Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (739 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
2.15Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
* Winer, bibl. Realworterbuch I, S. 6GG. f Clem. Alex. Stromat. 1, p. 174 Wurzb.
ed., 340 Sylburg ; Orig. de principp. iv. 5, comp. homil. in Luc. 32.{ Iren. adv. hair.
i. 1, a. ii. 33, 38, on the Valentinians. Clem. horn. xvii. 19. § Iren. ii. xxii. 5 {. Comp.
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
makes nearly cotemporary with. the feeding of tlie five thousand.
Here, however, the points of contact between this evangelist and his predecessors are at an end, until we come to the last journey of Jesus ; and if they are too uncertain to promise even a simple division of the synoptical materials by the two passovera, how can we hope, by the journeys of Jesns to the feast of the Jews, eoprf] T&V
‘lovoawv, to the Feast of Tabernacles, or to tlie Feast of Dedication, if that be a separate journey, to classify chronologically tlie uninterrupted series of Galilean occurences in the first three gospels ? Nevertheless tills lias been attempted by a succession of theologians down to the present time, with an expenditure of acumen and erudition, worthy of a more fertile subject :* but unprejudiced judges have decided, that as the narrative of the first three evangelists lias scarcely any elements that can give certitude to such a classification, not one of tlie harmonies of the gospels yet written has any claim to be considered anything more than a tissue of historical conjcctures.f
It remains to estimate tlie chronological value of the synoptical writers, apart from John. They are so frequently at variance witli each other in the order of events, and it is so seldom tliat one lias all the probabilities on his side, that each of them may be convicted of numerous chronological errors, which must undermine our confidence in his accuracy. It has been maintained tliat, in the composition of their books, they meditated no precise chronological ordei-4
and this is partially confirmed by their mode of narration. Throughout the interval between tlie baptism of Jesus and the history of the Passion, their narratives resemble a collection of anecdotes, strung together mostly on a thread of mere analogy and association of ideas.

But there is a distinction to be made in reference to the above opinion. It is true tliat from tlie purport of their narratives, and the indecisiveness and uniformity of their connecting phrases, we can detect their want of insight into the more accurate chronological relations of what they record; but that the authors flattered themselves they were giving a chronological narration, is evident from those very connecting phrases, which, however indecisive, have almost always a chronological character, such as na-ra^mri dm TOV

opovf, Trapdyuv EKelOev, ravro, avrov XaXovv-og, ev avTy ry ffiJ-fpf, “wre, Kdl ISov, &c.§

 

The incidents and discourses detailed by Jolin are, for the most part, peculiar to himself; he is therefore not liable to the same control in his chronology from independent authors, as are the synoptical writers from each other; neither is his narration wanting in connectedness and sequence. Hence our decision on the merits oi his chronological order is dependent on the answer to tlie following

* See especially the labours of Paulus in the Chronological Excursus of his Commentary and his exegetical Manual; of Hug, in the Einl. z, N. T. 2. S, 2, 233 ff,; and others, given by Winer in his bibl> Eealworterbuch 1, S. 067. •)• Winer, ut sup,; comp. Kaiser, btblische Theologie, 1 S* 2ol» Anm ; die Abhandlung uber die verschiedenen Kueksichtcn

JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.

 

question: Is the development and progress of the cause and plan of Jesus, as given by tlie fourth evangelist, credible in itself and on comparison with available data, drawn from the other Gospels ? The solution to tills question is involved in the succeeding inquiry.

CHAPTER IV
.

 
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.*
 
§ 61. JESUS, THE SON OF MAN.
 
IN treating of the relation in which Jesus conceived himself to stand to the messianic idea, we can distinguish his dicta
concerning his own person from tliosc concerning tlie work he had undertaken.
 
Tlie appellation wliich Jesus commonly gives himself in tlie gospels is, the Son, of man, 6 v’ux; TOV dvOpuirov. The exactly corresponding Hebrew expression o’w-’ja is in the Old Testament a frequent designation of man in general, and thus we might be induced to understand it in the mouth of Jesus.
 
This interpretation would suit some passages; for example, Matt. xii. 8, where Jesus says: The Son of man. is lord also of the Sabbath day, icvpioc; yap eari TOV aapf3aTov 6 vlo(; rov dvOpumv,-words which will fitly enough take a general meaning, such as Grotius affixes to tliem, namely, that man is lord of the Sabbath, especially if we compare Mark (ii. 27), who introduces them by the proposition, The Sabbath was made for man, and not nun for the Sabbath, TO aa.l3f3a.Tov Sia rbv avOpwov eyevero, ov% 6 avOpuTro? 610, TO ad.Pf3a.Tov.
 
But in tlie majority of cases, the phrase in question is evidently used as a special designation.
 
Thus, Matt. viii. 20, a scribe volunteers to become a disciple of Jesus, and is admonished to count the cost in the words. The Son of man hath not where to lay his head, b vioc; TOV avQpwov OVK e^gt, -nov rfjv K.e^aXffv nXivg : here some particular man must be intended, nay, the particular man into whose companionship tlie scribe wislied to enter, that is, Jesus liimsclf.
As a reason for the self-application of this term by Jesus, it lias been suggested tliat he used tlie third person after tlie oriental manner, to avoid tlie -Z.f But for a speaker to use the third person
* All that relates to the idea of the Messiah as suffering, dying, and rising again, ia here omitted, and reserved for the history of the Passion.+ Panli.ii o»n^ TI...-,!.. -i a
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
in reference to himself, is only admissible, if lie would be understood, when tlie designation he employs is precise, and inapplicable to any other person present, as when a father or a king uses his appropriate title of himself; or when, if tlie designation be not precise, its relation is made clear by a demonstrative pronoun, which limitation is eminently indispensable if an individual speak of himself under the universal designation man. We grant tliat occasionally a gesture might, supply tlie place of the demonstrative pronoun; but that Jesua in every instance of his using this habitual expression had recourse to some visible explanatory sign, or that tlie evangelists would not, in tliat case, have supplied its necessary absence from a written document by some demonstrative addition, is inconceivable. If botli Jesus and tlie evangelists held such an elucidation superfluous, they must have seen in the expression itself the key to its precise application.
 
Some are of opinion tliat Jesus intended by it to point himself out as the ideal man-man in the noblest sense of tlie word ;* but this is a modern theory, not an historical inference, for there is no trace of such an interpretation of the expression in the time of Jesus,f and it would be more easy to show, as others have attempted, tliat tlie appellation, Son of man, so frequently used by Jesus, had reference to his lowly and despised condition.^ Apart however from tlie objection tliat tills acceptation also would require tlie addition of tlie demonstrative pronoun, though it might be adapted to many passages, as Matt. viii. 20, John i. 51, there are others, (such as Matt. xvii. 22, where Jesus, foretelling his violent death, designates himself 6 vib(; -ov avOpurrov^ which demand tlie contrast of liigli dignity with an ignominious fate.
 
So in Matt. x.
23. tlie assurance given to tlie commissioned disciples tliat before they liad gone over tlie cities of Israel the Son of Man would come, could liave no weight unless this expression denoted a person of importance; and that such was its significance is proved by a comparison of Matt. xvi. 28, where there is also a mention of an ep^eoOai, a coming of the Son of man, but with tlie addition ev rff ?aot/lefo, avTov.As this addition can only refer to the messianic
kingdom, the vib? TOV dvOpw-nov must be tlie Messiah.
 
How so apparently vague an appellation came to be appropriated to the Messiah, we gather from Matt. xxvi. 64 paralL, where the Son of Man is depicted as coming in the clouds of heaven.. Tins is evidently an allusion to Dan. vii. 13 f. where after having treated of tlie fall of tlie four beasts, tlie writer says: I saw in the, mght visions, and behold, one like the Son of Man (aitt ‘Tas, ti? vw<;
 
dv6pwTTov, LXX.) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations iznd languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion. Tlie four beasts (v. 17 ff.) were symbolical of the four great empires,
- ---..i a ORS + Lucke, Oomm. zum Job.
 
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.
 
the last of which was the Macedonian, with its offshoot, Syria.
After tlieir fall, the kingdom was to be given in perpetuity to the People of God, the saints of the Most High: hence, he who was to come with clouds of heaven could only be, either a personification of the holy people,* or a leader of heavenly origin under whom they were to achieve their destined triumph,-in a word, the Messiah;
 
and this was the customary interpretation among tlie Jews.f Two tilings are predicated of this personage,-that lie was like the Son of Man, and tliat he came witli the clouds of heaven ; but reformer particular is his distinctive characteristic, and imports either that lie liad not a superhuman form, that of an angel for instance, though descending from heaven, or else that the kingdom about to be established presented in its humanity a contrast to the inhumanity of its predecessors, of wliich ferocious beasts were the fitting emblems.:}:
 
At a later period, it is true, tlie Jews regarded the coming with tlie clouds of heaven ^•a’s “‘.?wo? as tlie more essential attribute of the Messiah, and hence gave him the name Anani, after the Jewish taste of making a merely accessory circumstance the permanent epithet of a person or thing.§ If, then, the expression 6 vw<; TOV
dvOpwov necessarily recalled the above passage in Daniel, generally believed to relate to tlie Messiah, it is impossible that Jesus could so often use it, and in connexion with declarations evidently referring to the Messiah, without intending it as the designation of that
personage.
 
That by the expression in question Jesus meant himself, without
relation to the messianic dignity, is less probable than tlie contrary supposition, that lie might often mean the Messiah wlien he spoke of tlie /Son of Man, without relation to his own person. When, Matt. x. 23, on tlie first mission of the twelve apostles to announce the kingdom of heaven, lie comforts them under tlie prospect of their future persecutions by tlie assurance that they would not have gone over all the cities of Israel before the coming of the Son of Man, we should rather, taking this declaration alone, think of a third person, whose speedy messianic appearance Jesus was promising, than of tlie speaker himself, seeing that lie was already come, and it would not be antecedently clear how lie could represent his own coming as one still in anticipation.
 
So also when Jesus (Matt.
xiii. 37 ff.) interprets the Sower of the parable to be the Son of Man, who at the end of the world will have a harvest and a tribunal, he might be supposed to refer to the Messiah as a third person distinct from liimself. This is equally the case, xvi. 27 f., where, to prove tlie proposition that the loss of the soul is not to be compensated by tlie gain of the wliole world, he urges the speedy coming
* Abenesra, see Haveriiick, ut sup. Comm. znm Daniel, S. 244. f Schottgen, horas, u. S. 63, 73; Havernick, ut sup. S. 243 f.^ See for the most important opinions, Havernick, ut sup. 242 f.
 
§ Let the reader bear in mind the designation of David’s elegy, 2 Sam. i. 17 ff. as HttSp and the denomination of the Messiah, as na5>. Had Schleiermacher considered the nature of Jewish appellatives, he would not have called the reference nf ti/’nr -roil I’l fn tlir nasgaL’c in Daniel, a strange idea. (Glaubenal. § OS). Anin.).
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
of the Son of Alan, to administer retribution. Lastly, in the connected discourses, Matt. xxiv. xxv. parall., many particulars would Toe more easily conceived, if the vibi; rov dv6puTrm whose -rapwaia Jesus describes, were understood to mean another than himself.
 
But this explanation is far from being applicable to the majority of instances in which Jesus uses tills expression. When lie represents the Son of Man, not as one still to be expected, but as one already come and actually present, for example, in Matt. xviii, 11, where he says: The Son of .Man is come to save that which was lost; when lie justifies his own acts by the authority with wliicli the Son of Man was invested, as in Matt. ix. 6; wlien, Mark viii.
31 ff. comp. Matt. xvi. 22, he speaks of tlie approaching sufferings and death of the Son of Man, so as to elicit from Peter the exclamation, w y.i\ t’ffTai (7oi TOV-O, tins shall not be unto thee; in these and similar cases he can only, by the v’wc; TOV avOpw-rov, have intended himself. And even those passages, which, taken singly, we might have found capable of application to a messianic person, distinct from Jesus, lose this capability when considered in their entire connexion. It is possible, however, either that the writer may have misplaced certain expressions, or that the ultimately prevalent conviction that Jesus was the Son of -Mem caused what was originally said merely of the latter, to be viewed in immediate relation to the
former.
 
Thus besides the fact that Jesus on many occasions called himself the Son of Man, there remains the possibility that on many others, he may have designed another person; and if so, the latter •would in the order of time naturally precede tlie former. Whether this possibility can be heightened to a reality, must depend on the answer to the following question: Is there, in tlie period of the life of Jexus, from which all his recorded declarations are taken, any fragment whicli indicates tliat he had not yet conceived himself to
be the Messiah?
 
§ 62. HOW SOON DID JESUS CONCEIVE HIMSELF TO BE THE MESSIAH, AND FIND RECOGNITION AS SUCH FROM OTHERS ?
 
JESUS held and expressed the conviction that he was the Messiah; this is an indisputable fact.Not only did he, according to the evangelists, receive with satisfaction the confession of tlie disciples that he was the Xpitn-b? (Matt. xvi. 16 f.) and tlie salutation of the people, IIosanna to the Son of David (xxi. 15 f.); not only did he before a public tribunal (Matt. xxvi. 64, comp. Jolm xviii. 37,)
as well as to private individuals (John iv. 26, ix. 37, x. 25,) repeatedly declare himself to be the Messiah: but the fact that his disciples after his deatli believed and proclaimed that he was the Messiah, is not to be comprehended, unless, when living, he had implanted the
r-nnviction in their minds.
 
“r’*- --- 4^ An
 
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.
 
dare himself the Messiah and to be regarded as such by others, the evangelists almost unanimously reply, that lie assumed that character from the time of his baptism. All of them attach to his baptism circumstances winch must have convinced himself, if yet uncertain, and all others who witnessed or credited them, that he was no less than tlie Messiali; Jolm makes Ins earliest disciples recognise his right to tliat dignity on their first interview (i. 42 ft’.), and Matthew attributes to him at the very beginning of his ministry, in the sermon on the mount, a representation of himself as the Judge of the world (vii. 21 ff,) and therefore tlie Messiah.

Other books

Silent Weapon by Debra Webb
Reluctantly Alice by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
Origin - Season One by James, Nathaniel Dean
The Endless Knot by Gail Bowen
A Sentimental Traitor by Dobbs, Michael
Power Play by Girard, Dara
Shooter (Burnout) by West, Dahlia