Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (749 page)

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
9.27Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
 
Tlie drift of tlie narrative, tlien, obliges us to admit that the writer intended to signalize a miracle. Tills miracle may be viewed cither as one of power, or of knowledge. If tlie former, we are to conceive tliat Jesus, by liis supernatural power, caused the fish to congregate in tliat part of tlie sea where he commanded Peter to cast in Ins net. Now tliat Jesus sliould be able, by the. immediate action
^x’ r--n..-t•i
 
-•
 
....
 
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
S36
 
itual energy might find a fulcrum, may to a certain extent be conceived, without any wide deviation from psychological laws; but that lie could thus influence irrational beings, and those net isolated animals immediately present to him, but shoals of fish in tlic deptlis of the sea, it is impossible to imagine out of the domain of magic.
Olshansen compares this operation of Jesus to tliat of the divine omnipotence in the annual migrations of fish and birds;* but the comparison is worse tlian lame,-it lacks all parallelism: for tlie latter is an effect of the divine agency, linked in tlie closest manner with all the other operations of God in external nature, with the cliange of seasons, &c.’. while the former, even presupposing Jesus to be actually God, would be an isolated act, interrupting tlie chain of natural phenomena; a distinction that removes any semblance of parallelism between the two cases. Allowing tlie possibility of such a miracle, (and from the supranaturalistic point of view, nothing is in itself impossible,) did it subserve any apparent obicct, adequate to determine Jesus to so extravagant a use of his miraculous powers?
Was it so important tliat Peter should be inspired by this incident witli a superstitious fear, not accordant witli the spirit of the New Testament? Was this the only preparation for engrafting the true faith? or did Jesus believe that it was only by such signs that he could win disciples? How little faith must he tlien have liad in the force of mind and of truth’, how much too meanly must lie have estimated Peter, who, at a later period at least (John vi. 68), clung to Ills society, not on account of the miracles which lie belield Jesus perform, but for tlic sake of the words of eternal life, which came
from Ills lips!
 
Under tlie pressure of these difficulties, refuge may be sought in
tlie other supposition as tlic more facile one; namely, tliat Jesus, by means of his superhuman knowledge, was merely aware tliat in a certain place there was tlien to be found a multitude of fishes, and tliat he communicated this information to Peter.
 
If by this it be meant tliat Jesus, through the possession of an omniscience such aa is commonly attributed to God, knew at all times, all the fish, in all seas, rivers, and lakes; there is an end to his human consciousness.
If, however, it be merely meant tliat when he crossed any water he became cognizant of its various tribes of fish, with their relative position; even this would be quite enough to encumber tlie space in Ills mind tliat was due to more weighty thoughts.Lastly, if it be meant tliat lie knew this, not constantly and necessarily, but as often as he wished; it is impossible to understand how, in a mind like that of Jesus, a desire for such knowledge should arise,-how he, wliose vocation had reference to the depths of tlic human heart, should be tempted to occupy himself witli tlic fish-frcqucnted depths
of the waters.
 
But before we pronounce on this narrative of Luke, we must
consider it in relation to the cognate histories in tlie first two synop
THE DISCIPLES OP JESCS.
 
tical gospels.
 
Tlic chronological relation oftlie respective events is the first point. The supposition that tlic miraculous draught of fishes in Luke was prior to the vocation narrated bv tlie two other evangelists, is excluded by tlie consideration, tliat tlie firm attachment which tliat miracle awakened in the disciples, would render a new call superfluous; or by the still stronger objection, that if an invitation, accompanied by a miracle, liad not sufficed to ally the men to Jesus, lie could hardly flatter himself tliat. a subsequent bare summons, unsupported by any miracle, would have a better issue.
Tlie contrary chronological position presents a better climax: but why a second invitation, if the first liad succeeded? For to suppose tliat tlic brethren who followed him on tlic first summons, again left him until tlie second, is to cut tlie knot, instead of untying it.
Still more complicated is tlie difficulty, when we take in addition the narrative of tlic fourth evangelist: for wliat sliall we think of the connexion between Jesus and his disciples, if it began in tlie manner described by John; if, after this, the disciples having from some unknown cause separated from their master, he again called them, as if nothing of tlio kind had before occurred, on tlie shore of the Galilean sea; and if, this invitation also producing no permanent adherence, he for tlie third time summoned tliein to follow him, fortifying this final experiment by a miracle ? Tlie entire drift of Luke’s narrative is such as to exclude, rather than to imply, any earlier and more intimate relation between Jesus and his ultimate disciples.
For tlie indifferent mention of two ships on the shore, wliose owners were gone out of them to wash their nets, Simon being unnamed until Jesus chooses to avail himself of his boat, seems, as Schleiermaclier has convincingly shewn,* to convey tlie idea tliat the two parties were entire strangers to eacli other, and tliat these incidents were preparatory to a relation yet to be formed, not indicative of one already existing: so that tlie healing of Peter’s mother-in-law, previously recounted by Luke, cither occurred, like many other cures of Jesus, without producing any intimate connexion, or lias too early a date assigned to it by tliat evangelist.The latter conjecture is supported by tlie fact tliat Matthew places tlie miracle later.
 
Thus, it fares witli tlie narrative of Luke, wlicn viewed in relation to tliat of Matthew and Mark, as it did witli tliat of John, when placed in the same liglit; neither will bear tlie other to precede, or to follow it,-in short, they exclude each othcr.tWhich then is the correct narrative ? Schleiermachcr prefers tliat of tlie evangelist on whom he lias commented, because it is more particular;^
and Sicffcrt§ lias recently asserted with great emphasis, that no one lias ever yet doubted tlie superiority of Luke’s narrative, as a faithful picture of tlie entire occurrence, tlie number of its special dramatic, and intrinsically authenticated details, advantageously
* Ucl’rr den Lukas, S. 70.
 
•}• This with the legendary character of both narratives, ia acknowlpdo-ii/l hip i-t/.-u-,.**- ---”
 
,, - - - ----
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
distinguishing it from the account in tlie first (and second) gospel, which by its omission of the critical incident, tlie turning point in the narrative (tlie draught of fishes), is characterized as the recital of one who was not an eye-witness. I have already presented myself elsewhere”‘ to this critic, as one hardly enough to express the doubt of which lie denies tlie existence, and I here repeat the question: supposing one only of tlie two narratives to liave been •
modified by oral tradition, which alternative is more in accordance with tlie nature of tliat means of transmission,-that the tangible fact of a draught of fishes should evaporate into a mere saying respecting fishers of men, or that this figurative expression should bo condensed into a literal history? The answer to tins question cannot be dubious; for when was it in tlie nature of tlie legend to spiritualize? to cliange the real, such as tlie story of a miracle, into tlie ideal, such as a mere verbal iniao-e? The stao’c of human cul
‘ 0 0
 
ture to wliicli tlie legend belongs, and tlie mental faculty in wliicli it originates, demand that it should give a stable body to fleeting thought, that it should counteract tlie ambiguity and changeableness of words, by affixing them to tlie permanent and universally
understood symbol of action.
 
It is easy to show how, out of the expression preserved by tlie
first evangelist, tlie miraculous story of tlie third might be formed.
If Jesus, in allusion to tlie former occupation of some of his apostles, had called them fishers of men; if lie had compared tlie kingdom of heaven to a net cast into tlie sea, in wliicli all kinds of fish were taken (Matt. xiii. 47); it was but a following out of tliesc ideas to represent tlie apostles as tliose wlio, at tlie word of Jesus, cast out the net, and gathered in the miraculous multitude of fishes.t If we add to tills, that tlie ancient legend was fond of occupying its w^onder-workcrs with affairs of fishing, as we sec in tlie story related of Pythagoras by Jamblichus and Porphyry:} it will no longer appear improbable, that Peter’s miraculous draught of fishes is but the expression about the fishers of men, transmuted into the history of a miracle, and this view will at once set us free from all the difficulties that attend the natural, as well as tlie supranatural, interpretation of the narrative.
 
A similar miraculous draught of fishes is recorded in tlie appendix to the fourth gospel, as having occurred after tlie resurrection •(ch. xxi.). Here again Peter is fishing on tlie G-alilcan sea, in company with the sons of Zcbedee and some other disciples, and again he has been toiling all night, and has taken nothing. § Early in the
* Berliner Jahrbucher fur wissenschaftliche Kritik, 1834:, Nov.; now in the Charakteristiken u. Kritikcn, 8. 2ti4: f.-t- According to Dii Wette, tlie copious draught of fishes was a symbolical miracle, typifying the rich fruits ol’ tlie apostolic ministry.
 
^ 1’or•.
 
T.”-.,....-.„.., „„ «)-,„,] K’;,,sslini;: Jamblieh. v. I’, no. ;!(;. ders. Aus^
 
phyr. vita I’ythagor.e, no. a,> ea. iMessuuy , uanmi.^...
..... It la
fair to adduce this history, because, being less marvellous than tlie gospel narrative, it
mn hardly be an imitation, but must have arisen independently, and hi^neo it evinces a “ r’ ‘ “• - -’-• “-,.,.-^.\/- rn-it’t^n.vrf.c ou6lv
hes “was a symbolical miracie, i,^pii^in^ i«^ ..^. ,.„.
 
iyr. vita I’ythagor.e, no. 23 ed.
Kiessling; Jamblieh. v. I’, no. ;i(I. ders. Ausg.
1
 
----- i-;«^ laoa marvellous than file gospel uan’a
THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.339
 
morning, Jesus comes to the shore, and asks, without their recognizing him, if they have any meat ? . On their answering in the negative, lie directs them to cast the net on tlie right side. of tlie ship, whereupon they have an extremely rich draught, and are led by this sign to recognize Jesus. That tills history is distinct from tlie one given by Luke, is, from its great similarity, scarcely conceivable;
 
tlie same narrative lias doubtless been placed by tradition in different periods of the life of Jesus.*
 
Let us now compare tliese three fishing histories,-tlie two narrated of Jesus, and that narrated of Pythagoras,-and their mythical character will be obvious. That which, in Luke, is indubitably intended as a miracle of power, is, in tlie history of Jamblichus, a miracle of knowledge; for Pythagoras merely tells in a supernatural manner tlie number of fish already caught by natural means. The narrative of John liolds a middle place, for in it also tlie number of the fish (153) plays a part; but instead of being predetermined by the worker of the miracle, it is simply stated by tlie narrator. One legendary feature common to all tlie three narratives, is tlie manner in whicil tlie multitude and weight of tlie fishes are described;
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
9.27Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads

Other books

The Body on the Beach by Simon Brett
The Perfect Mistress by ReShonda Tate Billingsley
Haweswater by Sarah Hall
To Desire a Wilde by Kimberly Kaye Terry
Probability Space by Nancy Kress
Best for the Baby by Ann Evans
Silas Timberman by Howard Fast