Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (738 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
2.54Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
nounces the return from exile, with the exception of the words to set at liberty t/iem. that are bruised, aTroarEUai. TeOpavauevov^ ev d(j)K
To this passage Jesua gives a messianic interpretation, for lie declares it to be fulfilled by his appearance.
Wliy lie selected this text from among all others lias been variously conjectured.
It is known that among the Jews at a later period, certain extracts from tlic Thorah and tlie Prophets were statedly read on particular sabbaths and feast days, and it has hence been suggested tliat tlie above passage was tlie selection appointed for tlie occasion in question. It is true that the cliapter from wliicli tlie words d^offTeUat K. T. X. are taken, used to be read on tlie great day of atonement, and Bengel lias made the supposition, tliat tlie scene we are considering occurred on tliat day, a main pillar of his evangelical chronology.* But if Jesus liad adhered to the regular course of reading, he would not merely have extracted from tlie lesson appointed for this feast a few stray words, to insert them in a totally disconnected passage; and after all, it is impossible to demonstrate tliat, so early as the time of Jesus, there were prescribed readings, even from tlie prophets, f If then Jesus was not tlius circumstantially directed to the passage cited, did he open.
To this passage Jesua gives a messianic interpretation, for lie declares it to be fulfilled by his appearance.
Wliy lie selected this text from among all others lias been variously conjectured.
It is known that among the Jews at a later period, certain extracts from tlic Thorah and tlie Prophets were statedly read on particular sabbaths and feast days, and it has hence been suggested tliat tlie above passage was tlie selection appointed for tlie occasion in question. It is true that the cliapter from wliicli tlie words d^offTeUat K. T. X. are taken, used to be read on tlie great day of atonement, and Bengel lias made the supposition, tliat tlie scene we are considering occurred on tliat day, a main pillar of his evangelical chronology.* But if Jesus liad adhered to the regular course of reading, he would not merely have extracted from tlie lesson appointed for this feast a few stray words, to insert them in a totally disconnected passage; and after all, it is impossible to demonstrate tliat, so early as the time of Jesus, there were prescribed readings, even from tlie prophets, f If then Jesus was not tlius circumstantially directed to the passage cited, did he open.
upon it designedly or fortuitously? Many imagine him turning over the leaves until he found the text which was in his mind :\ but Olsliauscn is right in saying tliat tlie words dvanrv^ac; TO fti.ftX’wv si’ps rbv TOTTOV do not imply that he found tlie passage after searching for it, but that he aliglited on it under the guidance of the Divine Spirit.§
This, however, is but a poor contrivance, to liide the improbability, that Jesus should fortuitously open on a passage so well adapted to serve as a motto for his first messianic enterprize, behind an appeal to tlie Spirit, as deus ex mac/iiiza. Jesus might very likely have quoted tills text witli reference to himself, and tlius it would remain in tlie minds of tlic evangelists as a prophecy fulfilled in Jesus;
Matthew would probably have introduced it in his own person with Ills usual form, Iva TrATjpuOy, and would have said that Jesus had now begun his messianic annunciation, Kripvy^a, that tlie prophecy Isai, Ixi. 1 ft. might be fulfilled ; but Luke, who is less partial to this form, or the tradition whence lie drew his materials, puts tlie words into tlie mouth of Jesus on his first messianic appearance, very judiciously, it is true, but, owing to the chances wliicli it is necessary to suppose, less probably; so that I am more inclined to be satisfied with tlic indefinite statement of Mattliew and Mark.
The other point in which tlie description of Luke merits the praise of particularity, is his dramatic picture of tlie tumultuary closing scene; but this scene perplexes even those wlio on the wliole give the preference to his narrative. It is not to be concealed that the extremely violent expulsion of Jesus by tlie Nazarenes, seems to have liad no adequate provocation ;|| and we cannot, witli Schleier
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OP JESUS.
macher,* expunge the notion that the life of Jesus was threatened, without imputing to the writer a false addition of the words etc; TO
Karaicprj^vioal av-bv (v. 29.), and thus materially affecting tlie credibility of liis entire narration. But tlie still more remarkable clause, SieXOw 6ia fieaov avr&v enopsveTo (v. 30), is tlie main difficulty. It is not to be explained (at least not in accordance witli the evangelist’s view) as an effect merely of the commanding glance of Jesus, as Hase supposes; and Olsliausen is again right wlien lie says, that tlie evangelist intended to signify that Jesus passed unharmed through the midst of his furious enemies, because his divine power fettered their senses and limbs, because his hour was not yet come (‘John viii. 20), and because no man could take his life from him until he himself laid it down (John x. 18).f Here again we have a display of the glorifying tendency of tradition, wliicli loved to represent Jesus as one defended from his enemies, like Lot (Gen. <:ix. 11), or Elisha (2 Kings vi. 18), by a, heavenly hand, or better still, by the power of his own superior nature; unless there be supposed in this case, as in the two examples from the Old Testament, a temporary infliction of blindness, an illudere per caliginem, tlie idea of which Tertullian reprobates, t Thus in tins instance also, tlie less imposing account of the first two evangelists is to be preferred, namely that Jesus, impeded from further activity by the unbelief of the Nazarenes, voluntarily forsook his ungrateful paternal city.
§. 59. DIVERGENCIES OF THE EVANGELISTS AS TO THE CHRONOLOGY
OF THE LIFE OF JESUS--DURATION OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.
IN considering the chronology of the public life of Jesus, we must distinguish tlie question of its total duration, from that of the
arrangement of its particular events.
‘ Not one of our evanglists expressly tells us how long the public ministry of Jesus lasted; but wliile the synoptical writers give us no clue to a decision on the subject, we find in John certain data, which seem to warrant one. In the synoptical gospels there is no intimation how long after the baptism of Jesus his imprisonment and death occurred; nowhere are months and years distinguished;
and though it is once or twice said: ^s0’ ^spac; ‘eS; or 6vo (Matt. xvii.
1; xx\*i. 2), tliese isolated fixed points furnish us witli no guidance in a sea of general uncertainty. On the contrary, tlie many journeys to tlie feasts by which the narrative of tlie fourth evangelist is distinguished ‘from that of his predecessors, furnishes us, so to speak, with chronological abutments, as for each appearance of Jesus, at one of tliese annual feasts, the Passover especially, we must, deducting the first, reckon a full year of his ministry. We have, in tlie fourth Gospel, after the baptism of Jesus, and apparently at a short interval (comp. i. 29, 35, 44; ii. 1, 12), a passover attended by him
• Ueber den Lukas. S-9S.
+ TTt .nn-a .170. ^™^ o - an•<• i a- -r
•
+ TTt .nn-a .170. ^™^ o - an•<• i a- -r
•
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
(ii. 13). But the next feast visited by Jesus (v. 1.) which is indefinitely designated a feast of the Jews, has been the perpetual crux of New Testament chronologi.sts. It is only important in determining tlie duration of the public life of Jesus, on the supposition that it was a passover; for in this case it would mark the close of his first year’s ministry. We grant that fj eop-?) ruv ‘lovSaluv, THE
feast of the Jews, might very probably denote tlie passover, which was pre-eminent among their institutions ;* but it happens that the best manuscripts have in the present passage no article, and without it, tlie above expression can only signify indefinitely one of the Jewish feasts, which tlie author thought it immaterial to specify, f Thus intrinsically it might mean either the feast of Pentecost,:): Purim,§
the Passover, 1] or any other ^ but in its actual connection it is evidently not intended by the narrator to imply the Passover, both because he would hardly have glanced thus slightly at the most important of all tlie feasts, and because, vi. 4, there comes another Passover, so that on the supposition we are contesting, he would have passed in silence over a whole year between v. 47, and vi. 1, For to give tlio words fjv de eyyvg TO Trda^a (vi. 4), a retrospective meaning, is too artificial an expedient of Paulus, since, as he himself confesses,** this phrase, elsewhere in John, is invariably used with reference to the immediately approaching feast (ii. 13; vii. 2;
xi. 55), and must from its nature have a prospective meaning, unless the context indicate the contrary. Thus not until John vi. 4, do we meet with the second passover, and to this it is not mentioned.
that Jesus resorted, ff Tlicn follow the feast of Tabernacles and that of tlie Dedication, and afterwards, xi. 55. xii. 1, the last passover visited by Jesus. According to our view of John v. 1, and vi. 4, therefore, we obtain two years for the public ministry of Jesus, besides the interval between his baptism and the first Passover. The same result is found by tliose who, with Paulus, hold the feast mentioned, v. 1, to be a passover, but vi. 4, only a retrospective allusion; whereas the ancient Fathers of the Church, reckoning a separate passover to eacli of the passages in question, made out three years. Meanwhile, by this calculation, we only get the minimum duration of the public ministry of Jesus possible according to the fourth Gospel, for the writer nowhere intimates that he has been punctilious in naming every feast that fell witliin that ministry, including those not observed by Jesus, neitlier, unless we regard it as established that the writer was the apostle John, have we any guarantee that lie knew the entire number.
It may be urged in opposition to the calculations, built on the representations of John, that the synoptical writers give no reasons
* Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, B. S. 788 f. f Liicke, Comm. zum Evang. Job. 2, S. 6.
t Bengel, ordo temporum, p. 219 f. § Hug, Einl. in da3 N. T. 2, S. 228 ff. || Paulus, Comm. zum Ev. Joh. S. 279 f. Exeg. Handb. 1, B. 784: ff. ^[ Summaries of the different opinions are given by Hase, L. J. § 53 ; and by Lucke, Comm. zum Ev. Joh., 2, S. 2 ff.
** T’-^/- TI,.-.^!. i T> o TO,”J-J. c^ c^n^w iihttr ripn Zwpck der evana;. Cresch. und
CHRONOLOGY OP THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.289
for limiting the term of the public ministry of Jesus to a single year :* but this objection rests on a supposition borrowed from John himself, namely, that Jesus, Galilean though lie was, made it a rule to attend every Passover: a supposition, again, wliich is overturned by the same writer’s own representation. According to him, Jesus left unobserved the passover mentioned vi. 4, for from vi. 1, where Jesus is on the cast side of tlie sea of Tiberias, through vi. 17 and 59, where he goes to Capernaum, and vii. 1, where lie frequents Galilee, in order to avoid the Jews, to vii. 2 and 10, where he proceeds to Jerusalem on occasion of the Feast of Tabernacles, tlie Evangelist’s narrative is so closely consecutive that a journey to the Passover can nowhere be inserted. Out of tlie synoptical gospels, by themselves, we gather nothing as to the length of tlie public ministry of Jesus, for this representation admits of our assigning him either several years of activity, or only one; their restriction of his intercourse with Jerusalem to his final journey being the sole point in wliich tlicy control our conclusion. It is true that several Fathers of the Church, f as well as some heretics,:}: speak of tlie ministry of Jesus as having lasted but a single year; but that the source of tills opinion was not tlie absence of early journeys to the feasts in tlie synoptical gospels, but an entirely fortuitous association, we learn from those Fathers themselves, for they derive it from tlie prophetic passage Isai. Ixi. 1 f. applied by Jesus (Luke iv.) to himself. In tills passage there is mention of the acceptable year of the Lord, eviavrbi; Kvpiov de/c-o?, which the prophet or, according to tlie evangelical interpretation, tlie Messiah is sent to announce.
Understanding tins phrase in its strict chronological sense, they adopted from it the notion of a single messianic year, which was more easily reconcileable witli tlie synoptical gospels than with that of John, after whose statement the calculation of the church soon came to be regulated.
In striking contrast with tills lowest computation of time, is the tradition, also very ancient, that Jesus was baptized in his thirtieth year, but at tlie time of his crucifixion was not far from his fiftieth.§
But this opinion is equally founded on a misunderstanding.
The elders who had conversations with John the disciple of the Lord, in Asia, rrpeopvrepot ol Kara rtfv ‘A-aiav ‘ludvvy rw TOV K.vpiov fiaerj-y avfi^eftXi]ii6rEi;,-on whose testimony Irena?us relies when lie Says, such is the tradition of John, TrapaSeSuKKVal ravra TOV ‘ludvvi]v,-had given no information further than tliat Christ taught, cetatem seniorem habens. That this cetas senior was tlie age of from forty to fifty years is merely the inference of Irenaius, founded oil what tlie Jews allege as an objection to tlie discourse of Jesus, John viii. 57: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen
The elders who had conversations with John the disciple of the Lord, in Asia, rrpeopvrepot ol Kara rtfv ‘A-aiav ‘ludvvy rw TOV K.vpiov fiaerj-y avfi^eftXi]ii6rEi;,-on whose testimony Irena?us relies when lie Says, such is the tradition of John, TrapaSeSuKKVal ravra TOV ‘ludvvi]v,-had given no information further than tliat Christ taught, cetatem seniorem habens. That this cetas senior was tlie age of from forty to fifty years is merely the inference of Irenaius, founded oil what tlie Jews allege as an objection to tlie discourse of Jesus, John viii. 57: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen
Other books
The Alpha's Captive by Loki Renard
People's Champion by Lizzy Ford
In the Spinster's Bed by Sally MacKenzie
Margaret & Taylor by Kevin Henkes
Scorpia Rising by Anthony Horowitz
Falling for the Secret Millionaire by Kate Hardy
La Costa de los Mosquitos by Paul Theroux
Untouchable by Scott O'Connor
Black Out by Lisa Unger
Finding Home by Ali Spooner