict lias always been in favour of the fourth evangelist; and so prevalent is this custom, that even tlie author of tlie Probabilia does not use tlie difference to the disadvantage of tlie latter.
 
De Wette numbers it among the objections to tlie authenticity of Mattlicw’s G-ospcl, tliat it erroneously limits tlie ministry of Jesus to Galileo, f and Schneckcnburger has no more important ground of doubt to produce against the apostolic origin of tlie first canonical Gospel, tlian tlic unacquaintance of its author with tlie extra-Galilcan labours of Jcsus.t If tills decision be well-founded, it must rest on a careful consideration of the question, wliicli of the two incompatible narratives lias tlic greater corroboration from external sources, and tlic more internal verisimilitude ? We have shown in tlic introduction tliat tlie external evidence or testimony for tlic authenticity of the fourth Gospel and of tlic synoptical ones, tliat of Mattliew emphatically, is of about equal value ; that is, it determines nothing in cither case, but leaves the decision to tlic internal evidence.
 
In relation to this, tlic following question must be considered: is it more probable tliat, although Jesus was actually often in Judea and Jerusalem previous to Ills last journey, yet at tlie time and place whence tlie synoptical gospels arose, all traces of the fact liad disappeared; or tliat, on tlic contrary, although Jesus never entered Judea for the exercise of his public ministry before his last journey thither, yet at tlie time and place of tlie composition of tlie fourth Gospel a tradition of several such visits liad been formed ?
 
* Comp. LUckc, ut sup. S. 546. -i- De Wette, Einl. in daa N. T., § 98. f Schnecken.
 
THE LIFE OF JESU9.
 
The above critics seek to show that the first might be the case, in tlie following manner. Tlie first Gospel, they say* and more or less the two middle ones, contain the tradition concerning the life of Jesus as it was formed in Galilee, where the memory of what Jesus did and said in tliat province would be preserved with a natural partiality,-wliile, of that part of his life which was spent out of Galilee, only the most critical incidents, such as his birth, consecration, and especially his last journey, wliicli issued in his death, would bo retained; for the remainder, including his early journeys to the various feasts, being either unknown or forgotten, so that any fragments of information concerning one or other of tlie previous residences of Jesus at Jerusalem would be referred to tlie last, no other being known.
 
But John himself, in whom our theologians rest all their confidence, expressly mentions (iv. 45) that at tlie first passover visited by Jesus after his baptism (and probably at others also) the Galileans were present, and apparently in great numbers, since as a consequence of their having witnessed his works in Jerusalem, Jesus found a favourable reception in Galilee. If we add to tlus, that most of the disciples wlio accompanied Jesus in his early journeys to the feasts were Galileans (John iv. 22, ix. 2), it is inconceivable that tidings of tlie ministry of Jesus at Jerusalem should not from the first reach Galilee. Once tliere, could time extinguish them?
We grant that it ia in the nature of tradition to fuse and remodel its materials, and as the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem was preeminently memorable, it might absorb tlie recollections of the previous ones. But tradition lias also another impulse, and it is its strongest; namely to glorify. It may indeed be said tliat to circumscribe the early ministry of Jesus by the frontiers of Galilee would serve the purpose of glorifying that province, in which tlie synoptical tradition had its origin. But the aim of tlie synoptical legend was not to glorify Galilee, on which it pronounces severe judgments;Jesus is tlie object round whicli it would cast a halo, and his greatness is proportionate to the sphere of his influence. Hence, to show that from the beginning of his ministry lie made himself known beyond the Galilean angulus terras, and tliat he often presented himself on the brilliant theatre of tlie capital, especially on occasions when it was crowded witli spectators and hearers from all regions, was entirely according to the bent of the legend. If, therefore, there had historically been but one journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, tradition might bo tempted to create more by degrees, since it would argue-how could so great a light as Jesus have remained so long under a busliel, and not rather have early and often placed himself on the lofty stand which Jerusalem presented? Opponents, too, might object, like tlie unbelieving brethren of Jesus, (John vii. 3. 4,)
that he who is conscious of tlie power to perform something truly
* Kcbnp.ckftnhurirer. BeitrHa-e S. 207. Comp. Galiler’s Treatise on the Resurrection
LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
great, does not conceal himself, but seeks publicity, in order that his capabilities may be recognized; and to these opponents it was thought the best answer to show tliat Jesus actually did seek such publicity, and early obtained recognition in an extended spliere.
Out of this representation would easily grow the idea which lies at the foundation of tlie fourth Gospel, tliat not Galilee, but Judea, was tlie proper residence of Jesus.
 
Thus, viewed from the point of tlie possible formation of a legend, the balance inclines in favour of tlie synoptical writers. But is the result the same wlien we ascend to tlie relations and designs of Jesus, and from tills point of view inquire, if it be more probable tliat Jesus visited Jerusalem once only or several times during his public life?
 
Tlie alleged difficulty, tliat tlie various journeys to the feasts offer the principal means of accounting for the intellectual development of Jesus, is easily removed. For those journeys alone would not suffice to explain tlie mental pre-eminence of Jesus, and as the main stress must still be placed on his internal gifts, we cannot pronounce whether to a mind like his, even Galilee might not present enough aliment for their maturing; besides, an adherence to tlie synoptical writers would only oblige us to renounce tliose journeys to tlie feasts which Jesus took after his public appearance, so tliat lie might still have been present at many feasts previous to his messianic career, without assuming a conspicuous character. It lias been held inconceivable tliat Jesus, so long after his assumption of tlie messianic character, sliould confine himself to Galilee instead of taking his stand in Judea and Jerusalem, whicli, from tlie higher culture and more extensive foreign intercourse of tlieir population, were a much more suitable field for his labours; but it lias been long remarked, on the other hand, that Jesus could find easier access to the simple and energetic minds of Galilee, less fettered by priestcraft and Pharisaism, and therefore acted judiciously in obtaining a firm footing there by a protracted ministry, before he ventured to Jerusalem, where, in the centre of priestly and Pharisaic domination, he must expect stronger opposition.
 
Tliere is a graver difficulty in the synoptical statement, considered in relation to the Mosaic law and Jewish custom.The law rigorously required tliat every Israelite should appear before Jehovah yearly at the three principal feasts (Exod. xxiii. 14 ff.), and the reverence of Jesus for tlie Mosaic institutes (Matt. v. 17 ff.) renders it improbable tliat, during the wliole course of his ministry, he should have undertaken but one journey of observance.* Tlie Gospel of Matthew, however, be our judgment what it may as to tlie date and place of its composition, did certainly arise in a community of Jewish Christians, who well knew what the law prescribed to the devout Israelite, and must tlierefore be aware of the contradiction to the law in which the practice of Jesus was involved, wlien, during a public

Other books

Enchanting Melody by Robyn Amos
Call of Glengarron by Nancy Buckingham
Omens of Death by Nicholas Rhea
The Gardener by Bodeen, S.A.
The Africans by David Lamb
Night Shifters by Sarah A. Hoyt