Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (751 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
3.67Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
After tlie Pharisees, Matthew makes tlie disciples of John approach Jesus witli tlie question, wliy his disciples did not fast, as they did (v. 14 f.); in Luke (v. 33 ff.); it is still tlie Pharisees wlio vaunt their own fasts and tliose of John’s disciples, as contrasted with tlie eating and drinking of the disciples of Jesus; Mark’s account is not clear (v. 18). According to i’schleicrmachcr, every unprejudiced person must perceive in the statement of Mattliew compared witli tliat of Luke, the confusing emendations of a second editor, wlio could not explain to himself how the Pharisees came to appeal to tlie disciples of John; whereas, thinks Sclileicrmachcr, tlie question would liavc been puerile in tlie mouth of tlie latter; but
* Comp De Wette, exeg. Handb., 1, ‘2, p. 131.
344 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
it is easy to imagine that the Pharisees might avail themselves of an external resemblance to the disciples of Jolm when opposing Jesus, who had himself received baptism of that teacher. It is certainly surprising tliat after the Pharisees, wlio were offended because Jesus ate with publicans, some disciples of Jolin should step forth as if they had been cited for the purpose, to censure generally tlie unrestricted eating and drinking of Jesus and his disciples.
The probable explanation is, that evangelical tradition associated the two circumstances from their intrinsic similarity, and tliat tlie first evangelist erroneously gave them the additional connexion of time and place. But tlie manner in wliicli tlie third evangelist fuses the two particulars, appears a yet more artifical combination, and is certainly not historical, because the reply of Jesus could only be directed to John’s disciples, or to friendly inquirers : to Pharisees, he would have given another and a more severe answer.*
The probable explanation is, that evangelical tradition associated the two circumstances from their intrinsic similarity, and tliat tlie first evangelist erroneously gave them the additional connexion of time and place. But tlie manner in wliicli tlie third evangelist fuses the two particulars, appears a yet more artifical combination, and is certainly not historical, because the reply of Jesus could only be directed to John’s disciples, or to friendly inquirers : to Pharisees, he would have given another and a more severe answer.*
Another narrative, which is peculiar to Luke (xix. 1-10), treats of the same relation as that concerning Matthew or Lcvi. When Jesus, on his last journey to the feast, passes through Jericho, a chief among the publicans dp^i~EAwrj(;, named Zacclucus, tliat he might, notwithstanding his short stature, get a siglit of Jesus among the crowd, climbed a tree, where Jesus observed him, and immediately held him worthy to entertain tlie Messiah for tlie niglit. Here, again, tlie favour shown to a publican excites tlie discontent of the more rigid spectators ; and when Zacchasus lias made vows of atonement and beneficence, Jesus again justifies himself, on tlie ground that his office liad reference to sinners. Tlie wliole scene is very dramatic, and this might be deemed by some an argument for its historical character; but there arc certain internal obstacles to its reception. We are not led to infer tliat Jesus previously knew Zacchasus, or that some one pointed him out to Jesus by name ;f but, as Olshausen truly says, tlie knowledge of Zacchaius tliat Jesus liere suddenly evinced, is to be referred to Ills power of discerning what was in men without the aid of testimony. We have before decided that this power is a legendary attribute ; hence tlie above particular, at least, cannot be historical, and tlie narrative is possibly a variation on the same theme as tliat treated of in connexion with the account of Matthew’s call, namely, tlie friendly relation of Jesus to tlie publicans.
§ 73. THE TWELVE APOSTLES.
THE men whose vocation we have been considering, namely, the sons of Jonas and of Zebedee, witli Pliilip and Matthew (Nathanael alone being exccptcd), form the half of tliat narrow circle of disciples which appears throughout the New Testament under tlie name of
* De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1,1, p. 93. + Paulus, exe?.
Handb., 3, a, S. 48. KuinoL
Handb., 3, a, S. 48. KuinoL
THE DISCIPLES OF JESUS.345
the twelve, ol SuSeso, the twelve disciples or apostles, 01 6wShK.a paOrjrw. or B7r0(n-o^o(. The fundamental idea of the New Testament writers concerning the twelve, is that Jesus himself chose tliem (Mark in. 13 f.; Luke vi. 13; John vi. 70; xv. 16.). Matthew does not give us tlie history of the choice of all tlie twelve, but he tacitly presupposes it by introducing them as a college already instituted (x. i.). Luke, on tlie contrary, narrates how, after a night spent on tlie mountain in vigils and prayer, Jesus selected twelve from tlie more extensive circle of his adherents, and then descended with them to the plain, to deliver what is called tlie Sermon on the Mount (vi.
12.). Mark also tells us in the same connexion, that Jesus wlien on a mountain made a voluntary clioice of twelve from the mass of his disciples (iii. 13.). According to Luke, Jesus chose the twelve immediately before he delivered tlie sermon on the mount, and apparently with reference to it: but there is no discoverable motive which can explain tills mode of associating tlie two events, for tlie discourse was not specially addressed to the apostles,* neither had they any office to execute during its delivery. Mark’s representation, with the exception of the vague tradition from which lie sets out, that Jesus chose the twelve, seems to liave been wrouglit out of Ills own imagination, and furnishes no distinct notion of the occasion and manner of tlie choice.f. Mattliew lias adopted tlie best method in merely presupposing, without describing, the particular vocation of tlie apostles; and John pursues tlie same plan, beginning (vi. 67.) to speak of the twelve, without any previous notice of their appointment.
Strictly speaking, therefore, it is merely presupposed in the gospels, tliat Jesus himself fixed tlie number of the apostles. Is tills presupposition correct ? There certainly is little doubt that this number was fixed during tlie lifetime of Jesus; for not only does tlie author of the Acts represent tlie twelve as so compact a body immediately after tlie ascension of tlieir master, that they think it incumbent on them to fill up tlie breach made by the apostacy of Judas by tlie election of a ue\v member (i. 15 ft.); but the apostle Paul also notices an appearance of tlie risen Jesus, specially to the twelve (1 Cor. xv. 5.).
Schleiermacher, however, doubts whether Jesus himself chose tlie twelve, and he thinks it more probable tliat tlie peculiar relation ultimately borne to him by twelve from amongst his disciples, gradually and spontaneously formed itself. \ “We have, indeed, no warrant for supposing that tlie appointment of the twelve was a single solemn act; on tlie contrary, tlie gospels explicitly narrate, that six of them were called singly, or by pairs, and on separate occasions; but it is still a question whether tlie number twelve was not determined by Jesus, and whether lie did not willingly abide by it as an expedient for checking tlie multiplication of his familiar companions. Tlie number is the less likely to have been fortuitous,
Schleiermacher, however, doubts whether Jesus himself chose tlie twelve, and he thinks it more probable tliat tlie peculiar relation ultimately borne to him by twelve from amongst his disciples, gradually and spontaneously formed itself. \ “We have, indeed, no warrant for supposing that tlie appointment of the twelve was a single solemn act; on tlie contrary, tlie gospels explicitly narrate, that six of them were called singly, or by pairs, and on separate occasions; but it is still a question whether tlie number twelve was not determined by Jesus, and whether lie did not willingly abide by it as an expedient for checking tlie multiplication of his familiar companions. Tlie number is the less likely to have been fortuitous,
* Schleiermacher, ilber den Lukas, S. 85.
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
able from tlie degree of cultivation they evince, and the preference always expressed by Jesus for fhepoor TTTU^OVC, and the little ones, vrimovg (Matt. v. 3; xi. 5. 25), that they were of a similar grade.
§ 74. THE TWELVE CONSIDEEED INDIVIDUALLY-THE THREE OR
FOUR MOST CONFIDENTIAL DISCIPLES OF JESUS.
WE have in tlie New Testament four catalogues of tlie apostles;
one in each of the synoptical gospels, and one in tlie Acts (Matt. x.
2-4; Mark iii. 6-10; Luke vi. 14-16; Acts i. 13). Each of tliese four lists may be divided into three quaternions; in each corresponding quaternion tlie first member is tlie same; and in the last, the concluding member also, if we except Acts i. 13, where he is absent; but the intermediate members are differently arranged, and in the concluding quaternions there is a difference of names or of
persons.)
At the head of the first quaternion in all tlie catalogues, and in Mattliew with the prefix Trpfi-o^ (the first), stands Simon Peter, the son of Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17); according to the fourth gospel, of Bethsaida (i. 45); according to the synoptists, resident in Capernaum*
(Matt. viii. 14 parall.). We hear an cclio of tlie old polemical dispute, when Protestant expositors ascribe this position to mere chance,-an assumption which is opposed by the fact that all four of tlie catalogues agree in giving the precedence to Peter, though they differ in other points of arrangement; or when those expositors allege, in explanation, tliat Peter was first called,! which, according to the fourth gospel, was not tlie case.
That this invariable priority is indicative of a certain pre-eminence of Peter among the twelve, is evident from tlie part lie plays elsewhere in tlie evangelical history.
That this invariable priority is indicative of a certain pre-eminence of Peter among the twelve, is evident from tlie part lie plays elsewhere in tlie evangelical history.
Ardent by nature, lie is always beforehand witli the rest of the apostles, whether in speech (Matt. xv. 15; xvi. 16. 22; xvii. 4; xviii.
21; xxvi. 33; John vi. 68), or in action (Matt. xiv. 28; xxvi. 58;
John xviii 16); and if it is not seldom the case that the speecli and action are faulty, and that his prompt courage quickly evaporates, as his denial sliows, yet he is, according to the synoptical statement, tlie first who expresses a decided conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus (Matt. xvi. 16. parall.). It is true tliat of tlie eulogies and prerogatives bestowed on him on tliat occasion, that which is implied in his surname is the only one that remains peculiarly his; for tlie authority to bind and to loose., that is, to .forbid and to permit,:}: in tlie newly- founded Messianic kingdom, is soon after extended to all the apostles (xviii. 18). Yet more decidedly does tills pre-eminence of Peter among tlie original apostles appear in the Acts, and in the epistles of Paul.
* If^ TTO?^ ‘Ai^pfou nal IIerpov, John i. 45, mec.a the same as ^ It^ici Tro^s’i Matth. ix.
1, that is, the place where they were resident, there exists a contradiction on this point between Jolm and the svnoDtita. ^ Comp. Fritzsehe, in Math. p. 358. ^ Coinp. Light
THE DISCIPLES OF JE8I78. 349
Next to Peter, the catalogue of the first and third gospels places his brother Andrew; that of tlie second gospel and tlie Acts, James, and after liiin, Jolin. Tlie first and third evangelists are evidently guided by the propriety of uniting’ the couples of brethren; Mark, and the author of the Acts, by that of preferring tlie two apostles next in distinction to Peter to the less conspicuous Andrew, whom they accordingly put last in the quaternion. We have already considered the manner in wliicli these four apostles are signalized in the Christian legend by a special liistory of their vocation. They appear together in other passages of Mark; first (i. 29.) where Jesus, in company with the sons of Zebedee, enters the house of Simon and Andrew: as, however, tlie other evangelists only mention Peter on this occasion, Mark may have added the other names inferentially, concluding that the four fishermen, so recently called, would not be apart from Jesus, and tliat, Andrew had a share in his brother’s house, a thing in itself probable.*
Again, Mark xiii. 3, our four apostles concur in asking Jesus privately (nar’ l6iav) concerning the time of tlie destruction of tlie temple, and of his second advent.
Again, Mark xiii. 3, our four apostles concur in asking Jesus privately (nar’ l6iav) concerning the time of tlie destruction of tlie temple, and of his second advent.
But the parallel passages in tlie other gospels do not thus particularize. any of tlie disciples. Matthew says, T/ie disciples came to him privately (xxiv. 3); hence it is probable that Mark’s limitation is an erroneous one.Possibly the words na-’ ISiav, being used in the document to wliicli he referred to denote tlie separation of the twelve from the multitude, appeared to him, from association, an introductory form, of which there are other examples (Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2), to a private conference of Jesus with Peter, James and John, to whom he might add Andrew on account of tlie fraternity. Luke, on tlie other hand, in his account of the miraculous draught of fishes, and the vocation of the fishermen (v. 10), omits Andrew, though he is included in corresponding narratives, probably because he does not elsewhere appear as one of tlie select apostles; for except on the occasions already noticed^he is only mentioned by Jolin (vi. 9 ; xxi.
22), and tliat in no very important connexion.
The two sons of Zebedee are the only disciples wliose distinction rivals tliat of Peter. Like him, they evince an ardent and somewhat rash zeal (Luke ix. 55; once John is named alone, Mark ix. 38;
Other books
Konarth, Joe - Jack Daniels 02 - Bloody Mary by Konrath
Gertrude and Claudius by John Updike
Finding You by S. K. Hartley
The House of Daniel by Harry Turtledove
The Girl in Blue by Barbara J. Hancock
Two Parties, One Tux, and a Very Short Film about The Grapes of Wrath by Steven Goldman
Claire (Hart University Book 2) by Abigail Strom
Inside Baseball: The Best of Tom Verducci by Tom Verducci
Accidental Baby by Kim Lawrence
The Chosen by Sharon Sala