Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (747 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.58Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
to which end it was necessary to give the conversation the above direction. But. so contracted a design can never be imputed to Jesus, who on oilier occasions, exemplifies a more suitable mode of dealing with mankind: it is the design of the glorifying legend, or of an idealizing biographer.
 
Meanwhile, continues the narrative (v. 27.), tlie disciples of Jesus returned from the city with provisions, and marvelled that be talked with a woman, contrary to rabbinical rule.§ Wliile the woman, excited by the last disclosure of Jesus, hastens homeward to invite her fellow-citizens to come and behold the Messiali-like stranger, the disciples entreat him to partake of the food they liave procured; he answers, I have meat to eat that ye know not of (v. 32). They, misunderstanding his words, imagine that some person lias supplied him witli food in their absence: one of those carnal interpretations
a JQ f 4- TT/i
12.
 
+ Schi’lttsen.
 
JESUS AS THE MESSIAH.
 
of expressions intended spiritually by Jesus, which arc of perpetual recurrence in tlie fourth gospel, and are therefore suspicious. Than follows a discourse on sowing and reaping (v. 35 ff.), which, compared witli v. 37., can only mean that what Jesus lias sown, tlie disciples will reap.* We admit that this is susceptible of the general interpretation, tliat the germ of tlie kingdom of God, which blossomed and bore fruit under tlie cultivation of the apostles, was first deposited in tlie world by Jesus: but it cannot be denied tliat a special application is also intended. Jesus foresees that tlie woman, wlio is hastening towards the city, will procure him an opportunity of sowing tlie seed of tlie gospel in Samaria, and lie promises the disciples tliat they at a future time sliall reap tlie fruits of his labours. Who is not here reminded of the propagation of Christianity in Samaria by Pliilip and tlie apostles, as narrated in the Acts Pf Tliat, even abstracting all supcriiaturalisni from our idea of tlie person of Jesus, lie might have foreseen tills progress of Ins cause in Samaria from his knowledge of its inhabitants, is not to be denied;
 
but as tlie above figurative prediction forms part of a whole more than improbable in an historical point of view, it is equally liable to suspicion, especially as it is easy to show how it might originate without any foundation in fact. According to tlie prevalent tradition of the early church, as recorded in tlie synoptical gospels, Jesus laboured personally in Galileo, Judea, and Perca only,-not in Samaria, which, however, as we learn from the Acts, embraced the gospel at no remote period from his death. How natural tlie tendency to perfect tlie agency of Jesus, by representing him to have sown tlie heavenly seed in Samaria, thus extending his ministry through all parts of Palestine ; to limit the glory of tlie apostles and other teachers to tliat of being tlie mere reapers of the harvest in Samaria; and to put this distinction, on a suitable occasion, into the mouth of Jesus!
 
The result, tlien, of our examination of John’s Samaritan narrative is, that we cannot receive it as a real history: and the impression wliicli it leaves as a whole tends to the same conclusion.
Since IIeracleon and Origen,j: the more ancient commentators have seldom refrained from giving the interview of Jesus witli tlie woman of Samaria an allegorical interpretation, on tlie ground tliat tlie entire scene lias a legendary and poetic colouring. Jesus is seated at a well,-tliat idyllic locality with which tlie old Hebrew legend associates so many critical incidents; at the identical well, moreover, which a tradition, founded on Gen. xxxiii. 19; xlviii. 22; Josli.
xxiv. 32, reported to have been given by Jacob to his son Joseph;
 
hence tlie spot, in addition to its idyllic interest, lias the more decided consecration of national and patriarchal recollections, and is all tlie more worthy of being trodden by the Messiali. At the well Jesus meets with a woman who has come out to draw water, just
* liflche, 1, S. 543.+ Lucke, S. 540. note. Bretschneidcr. S. B2.t Comin. in
326 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
as, in the Old Testament, tlie expectant Eliezer encounters Rcbekah with her pitclicr, and as Jacob meets with Rachel, tlio destined ancestress of Israel, or Moses with his future wife. Jesus begs of the woman to let him drink; so does Eliezer of Rebekah ; after Jesus has made himself known to the woman as the Messiah, slie runs back to tlie city, and fetches her neighbours : so Rebekah, after Eliezer has announced himself as Abraham’s steward, and Racliel, after slic has discovered tliat Jacob is her kinsman, hasten homeward to call their friends to welcome the honoured guest. It is, certainly, not one blameless as those early mothers in Israel, whom Jesus here encounters ; for tins woman came forth as tlie representative of an impure people, who had been faithless to their marriage bond witli Jehovah, and were tlicn living in tlie practice of a false worship;
 
while her good-will, her deficient moral strength, and her obtuseness in spiritual tilings, perfectly typify the actual state of tlie Samaritans.
Thus, the interview of Jesus with tlie woman of Samaria, is only a poetical representation of his ministry among the Samaritans narrated in the sequel; and tills is itself a legendary prelude to tlie propagation of tlie gospel in Samaria after the death of Jesus.
 
Renouncing tlie event in question as unhistorical, we know nothing of any connexion formed by Jesus with tlie Samaritans, and there remain as indications of Ills views regarding them, only Ins favourable notice of an individual from among them, (Luke xvii. 16.);
 
his unpropitious reception in one of their villages (Luke ix. 53.); the prohibition with respect to them, addressed to his disciples (Matt. x.
5.); tlie eulogistic parable, (Luke x. 30. ft’.); and his valedictory command, that the gospel should be preached in Samaria (Acts i. 8).

This express command being subsequent to tlie resurrection of Jesus, its reality must remain problematical for us until we have examined the evidence for that capital fact; and it is to be questioned whether without it, and notwithstanding the alleged prohibition, the unhesitating conduct of the apostles, Acts viii., can be explained.

Are we then to suppose on tlie part of tlie apostolic history, a cancelling of hesitations and deliberations tliat really occurred; or on the part of Matthew, an unwarranted ascription of national bigotry to Jesus; or, finally, on tlie part of Jesus, a progressive enlarge

CHAPTER V.

 
THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.
 
§ 70. CALLING OF THE FIKST COMPANIONS OF JESUS--DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THE EVANGELISTS AND THE FOURTH.
 
THE first two evangelists agree in stating that Jesus, when walking by tlie sea of Gralilcc, called, first, the two brothers Andrew and Peter, and immediately after, James and John, to forsake their fishing nets, and to follow him (Matt. iv. 18-22; Mark i. 16-20).
Tlic fourth evangelist also narrates (i. 35-51,) how tlie first disciples came to attach themselves to Jesus, and among them we find Peter and Andrew, and, in all probability, John, for it is generally agreed tliat the nameless companion of Andrew was that ultimately favourite apostle. James is absent from tills account, and instead of liis vocation, we have that of Pliilip and Nathaa-iael. But even when tlie persons arc tlie same, all tlie particulars of their meeting with Jesus are variously detailed. In the two synoptical gospels, the scene is the coast of the G-alilean sea: in tlie fourth, Andrew, Peter, and their anonymous friend, unite themselves to Jesus in the vicinity of tlie Jordan; Pliilip and Nathanael, on tlie way from thence into G-alilee. In tlie former, again, Jesus in two instances calls a pair of brothers ; in tlie latter, it is first Andrew and liis companion, then Peter, and anon Pliilip and Nathanael, who meet with Jesus. But tlie most important difference is this: wliile, in Matthew and Mark, the brethren are called from their fishing immediately by Jesus ; in John, nothing more is said of tlie respective situations of tliose wlio were summoned, than tliat they come, and are found, and Jesus himself calls only Pliilip ; Andrew and liis nameless companion being directed to Ilim by the Baptist, Peter brought by Andrew, and Nathanael by Philip.
 
Thus tlie two narratives appear to refer to separate events; and if it be asked wliicli of tliose events was prior to the other, we must reply tliat John seems to assign the earlier date to his incidents, for he represents them as taking place before tlie return of Jesus from tlie scene of liis baptism into Galilee; while the synoptists place theirs alter that journey, especially if, according to a calculation often adopted, we regard tlie return into Galilee, wliicli tlicy make so important an epocli, as being that from tlie first passovcr, not from the baptism. It is evident, too, from the intrinsic nature of the occurrences reyorted bv the fourth evangelist, that they could not have
328 TfiE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
succeeded those in Matthew and Mark. For if, as these writers tell us, Andrew and John had already followed Jesus, they could not again be in tlie train of the Baptist, as we see them in tlie fourth gospel, nor would it have been necessary for that teacher to have directed their attention to Jesus; neither if Peter liad already been called by Jesus himself to become a fisher of men, was there any need for his brother Andrew to bring him to his already elected master. Nevertheless, expositors witli one voice declare tliat tlie two narratives are equally adapted to precede, or follow, eacli other.
Tlie fourth gospel, say they,* recounts merely tlie first introduction of tliese men to Jesus ; tlicy did not forthwith become his constant followers, but were first installed by Jesus in their proper discipleship on tlie occasion which tlie synoptists have preserved.
 
Let us test tlie justness of their view. In tlie synoptical narrative Jesus says to his future disciples, Come after me, Smrc, wiaw pov, and tlie result is that they follow him ^I’l/toA.oiOipa.v ai-ru). If we understand from tills tliat tlie disciples thenceforth constantly followed Jesus, how can we give a different interpretation to tlie similar expression in tlie fourth gospel, Follow me, ano^ovOu pot ?
It is therefore a laudable consistency in Paulus, to see, in both instances, merely an invitation to a temporary companionship during a walk in tlie immediate neighbourhood.f But tills interpretation is incompatible with the synoptical history.
 
How could Peter, at a later period, say so emphatically to Jesus, We have left all, and followed thee : what s/uill ws have therefore, ?-how could Jesus promise to him and to every one wlio had forsaken houses, &c. a hundredfold recompense (Matt. xix. 27 ff.), if tins forsaking and following had been so transient and interrupted ? From tliese considerations alone it is probable tliat the dno\ov0ei fwi in John also denotes the commencement of a permanent connexion; but there are besides the plainest indications tliat this is tlie case in tlie context to the narrative. Precisely as in the synoptical gospels, Jesus appears alone before tlie scene of tlie vocation, but after this on every fit occasion tlie attendance of his disciples is mentioned: so in tlie.
fourtli gospel, from tlie time of the occurrence in question, tlie previously solitary Jesus appears in the company of Ins disciples (n. ‘2;
 
xii. 17; iii. 22; iv. 8, 27, &c.).
 
To say tliat tliese disciples, acquired in Peraia, again dispersed themselves after tlie return ot Jesus into Gralilce,t is to do violence to tlie gospels out of liarmonistic zeal. But even supposing such a dispersion, they could not, in tlie short time which it is possible to allow for their separation from Jesus, liave become so completely strangers to him, tliat lie ^ would have been obliged to re-open an acquaintance witli them after tlie manner narrated by the synoptical writers.
 
Still less probable, is it that Jesus, after having distinguished Simon in tlie most individual
* Kuinul, Comm. in Matth. S. 100 ; Liicke, Comm. zum Joli. 1, S. 388 ; Olshauseii bililisclier Coiuin., 1, S. 197; Hase, Leben Jesu, ^ r>6, 61. t Leben Jesu, 1, a, S. 212.
 
THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS. 329
 
manner by tlie surname Cephas on their first interview, would on a later occasion address to him the summons to be a fisher of mena destination wliich was common to all the disciples.
 
The rationalistic commentators perceive a special advantage in their position of the two narratives. It accounts, say they, for wliat must otherwise be in the highest degree surprising, namely, tliat Jesus merely in passing, and at tlie first glance, should clioose four fishermen for his disciples, and that among them he sliould have aliglited on tlie two most distinguished apostles ; that, moreover, these four men, actively employed in their business, sliould leave it on tlie instant of their receiving an enigmatical summons from a man witli whom they had no intimate acquaintance, and devote themselves to him as Ills followers. Now on comparing tlie fourth gospel, we see tliat Jesus had learned to know tliese men long before, and tliat they, too, liad liad demonstration of his excellence, whence it is easy to understand the felicity of his choice, and their readiness to follow him. But this apparent advantage is the condemning circumstance in tlie above position; for nothing can more directly counteract tlie intention of tlie first two evangelists, than to suppose a previous acquaintance between Jesus and the brethren whom lie summons to follow him. In both gospels, great stress is laid on the fact that they immediately evOwg left their nets, resolved to follow Jesus: tlie writers must therefore have deemed this something extraordinary, wliich it certainly was not, if tliese men liad previously been in his train.
 
In relation to Jesus also, tlie point of tlie narrative lies in his having, with a prophetic spirit, and at tlie first glance, selected tlie right individuals, not needing that any should testify of man, for he knew what was in man, according to John ii. 25, and tlius presenting one of the characteristics which the Jews expected in their Messiah.
 
If, then, each of these two diverse narratives professes to describe the first acquaintance of Jesus with. his most distinguished disciples, it, follows tliat one only can be correct, wliilc tlie other is necessarily erroneous.* It, is our task to inquire wliicli has the more intrinsic proofs of veracity. With respect to tlie synoptical representation, Vi-e share the difficulty wliich is felt by Paulus, in regarding it as a true account of the first interview between the parties.
A penetration into the character of men at the first glance, such as is here supposed to liave been evinced by Jesus, transcends all that is naturally possible to the most fortunate and practised knowledge oi mankind. Tlie nature of man is only revealed by Ills words and actions ; tlie gift of discerning it without tliese means, belongs to the visionary, or to tliat species of intuition for which tlie rabbinical designation of this messianic attribute, odorando judicare,^ is not at all too monstrous.Scarcely less improbable is tlie unhesitating obedience of the disciples, for Jesus had not yet acquired his Galilean. fame; and to account for this promptitude we must suppose
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
that the voice and will of Jesus had a coercive influence over minds, independently of preparation and motives,* which would be to complete the incredibility of the narrative by adding a magical trait to the visionary one already exposed.
 
If tliese negative arguments are deemed strong enough to annul the pretensions oftlie narrative to an historical character, the alternative is to assign to it a mythical interpretation, if we can show on positive grounds that it might have been constructed in a traditional manner without historical foundation. As adequate inducements to the formation of such a legend, we may point, not only to tlie above cited Jewish notion of tlie Messiah as the searcher of hearts, but to a specific type of this vocation of the apostles, contained in the narrative (1 Kings xix. 19-21.) of tlie mode in wliicli the prophet Elijah summoned Elislia to become Ills follower.
Here Jesus calls tlie brethren from their nets and their fishing;
 
there tlie prophet calls his future disciple from tlie oxen and tlie plougli; in botli cases there is a transition from simple, physical labour, to tlie liiglicst spiritual office-a contrast wliicli, as is exemplified in tlie lloman history, tradition is apt either to cherish or to create. Further, tlie fishermen, at the call of Jesus, forsake their nets and follow him ; so Elislia, when Elijah cast his mantle over him, left the oxen, and ran after Elijah.
 
Tills is one apparent divergency, which is a yet more striking proof of tlie relation between the two narratives, than is tlieir general similarity.
 
The prophet’s disciple entreated that before he attached himself entirely to Elijah, lie might be permitted to take leave of his father and mother; and the prophet does not liesitate to grant him this request, on the understood condition tliat Elislia should return to him.
Similar petitions are offered to Jesus (Luke ix. 59 ft.; Matt. vni.
21 i.) by some whom lie liad called, or wlio liad volunteered to follow him; but Jesus docs not accede to these requests: on the contrary, lie enjoins tlie one who wislied previously to bury his father, to enter on his discipleship without delay ; and tlie other, who liad begged permission to bid farewell to his friends, lie at once dismisses as unfit for the kingdom of God.
 
In strong contrast with the divided spirit manifested by these feeble proselytes, it is said of tlie apostles, that they, without asking any delay, immediately forsook their occupation, and, in the case of James and John, their lather.
 
Could any tiling betray more clearly than tills one feature, tliat tlie narrative is an embellished imitation of tliat in tlie Old Testament, intended to show tliat Jesus, in his character of Messiah, exacted a more decided adhesion, accompanied witli greater sacrifices, than Elijah, in his character of Prophet merely, required^ or was authorized to require ?f Tlie historical germ of the narrative may be this: several of tlie most eminent disciples of Jesus, particularly Peter, dwelling on tlie shores of tlie sea of Galilee, liad been fishermen, whence Jesus during their subsequent apostolic
THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.
 
agency may liave sometimes styled them fishers of men. But without doubt, their relation with Jesus was formed gradually, like other human relations, and is only elevated into a marvel throucdi tlie obliviousness of tradition.
 
By removing tlie synoptical narrative we make room for that of Jolm ; but whether we are to receive it as historical, can only be decided by an examination of its matter. At the very outset, it excites no favourable prejudice, that John the Baptist is tlie one who directs tlie first two disciples to Jesus ; for if there be any truth in tlie representation given in. a former chapter of the relation between Jesus and the Baptist, some disciples of the latter mio-ht, indeed, of their own accord attach themselves to Jesus, formerly their fellow-disciple, but nothing could be farther from tlie intention of tlie Baptist than to resign Ills own adherents to Jesus. This particular seems indebted for its existence to the apologetic interest of the fourth gospel, wliicli seeks to strengthen the cause of Jesus by tlie testimony of tlie Baptist. Further, tliat Andrew, after one evening’s intercourse witli Jesus, should announce him to his brother with the words, We have found the Messiah (i. 42.); tliat Philip too, immediately after his call, should speak of him in a similar manner to Nathanael (v. 46) ; is an improbability which I know not how to put strongly enough. We gather from tlie synoptical statement, which we have above decided to be trustworthy, tliat some time was necessary for tlie disciples to recognize Jesus as the Messiali, and openly confess their belief through their spokesman Peter, whose tardy discernment Jesus would liave been incorrect in panegyrizing as a divine revelation, if it amounted to no more than what was communicated to him by his brother Andrew at the commencement of his discipleship. Equally unnatural is tlie manner in which Jesus is said to have received Simon. He accosts him with tlie words, T/iozi art Simon, the son of Jona,-a mode of salutation wliicli seems, as Bengel has well remarked, to imply tliat Jesus liad a supernatural acquaintance witli the name and origin of a man previously unknown to him, analogous to Ills coo-nizance of the number of the Samaritan woman’s husbands, and of Nathanael’s presence under the fig-tree. Jesus then proceeds to bestow on Simon the significant surname of Geplias or Peter. If we are not inclined to degrade tlie speecli of Jesus into buffoonery, by referring this appellation to the bodily organization of the disciple,*

Other books

Bite (Bloodlines Book 1) by Crissy Smith
Inside Out by John Ramsey Miller
Pieces of Hate by Ray Garton
The Bit In Between by Claire Varley
A Wicked Pursuit by Isabella Bradford
Someone to Love by Lucy Scala
Historia de Roma by Indro Montanelli