Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (740 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
8.95Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Nevertheless, on a closer examination, there appears a remarkable divergency on this subject between the synoptical statement and that of John. While, namely, in John, Jesus remains throughout true to liis assertion, and tlie disciples and his followers among the populace to their conviction, that lie is the Messiah; in the synoptical gospels there is a vacillation discernible-the previously expressed persuasion on tlie part of tlie disciples and people that Jesus was the Messiah, sometimes vanishes and gives place to a much lower view of him, and even Jesus himself becomes more reserved in his declarations. This is particularly striking when the synoptical statement is compared with tliat of Jolm; but even when they are separately considered, tlie result is the same.
According to John (vi. 15), after the miracle of the loaves the people were inclined to constitute Jesus their (messianic) King; on the contrary, according to tlie other three evangelists, either about the same time (Luke ix. 18 f.) or still later (Matt. xvi. 13 f. Mark viii. 27 f.) the disciples could only report, on the opinions of tlie people respecting tlieir master, that some said he was tlie resuscitated Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremiah or one of the old prophets:
in reference to that passage of John, however, as also to the synoptical one, Matt. xiv. 33, according to wliicli, some time before Jesus elicited the above report of tlie popular opinion, the people who were with him in the ship^ when he had allayed the storm, fell at his feet and worshipped him as the Son of God, it may be observed that when Jesus had spoken or acted with peculiar impressiveness, individuals, in the exaltation of the moment, might be penetrated with a conviction that he was tlie Messiali, while the general and calm voice of tlie people yet pronounced him to be merely a prophet.
But there is a more troublesome divergency relative to tlie disciples. In John, Andrew, after his first interview with Jesus, says to his brother, we have found the .Messiah, evprfKapsv -rov Vieaaiav (i. 42); and Philip describes him to Nathanael as the person foretold by Moses and the prophets (v. 46); Nathanael salutes him as the Son of God and King of Israel (v. 50); and the subsequent confession of Peter appears merely a renewed avowal of what had been long a familiar truth. In tlie synoptical evangelists it is only after
* That the expression ol kv ry irXoty includes more than the disciples, vid. Fritzsche,
298
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
prolonged intercourse with Jesus, and shortly before his sufferings, tliat the ardent Peter arrives at the conclusion tliat Jesus is the Xpio-oc, 6 vlw TOV 6eov TOV {,£>v~o<; (Matt. xvi. 16, parall.).It is impossible that this confession should make so strong an impression on Jesus tliat, in consequence of it, he should pronounce Peter blessed, and his confession the fruit of immediate divine revelation, as Matthew narrates; or that, as all the three evangelists inform us, (xvi. 20, viii. 30, ix. 21,) he should, as if alarmed, forbid tlie disciples to promulgate their conviction, unless it represented not an opinion long cherished in the circle of his disciples, but a new light, which had just flashed on the mind of Peter, and through him was
communitated to his associates.
There is a third equally serious discrepancy, relative to the declarations of Jesus concerning his Messiahship. According to John, he sanctions the homage which Nathanael renders to him as the Son of God and Kins: of Israel, in the very commencement of his public career, and immediately proceeds to speak of himself under the messianic title. Son of Man (i. 51 f.): to the Samaritans also after his first visit to the passover (iv. 26, 39 ff.), and to the Jews on the second (v. 46), he makes himself known as the Messiah pre
-T-i.^,1 iw Moses. According to the synoptical writers, on the con- -i^ro cited and in many others, “‘ • i
6), he makes himselt Known <^ ..-- .
According to the synoptical writers, on the con
•-- *i.^ instance above cited and in many others,
1 ‘- T^ni»nnrl tug
on the secoiiu ^v. ^/, dieted by Moses. According to the synopncai ,,^.^-.,
trary, lie prohibits, in the instance above cited and in many others, the dissemination of the doctrine of his Messiahship, beyond the circle of his adherents. Farther, when he asks Ills disciples, Whom do men say that I am? (Matt, xvi. 15) he seems to wish* that they should derive their conviction of his Messiahship from his discourses and actions, and when he ascribes the avowed faith of Peter to a revelation from his heavenly Father, he excludes the possibility of his having himself previously made this disclosure to Ins disciples, either in the manner described by Jolm, or in the more indirect one attributed to him by Matthew in tlie Sermon on the Mount; unless •we suppose that tlie disciples had not hitherto believed his assurance, and that hence Jesus referred the new-born faith of Peter to divine
influence.
Thus, on the point under discussion the synoptical statement is
* There is a difficulty involved in the form of the question, put by Jesus to his disciples : T’iva fi£ ‘ki’/ovoii, 01 ur^p&CTOl rival TOT vibv TOV uv9puT:ov; i.e. what opinion have the people of me, the Messiah? This, when compared wilh the sequel, seems a premature disclosure; hence expositors have variously endeavoured to explain away its prima facie meaning. Some (e. g. Beza) understand the subordinate clause, not as a declaration of Jesus concerning his own person, but as a closer limitation of the question : for whom do the people take me ? fur the Messiah ? But this would be a leading question, which, as Fritzsche well observes, would indicate an eagerness for the messianic title, not elsewhere discernible in Jesus. (Others, therefore, (as Paulas and Fritzsche,) give the expression vlb{ r. a. a general signification, and interpret the question thus : Whom do men say that I, the individual addressing you, am?
But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we rqect tlie opinion that the vlo{ r. (i. is an addition which the exuberant faith of tlie writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous con-- -oBti-ipted to De Wette’s view, (exeg. Handl). 1, 1, S. 8G t’.), namely, that ““n^t-nivi (^ ^g “Messiah, hut an indirect one, --•i n,.>6t. already
But this explanation has been already refuted in the foregoing section. If, then, we rqect tlie opinion that the vlo{ r. (i. is an addition which the exuberant faith of tlie writer was apt to suggest even in an infelicitous con-- -oBti-ipted to De Wette’s view, (exeg. Handl). 1, 1, S. 8G t’.), namely, that ““n^t-nivi (^ ^g “Messiah, hut an indirect one, --•i n,.>6t. already
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.
contradictory, not only to that of John, but to itself; it appears therefore that it ought to be unconditionally surrendered before that of John, which is consistent with itself, and one of our critics has justly reproached it with deranging the messianic economy in the life of Jesus.* But hero again we must not lose sight of our approved canon, that in glorifying narratives, such as our gospels, where various statements are confronted, that is tlie least probable which best subserves tlie object of glorification.
Now this is tlie case with John’s statement; according to which, from the commencement to the close of the public life of Jesus, his Messiaship sliincs forth in unchanging splendour, while, according to tlie synoptical writers, it is liable to a variation in its light. But though this criterion of probability is in favour of tlie first three evangelists, it is impossible that the order in which they make ignorance and concealment follow on plain declarations and recognitions of the Messiahship of Jesus can be correct; and we must suppose tliat they have mina;led and confounded two separate periods of the life of Jesus, in the latter of which alone lie presented himself as the Messiah.We find, in fact, that the watchword of Jesus on his first appearance differed not, even verbally, from tliat of John, wlio professed merely to be a forerunner; it is the same Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. iv. 17) with which John liad roused tlie Jews (iii. 2); and indicates in neither the one nor tlie other an assumption of the character of Messiali, with wliose coming the kino-dora of heaven was actually to commence, but merely tliat of a teacher who points to it as yet future.! Hence the latest critic of the first gospel justly explains all those discourses and actions therein narrated, by which Jesus explicitly claims to be tlie Messiah, or, in consequence of which tills dignity is attributed to him and accepted, if they occur before the manisfestation of himself recorded in John v., or before the account of the apostolic confession (Matt. xvi.), as offences of the writer against chronology or literal truth.f We have only to premise, tliat as chronological confusion prevails throughout, the position of tills confession sliortly before the history of the Passion, in nowise obliges us to suppose that it was so late before Jesus was recognised as the Messiah among his disciples, since Peter’s avowal may have occurred in a much earlier period of their intercourse. This, however, is incomprehensibis-•
Now this is tlie case with John’s statement; according to which, from the commencement to the close of the public life of Jesus, his Messiaship sliincs forth in unchanging splendour, while, according to tlie synoptical writers, it is liable to a variation in its light. But though this criterion of probability is in favour of tlie first three evangelists, it is impossible that the order in which they make ignorance and concealment follow on plain declarations and recognitions of the Messiahship of Jesus can be correct; and we must suppose tliat they have mina;led and confounded two separate periods of the life of Jesus, in the latter of which alone lie presented himself as the Messiah.We find, in fact, that the watchword of Jesus on his first appearance differed not, even verbally, from tliat of John, wlio professed merely to be a forerunner; it is the same Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. iv. 17) with which John liad roused tlie Jews (iii. 2); and indicates in neither the one nor tlie other an assumption of the character of Messiali, with wliose coming the kino-dora of heaven was actually to commence, but merely tliat of a teacher who points to it as yet future.! Hence the latest critic of the first gospel justly explains all those discourses and actions therein narrated, by which Jesus explicitly claims to be tlie Messiah, or, in consequence of which tills dignity is attributed to him and accepted, if they occur before the manisfestation of himself recorded in John v., or before the account of the apostolic confession (Matt. xvi.), as offences of the writer against chronology or literal truth.f We have only to premise, tliat as chronological confusion prevails throughout, the position of tills confession sliortly before the history of the Passion, in nowise obliges us to suppose that it was so late before Jesus was recognised as the Messiah among his disciples, since Peter’s avowal may have occurred in a much earlier period of their intercourse. This, however, is incomprehensibis-•
that the same reproach should not attach even more strongly to the fourth gospel than to the first, or to the synoptical writers in general. For it is surely more pardonable that the first three evangelists should give us the pre-mcssianic memoirs in tlie wrong place, than that the fourth should not give them at all; more endurable in the former, to mingle the two periods, than in the latter, quite to
obliterate the earlier one.
* Schneclienburger, uber den Ursprong u. a. f. S. 28 f. f This distinction of two periods in the public life of Jesus is also made by Fritzsche, Comm. in Matth. S. 213,536, »ud Schneckenburger ut sup. ^ Schneckenburger, ut sup. S. 29.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
If then Jesus did. not lay claim to the Messiahship from the heginning of Ills public career, was this omission the result of uncertainty in liis own mind; or had lie from tlie first a conviction that he was tlie Messiah, hut concealed it for certain reasons ? In order to decide this question, a point already mentioned must he more carefully weighed. In the first three evangelists, but not so exclusively that tlie fourth has nothing similar, when Jesus effects a miracle of healing he almost invariably forbids the person cured to promulgate the event, in tliese or similar words, 3pa y.r]Sev’L ew^c;
e. g. the leper, Matt. viii. 4; parall. ; the blind men. Matt. ix. 30 ;
a multitude of the healed. Matt. xii. 16; tlie parents of the resuscitated damsel, Mark v. 43; above all lie enjoins silence on tlie de~
moniacs, Mark i. 34. iii. 12.; and John v. 13, it is said, after the cure of the man at the pool of Betliesda, Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. Thus also lie forbade the three who were with him on the mount of the Transfiguration, to publisli the scene they had witnessed, (Matt. xvii. 9); and after the confession of Peter, lie charges tlie disciples to tell no man tlie conviction it expressed (Luke ix. 21).
This prohibition of Jesus could hardly, as most commentators suppose,* be determined by various circumstantial motives, at one time having relation to tlie disposition of tlie person healed, at another to tlie humour of the people, at another to the situation of Jesus: rattier, as there is an essential similarity in the conditions under which he lays this injunction on. the people, if we discern a probable motive for it on any occasion, we are warranted in applying the same motive to the remaining cases. Tins motive is scarcely any other than the desire that the belief tliat lie was the Messiah should not be too widely spread.
This prohibition of Jesus could hardly, as most commentators suppose,* be determined by various circumstantial motives, at one time having relation to tlie disposition of tlie person healed, at another to tlie humour of the people, at another to the situation of Jesus: rattier, as there is an essential similarity in the conditions under which he lays this injunction on. the people, if we discern a probable motive for it on any occasion, we are warranted in applying the same motive to the remaining cases. Tins motive is scarcely any other than the desire that the belief tliat lie was the Messiah should not be too widely spread.
When (Mark i. 34) Jesus would not allow the ejected demons to speak because they knew him, when lie charged the multitudes that they should not make him known (Matt. xii. 16), he evidently intended that the former should not proclaim him in the character in which their more penetrative, demoniacal glance had viewed Inm, nor the latter in that revealed by tlie miraculous cure he had wrought on them-in short, they were not to betray their knowledge tliat lie •WSLS the Messiali. As a reason for tins wish on the part of Jesus, it has been alleged, on tlie strength of John vi. 15., that he sought to avoid awakening the political idea of the Messiah’s kingdom in the popular mind, with the disturbance wind)
would be its inevitable result, f This would be a valid reason ; but the synoptical writers represent tlie wisli, partly as the effect of humility;} Matthew, in connexion with a prohibition of the kind alluded to, applying to Jesus a passage in Isaiah (xlii. 1 f.) where tlie servant of God is said to be distinguished by Ills stillness and unobtrusiveness: partly, and in a greater degree, as the effect of an
Other books
Demigods and Monsters by Rick Riordan
Voyage of Plunder by Michele Torrey
A Hell of a Dog by Carol Lea Benjamin
Back for You by Anara Bella
Her Forbidden Gunslinger by Harper St. George
Experta en magia by Marion Zimmer Bradley
Amy Winehouse by Chas Newkey-Burden
Museums and Women by John Updike
The Cost of Courage by Charles Kaiser
Alone by Lisa Gardner