Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (750 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
11.11Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
especially as this sameness of manner accompanies a diversity in particulars. According to Luke, tlie multitude is so great tliat the net is broken, one ship will not hold them, and after they liave been divided between tlie two vessels, both threaten to sink.
In tlie view of tlie tradition given in tlie fourth gospel, it was not calculated to magnify tlie power of tlie miraculous agent, tliat tlie net which he had so marvellously filled should break; but as here also the aim is to exalt the miracle by celebrating the number and weight of the fishes, they are said to be jueya/lot (great), and it is added tliat the men zmre not able to draw the net for the multitude of fishes:
In tlie view of tlie tradition given in tlie fourth gospel, it was not calculated to magnify tlie power of tlie miraculous agent, tliat tlie net which he had so marvellously filled should break; but as here also the aim is to exalt the miracle by celebrating the number and weight of the fishes, they are said to be jueya/lot (great), and it is added tliat the men zmre not able to draw the net for the multitude of fishes:
instead, however, of lapsing out of the miraculous into tlie common by tlie breaking of tlie net, a second miracle is ingeniously made,that for ali there were so many, yet was not the net broken. Jamblichus presents a further wonder (tlie only one lie has, besides the knowledge of Pythagoras as to tlio number of tlie fish): namely, tliat wliilo the fish were being counted, a process that must have required a considerable time, not one of them died. If there be a mind that, not perceiving in tlie narratives we liave compared tlie finger-marks of tradition, and hence tlie legendary character of tliese evangelical anecdotes, still leans to tlie historical interpretation, whether natural or supernatural; that mind must be alike ignorant of the true character both of legend and of history, of tlie natural and tlie supernatural.
* Comp. d’, Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, 3, S. 213.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
§ 72. CALLING OF MATTHEW--CONNEXION OF JESUS WITH THE
PUBLICANS.
THE first gospel (ix. 9 ff.) tells of a mail na-nwd Matthew, to whom, when sitting at the receipt of custom, Jesus said, Follow me.
Instead of Matthew, the second and third gospels liavc Le,m, and Mark adds that lie was the son of Alplieus (Mark ii. 14 ff.; Luke v. 27 ff.). At the call of Jesus, Luke. says tliat lie left all; Matthew merely states, tliat he followed Jesus and prepared a meal, of which many publicans and sinners partook, to tlic great scandal of tlie
Pharisees.
From the difference of the names it has been conjectured tliat
the evangelists refer to two different events ;* but tills difference of tlie name is more tlian counterbalanced by tlie similarity of tlie circumstances. In all the three cases tlie call of tlie publican is preceded and followed by tlie same occurrences; tlic subject of tlie narrative is in tlie same situation.; Jesus addresses him in tlie same words; and the issue is tlie same.f Hence the opinion is pretty general, tliat tlic three synoptists have in this instance detailed only one event. But did they also understand only one person under different names, and was that person the apostle Mattlicw ?
Tills is commonly represented as conceivable on tlie supposition tliat Lev! was tlie proper name of tlic individual, and Matthew merely a surname ;% or tliat after lie liad attaclied himself to Jesus, lie exchanged the former for the latter.§ To substantiate such an opinion, there sliould be some indication tliat tlie evangelists who name tlie chosen publican Levi, intend under that designation no other than the Mattliew mentioned in their catalogues of tlic apostles (Mark ill, 18 ; Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13.). On tlie contrary, in tliese catalogues, where many surnames and double names occur, not only do they omit tlie name of Levi as tlie earlier or more proper appellation of Mattliew, but tlicy leave him undistinguished by the epithet, 6 re/lt.5 vi]^ (the publican), added by the first evangelist in his catalogue (x. 3.); thus proving that they do not consider the apostle Matthew to be identical witli tlie Levi summoned from tlie receipt
of cu.stom.ll
If then the evangelists describe tlie vocation of two different men in a precisely similar way, it is improbable that there is accuracy on both sides, since an event could hardly be repeated in ita minute particulars.
One of the narratives, therefore, is in error;
One of the narratives, therefore, is in error;
and tlie burthen has been thrown on the first evangelist, because he places the calling of Mattliew considerably after tlie sermon on the mount; while according to Luke (vi. 13. ff.), all tlie twelve liad been chosen before that discourse was delivered.^ But tills would only
* Vid. Kuinol, in Matth. p. 255. •)• Sieffert, lit sup. p. 5;”>. \ Kuincil, ut sup. Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1. B. S. BIS. L. J., 1, a, 240.§ Bertholdt, Einleitung y, S. 1255 f.
^•..--..i-, a “10ii a;»ffo,t s r.fi. Dp.
Wette. exee. Handb., 1, 1, S. 91. T[ Siefiert.
Wette. exee. Handb., 1, 1, S. 91. T[ Siefiert.
THE DISCIPI.ES OF JESUS.
341
341
prove, at the most, that the first gospel gives a wrong position to the history; not tliat it narrates that history incorrectly. It is therefore unjust to impute special difficulties to tlie narrative of the first evangelist: neither are such to be found in that of Mark and Luke, unless it be thought an inconsistency in tlie latter to attribute a forsaking of all, KUTaXnrwv airavra, to one whom lie does not include among tlie constant followers of Jesus.* Tlie only question is, do they not labour under a common difficulty, sufficient to stamp botli accounts as unhistorical ?
Tlie close analogy between this call and tliat of tlic two pairs of brethren, must excite attention. Tlicy were summoned from their nets; lie from tlie custom-house; as in their case, so here, nothing further is needed than a simple Follow me; and tins call of the Messiah lias so irresistible a power over tlie mind of the called, that the publican, like the fishermen, leaves all, and follows him. It is not to be denied, tliat as Jesus had been for a considerable time exercising Ills ministry in that country, Mattliew must Iiave long known him; and tills is tlie argument with which Fritzsche repels tlie accusation of Julian and Porphyry, wlio maintain tliat Matthew here shows himself rash and inconsiderate.
But tlic longer Jesus liad observed him, tlie more easily might lie have found opportunity for drawing him gradually and quietly into Ins train, instead of hurrying him in so tumultuary a manner from tlie midst of his business. Paulus indeed thinks that no call to discipleship, no sudden forsaking of a previous occupation, is here intended, but tliat Jesus having brought Ills tcaciiing to a close, merely signified to tlie friend wlio liad given him an invitation to dinner, that lie was now ready to go home with him, and sit down to table, f But tlie meal appears, especially in Luke, to be tlie consequence, and not the cause, of tlie summons ; moreover, a modest guest would say to the liost wlio liad invited him, I -will follow thee, duoXovO^au aoi, not Follow me, duoAovOsi fioi; and in fine, tins interpretation renders tlie wliole anecdote so trivial, that it would have been better omitted.:}: Hence tlie abruptness and impetuosity of tlie scene return upon us, and we are compelled to pronounce tliat sucli is not the course of real life, nor tlie procedure of a man wlio, like Jesus, respects tlie laws and formalities of human society; it is tlie procedure of legend and poetry, which love contrasts and effective scenes, which aim to give a graphic conception of a man’s exit from an old sphere of life, and his entrance into a new one, by representing him as at once discarding tlie implements of his former trade, leaving tlie scene of his daily business, and straightway commencing a new life. Tlie liistorical germ of tlie story may be, tliat Jesus actually had publicans among his disciples, and possibly tliat, Matthew was one. These men liad truly left tlie custom-house to fol
But tlic longer Jesus liad observed him, tlie more easily might lie have found opportunity for drawing him gradually and quietly into Ins train, instead of hurrying him in so tumultuary a manner from tlie midst of his business. Paulus indeed thinks that no call to discipleship, no sudden forsaking of a previous occupation, is here intended, but tliat Jesus having brought Ills tcaciiing to a close, merely signified to tlie friend wlio liad given him an invitation to dinner, that lie was now ready to go home with him, and sit down to table, f But tlie meal appears, especially in Luke, to be tlie consequence, and not the cause, of tlie summons ; moreover, a modest guest would say to the liost wlio liad invited him, I -will follow thee, duoXovO^au aoi, not Follow me, duoAovOsi fioi; and in fine, tins interpretation renders tlie wliole anecdote so trivial, that it would have been better omitted.:}: Hence tlie abruptness and impetuosity of tlie scene return upon us, and we are compelled to pronounce tliat sucli is not the course of real life, nor tlie procedure of a man wlio, like Jesus, respects tlie laws and formalities of human society; it is tlie procedure of legend and poetry, which love contrasts and effective scenes, which aim to give a graphic conception of a man’s exit from an old sphere of life, and his entrance into a new one, by representing him as at once discarding tlie implements of his former trade, leaving tlie scene of his daily business, and straightway commencing a new life. Tlie liistorical germ of tlie story may be, tliat Jesus actually had publicans among his disciples, and possibly tliat, Matthew was one. These men liad truly left tlie custom-house to fol
* De Wette, ut sup.
+ Exes. IIanilb. 1. B. S. 610. L. J. 1, a, 240
342 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
low Jesus; Lut only in the figurative sense of his concise expression, not in the literal one depicted Ly the legend.
It is not less astonishing tliat tlie publican slipuld have a great feast in readiness for Jesus immediately after hia call. For that this feast was not, prepared until tlie following day,* is directly opposed to tlie narratives, tlie two iirst especially.
But it is entirely in the tone of the legend to demonstrate tlie joy of the publican, and the condescension of Jesus, and to create an occasion for tlie reproaches cast on the latter on account of his intimacy with sinners, by inventing a great feast, given to the publicans at tlie house of their late associate immediately after his call.
But it is entirely in the tone of the legend to demonstrate tlie joy of the publican, and the condescension of Jesus, and to create an occasion for tlie reproaches cast on the latter on account of his intimacy with sinners, by inventing a great feast, given to the publicans at tlie house of their late associate immediately after his call.
Another circumstance connected witli this narrative merits particular attention. According to tlie common opinion concerning tlie author of tlie first gospel, Matthew therein narrates Ills own call.
We may consider it granted that there are no positive indications of this in tlie narrative; but it is not so clear tliat there are no negative indications which render it impossible or improbable.
That the evangelist docs not here speak in tlie first person, nor when describing events in wliicli lie liad a share in tlie first person plural, like tlie author of tlie Acts of tlie Apostles, proves nothing; for Joseplius and other historians not less classical, write of themselves in tlie third person, and tlie we of tlie pseudo-Matthew in the Lbionitc gospel lias a very suspicious sound. Tlie use of the expression, dvOpoTTOV, Ma-Oalov Xsyo^erov, which tlie Manichcans made an objection,!
That the evangelist docs not here speak in tlie first person, nor when describing events in wliicli lie liad a share in tlie first person plural, like tlie author of tlie Acts of tlie Apostles, proves nothing; for Joseplius and other historians not less classical, write of themselves in tlie third person, and tlie we of tlie pseudo-Matthew in the Lbionitc gospel lias a very suspicious sound. Tlie use of the expression, dvOpoTTOV, Ma-Oalov Xsyo^erov, which tlie Manichcans made an objection,!
as they did the above-mentioned cireuin stance, is not without a precedent in tlie writings of Xcnophon, wlio in his Anabasis introduces himself as Xenophon, a certain At/^nian, ‘S,EVO(J)O)V T((; ‘AOi-ji’aloc;.^
The Greek, however, did not fall into tins stylo from absorption in his subject, nor from unaffected freedom from egotism,-causes wliicli Olsliauscn supposes in (lie evangelist; but either from a wish not to pass for tlie author, as an old tradition states,§ or from considerations of taste, neither of which motives will be attributed to Mattliew. Whether we are therefore to consider tliat expression as a sign tliat tlie author of the first gospel was not Mattliew, mav be difficult to decide :i| but it is certain tliat this history of tlie publican’s call is throughout less clearly narrated in tliat gospel than in tlie third.
In tlie former, we are at a loss to understand why it is abruptly said tliat Jesus sat at meat in tlio house, if tlie evangelist were himself tlie hospitable publican, since it would then seem most natural for him to let Ills joy on account of his call appear in llie narrative, by telling as Luke docs, tliat lie immediately made a great feast in his house.
To say tliat lie witlilidd this from modesty, is to invest a rude Galilcan of tliat age with tlie affectation belonging to tlie most refined self-consciousness of modern days.
In tlie former, we are at a loss to understand why it is abruptly said tliat Jesus sat at meat in tlio house, if tlie evangelist were himself tlie hospitable publican, since it would then seem most natural for him to let Ills joy on account of his call appear in llie narrative, by telling as Luke docs, tliat lie immediately made a great feast in his house.
To say tliat lie witlilidd this from modesty, is to invest a rude Galilcan of tliat age with tlie affectation belonging to tlie most refined self-consciousness of modern days.
To this feast at tlie publican’s, of which many of tlie same ob
* Gratz, Cninin. zum Matth. 1, S. 470.f Augustin, c. Faust.
M.inicli. xvii. ].
M.inicli. xvii. ].
t iii. i. 4.^
Plutarch. (Ie glum Atheniens,, at the beginning.
|| Schuiz, Ueber din
Plutarch. (Ie glum Atheniens,, at the beginning.
|| Schuiz, Ueber din
THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.343
noxious class partook, the evangelists annex the reproaches cast at the disciples by tlie Pharisees and Scribes, because their master ate with publicans and sinners. Jesus, being within hearing of the censure, repelled it by tlie well-known text on the destination of the physician for the sick, and tlie Son of man for sinners (Matt. ix. 11
ff. parall.). Tliat Jesus should be frequently taunted by his pharisaical enemies witli his too great predilection for the despised class of publicans (comp. Matt. xi. 19), accords fully with the nature of his position, and is therefore historical, if anything be so : the answer, too, which is liere put into tlie mouth of Jesus, is from its pitliy and concise character well adapted for literal transmission. Further, it is not improbable tliat tlie reproach in question may have been especially called forth, by the circumstance tliat Jesus ate with publicans and sinners, and went under their roofs. But tliat tlie cavils of Ills opponents should have been accompaniments of tlie publican’s dinner, as tlie evangelical account leads us to infer, especially tliat of Mark (v. 1G), is not so easily conceivable.*
For as tlie feast was in the /imse (av ry olnia), and as tlio disciples also partook of it, how could the Pharisees utter their reproaches to them, wliile the meal was going forward, without defiling themselves by becoming the guests of a man that v;as a sinner,-tlie very act wliicli they reprehended in Jesus ? (Luke xix. 7.) It will hardly be supposed tliat they waited outside until the feast was ended. It is difficult for Schlcicrmacher to maintain, even on the representation of Luke taken singly, tliat tlie evangelical narrative only implies, tliat the publican’s feast was tlie cause of tlie Pharisees’ censure, and not tliat they were cotcmporarv.f Their immediate connexion might easily originate in a leo-cndary manlier; in fact, one scarcely knows how tradition, in its process of transmuting the abstract into tlie concrete, could represent tlie general idea tliat tlie Pharisees had taken offence at tlie friendly intercourse of Jesus witli tlie publicans, otherwise than thus: Jesus once feasted in a publican’s house, in company with many publicans; tlie Pharisees saw this, went to the disciples and expressed their censure, which Jesus also heard, and parried by a laconic answer.
For as tlie feast was in the /imse (av ry olnia), and as tlio disciples also partook of it, how could the Pharisees utter their reproaches to them, wliile the meal was going forward, without defiling themselves by becoming the guests of a man that v;as a sinner,-tlie very act wliicli they reprehended in Jesus ? (Luke xix. 7.) It will hardly be supposed tliat they waited outside until the feast was ended. It is difficult for Schlcicrmacher to maintain, even on the representation of Luke taken singly, tliat tlie evangelical narrative only implies, tliat the publican’s feast was tlie cause of tlie Pharisees’ censure, and not tliat they were cotcmporarv.f Their immediate connexion might easily originate in a leo-cndary manlier; in fact, one scarcely knows how tradition, in its process of transmuting the abstract into tlie concrete, could represent tlie general idea tliat tlie Pharisees had taken offence at tlie friendly intercourse of Jesus witli tlie publicans, otherwise than thus: Jesus once feasted in a publican’s house, in company with many publicans; tlie Pharisees saw this, went to the disciples and expressed their censure, which Jesus also heard, and parried by a laconic answer.
Other books
The Underground Reporters by Kathy Kacer
The Saint in London: Originally Entitled the Misfortunes of Mr. Teal by Leslie Charteris
Little Wing by Joanne Horniman
The Price of Valor by Django Wexler
Storming the Eagle's Nest by Jim Ring
Forged by Desire by Bec McMaster
This Could Be Rock 'N' Roll by Tim Roux
Wind Warrior (Historical Romance) by Constance O'Banyon
Afraid to Love by Leona Jackson
Curse of the Arctic Star by Carolyn Keene