Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (753 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
2.2Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
§ 75. THE EEST OF THE TWELVE, AND THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES.
 
THE second quaternion in all the four catalogues begins -with Philip. The three first gospels know notliing more of him than his name. The fourth alone gives his birth-place, Bethsaida, and narrates his vocation (i. 44 f.); in this gospel he is more than once
* Vid, Liicke, Comm. zum Joh, 2, S. 708. f Paulus in his review of Bretschneider’a Probabilien, in the Heidelberc-er Jahrbuchern. 1821. no. 9. S, 138.t Lucke, ut sap. S,
354 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
an interlocutor, but his observations are founded on mistakes (vi. 7;
 
xiv. 8); and lie perhaps appears with most dignity, when thc”E/l/l»yvec, wlio wish to sec Jesus, apply immediately to him (xii. 21).
 
The next in the three evangelical lists is Bartholomew; a name which is nowhere found out of tlie catalogues. In tile synoptical gospels Bartholomew7 is coupled witli Pliilip ; in the history of the vocations given by tlic fourth evangelist (i. 46), Nathanael appears in company witli tlie latter, and (xxi. 2) is again presented in tlie society of the apostles. Nathanael, however, finds no place among the twelve, unless he be identical witli one otherwise named by tlie synoplists. If so, it is thought tliat Bartholomew is tlie most easily adapted to such an alias, as tlie three first gospels couple him witli Pliilip, ]’ust as the fourth, wliicli lias no Bartholomew, does Nathanael; to which it may be added tliat ‘‘a^r ^a is a mere patronymic, which must liavc been accompanied by a proper name, such as NathanaeL* But we have no adequate ground for such an identification, since the juxtaposition of Bartholomew and Philip is shown to be accidental, by our finding tlie former (Acts i. 13), as well as tlic latter (John xxi. 2), linked with different names; tlie absence of Bartholomew from the fourth gospel is not peculiar to him among the twelve; finally, second names as surnames were added to proper as well as to patronymic names, as Simon Peter, Joseph Caiaplias, John Mark, and tlie like; so that any other apostle not named by John might be equally well identified with Nathanael, and hence the supposed relation between the two appellations is altogether uncertain.
 
In tlic catalog-uc given in the Acts, Pliilip is followed, not by Bartholomew, but by Thomas, who in tlie list of tlic first gospel comes after Bartholomew, in that of tlie others, after Matthew.
Thomas, in Greek Atdr/zoc, appears in tlie fourth gospel, on one occassion, in the guise of mournful fidelity (xi. 16): on another, in tlie more noted one of incredulity (xx. 24. ft’.); and once again in tlie appendix (xxi. 2). Matthew, the next in tlic series, is found nowhere else except in the liistory of his vocation.
 
Tlie third quaternion is uniformly opened by James the son of Alphcus, of whom we have already spoken. After him comes in both Luke’s lists, Simon, whom he calls Zeiotcs, or the zealot, but whom Matthew7 and Mark (in whose catalogues he is placed one degree lower) distinguish as the Canaanitc 6 iiavavl-i]<; (from tt;^, to be zealous). This surname seems to mark him as a former adherent of tlie Jewish sect of zealots for religion,! a party which, it is true, did not attain consistence until the latest period of the Jewish state, but wliicli was already in tlie process of formation. In all tlie lists that retain the name of Judas Iscariot, lie occupies the last place, but of him we. must not speak until we enter on tlie history of tlie passion. Luke, in his filling up of tlie remaining places of this
* Thus most of the expositor;), Fritzsche, Matth., S. 359; Winer Eealworterlmcb
THE DISCIPLES OF JESL’S.
 
quaternion, differs from the two other evangelists, and perhaps tliese also differ from each oilier; Luke has a second Judas, whom he styles tlie brother of James ; Mattlicw, Lebbcus ; and Mark, Thaddcus. It is true tliat we now commonly read in Matthew, .Lebbe’us, tuhose surname zcas Thaddeus ; but the vacillation in tlie early reading’s seems to betray these words to be a later addition intended to reconcile the first two evangelists ;* an attempt which others have, made by pointing out a similarity of meaning between the two names, though such a similarity does not exist. + But allowing validity to one or other of these harmonizing efforts, there yet remains a discrepancy between Matthew and Mark with tlicir Lebbeus-Tliaddeus, and Luke witli his Judas, tlie brother of James.
 
Schleiermacher justly disapproves the expedients, almost all of them constrained and unnatural, which have been resorted to for tlie sake of proving that here also, we have but one person under two different names.
Fie seeks to explain tlie divergency, by supposing, tliat during the lifetime of Jesus, one of the two men died or left tlie circle of tlie apostles, and tlie other took his place ; so that one list gives tlic earlier, the other the later member.:}: But it is scarcely possible to admit that any one of our catalogues was drawn up during the life of Jesus; and after that period, no writer would think of including a member wlio had previously retired from the college of apostles ;
 
those only would be enumerated wdio w^ere ultimately attached to Jesus. It is tlie most reasonable to allow that there is a discrepancy between tlie lists, since it is easy to account for it by the probability tliat while tlic number of tlie apostles, and the names of the most distino-uished amono- them, were well known, varying tra
o
 
0
 
‘•/ o
ditions supplied the place of more positive data concerning tlie less conspicuous.
 
Luke makes us acquainted witli a circle of disciples, intermediate to tlie twelve and the mass of tlie partisans of Jesus.
 
He tells us (x. 1 ff.) tliat besides tlie twelve, Jesus cliose other seventy also, and sent them two and two before him into all tlie districts which he intended to visit on his last journey, that they miglit proclaim tlie approach of the kingdom of heaven. As tlie oilier evangelists have no allusion to tills event, tlie most recent critics have not hesitated to make their silence on this liead a reproach to them, particularly to the first evangelist, in his supposed character of apostle.§
But tlic disfavour towards Mattlicw on this score ought to be moderated by tlie consideration, that neither in the other gospels, nor in tlie Acts, nor in any apostolic epistle, is there any -,..’e of the seventy disciples, wlio could scarcely have passed thus unnoticed, had their mission been as fruitful in consequences, as it is commonly supposed. It is said, however, tliat tlie importance of this appointment lay in its significance, rather tlian in its effects. As the num
* Comp. Crenner, Einleit., 1, S. 64; De Wette, excg. Handb. 1, 1, S. 98 f.
 
+ D«
 
356 THE LIFE 01’’’ JESUS.
 
ber of the twelve apostles, by its relation to that of the tribes of Israel, shadowed forth tlie destination of Jesus for tlie Jewish people;
 
so the seventy, or as some authorities have it, the seventy-two disciples, were representatives of the seventy or seventy-two peoples, with as many different tongues, which, according to tlie Jewish and early Christian view, formed tlie sum of tlie earth’s inhabitants,*
and hence they denoted tlie universal destination of Jesus and his kingdom.! Moreover, seventy was a sacred number with tlie Jewish nation; Moses deputed seventy elders (Num. xi. 16, 25); the Sanhedrim had seventy members :f the Old Testament, seventy translators.
 
Had Jesus, then, under tlie pressing circumstances tliat mark his public career, nothing more important to do than to cast about for significant numbers, and to surround himself with inner and outer circles of disciples, regulated by these mystic measures? or i’ather, is not this constant preference for sacred numbers, this assiduous development of an idea to which tlie number of the apostles furnished the suggestion, wholly in the spirit of the primitive Christian legend ? This, supposing it imbued with Jewish prepossessions, would infer, that as Jesus had respect to the twelve tribes in fixing the number of his apostles, lie would extend the parallel by appointing seventy subordinate disciples, corresponding to the seventy elders; or, supposing the legend animated by the more universal sentiments of Paul, it could not escape tlie persuasion tliat to the symbol of the relation of Ids office to the Israelitish people, Jesus would annex another, significative of its destination for all the kindreds of the earth. However agreeable this class of seventy diseiples may have always been to the cliurcli, as a series of niches for the reception of men wlio, witliout belonging to the twelve, were yet of importance to her, as Mark, Luke and Mattliew; we are compelled to pronounce tlie decision of our most recent critic precipitate, and to admit tliat the gospel of Luke, by its acceptance of such a narrative, destitute as it is of all historical confirmation, and of any other apparent source than dogmatical interests, is placed in disadvantageous comparison witli tliat of Matthew. We gather, indeed, from Acts i. 21 f. tliat Jesus liad more than the twelve as his constant companions ; but tliat these formed a body of exactly seventy, or that that number was selected from them, does not seem adequately warranted.§
 
piph liicr, i. 5,•t- Schneckenburger, ut sup. ; Gieseler, uber Entstehung der schrit’tliche.1
Evangelien, S, 127 f.
 
t Lightfoot, p, 786, § De Wette, exeg, Handb., 1,.I, & 99 f. 1, 2, S. 61. 1, 3, S. 220; Theile, zur Biogr. J., ^ 24, For the contrary opinion, see Neander, L, J. Chr., S, 498 f.
 
* Tuf haarez, f. xix. Ci iii.; Clem, horn. xviii, 4 ; Eecognit, Clement, iii 42, Epiphan.
•i i. 5,-t- Schneckenburger, ut sup. ; Gieseler, uber Entstehung der schrit’tliche.1
ino-Blifin. S. 127 f.
 
t Lie-htfoot. n. 786.
S De Wette. exes. Handb., 1. I. & 99 f. 1,
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.357

CHAPTER VI
.

 
THE DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIEST GOSPELS.*
 
§. 76. THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
 
IN reviewing the public life of Jesus, we may separate from the events tliose discourses which were not merely incidental, but which stand independent and entire.
 
This distinction, however, is not precise, for many discourses, owing to the occurrences that suggested them, may be classed as events; and many events, from the explanations annexed to tliem, seem to range themselves with the discourses. Tlie discourses of Jesus given in tlie synoptical gospels, and those attributed to him in tlie fourth, diner widely both in form and matter, having only a few isolated sentences in common: they must, therefore, be subjected to a separate examination. Again, there is a dissimilitude between the three first evangelists : Mattliew affects long discourses, and collects into one mass a number of sayrigs, which in Luke are distributed among various places and occalons; eacli of tliese two evangelists lias also some discourses pecu
 
liar to himself. In Mark, tlie element of discourses exists in a very small proportion.
 
Our purpose will, therefore, be best answered, if we make Matthew’s comprehensive discourses our starting point;
 
ascertain all the corresponding ones in tlie other gospels; inquire which amongst them has tlie best arrangement and representation of these discourses; and, finally, endeavour to form a judgment as to liow far they really proceeded from tlie lips of Jesus.
 
Tlie first long discourse in Mattliew is tliat known as tlie sermon on tlie mount (v.-vii.). The evangelist, having recorded tlie return of Jesus after his baptism into Galileo, and the calling of the fishermen, informs us, that Jesus went through all Galileo, teaching and healing; that great multitudes followed him from all parts of Palestine; and that for their instruction lie ascended a mountain, and delivered tlie sermon in question (iv. 23, ft). We seek in vain for its parallel in Mark, but Luke (vi. 20-49) gives a discourse which has the same introduction and conclusion, and presents in its whole tenor tlie most striking similarity with that of Mattliew;
 
moreover, in botli cases, Jesus, at the termination of his discourse, goes to Capernaum, and lieals tlie centurion’s servant.
 
It is true that Luke gives a later insertion to the discourse, for previous to it
Till: LIFI: OF JESU’5.
 
lie narrates many journeyings and cures of Jesus, which Matthew
places after it; and while tlic latter represents Jesus as ascending a mountain, and being seated there during delivery of his discourse, Luke says, almost in contradiction to him, tliat Jesus came down and stood in the plain. Further, the sermon in Luke contains but a fourth part of that in Matthew, while it lias some elements peculiarly its own.
 
To avoid tlie unpleasant admission that one of two inspired evangelists must be in error,-wliicli is inevitable if in relation to tlic same discourse one of them makes Jesus deliver it on tlie mountain, tlie other in tlic plain; the one sitting, the other standing; the one earlier, the other later; if either tlie one has made important omissions, or tlie other as important additions ;-the ancient harmonists pronounced tlicse discourses to be distinct,* on tlie plea tliat Jesus must frequently liave treated of tlic essential points of his doctrine, and may therefore have repeated word for word certain impressive enunciations. This may be positively denied witli respect to long discourses, and even concise maxims will always be reproduced in a new guise and connexion by a gifted and inventive teacher; to say the least, it is impossible tliat any but a very barren mind should repeat tlie same formal exordium, and tlic same concluding illustration, on separate occasions.
 
Tlie identity of tlic discourses being established, the first effort was to conciliate or to explain tlic divergencies between the two accounts so as to leave their credibility unimpeaclicd. In reference to the different designation of the locality, Paulus insists on the KTH of Luke, wliicli lie interprets to imply tliat Jesus stood over tlie plain and therefore on a hill.
 
Tholuck, more liappily, distinguishes the level space TUTTOC; Tredn’of, from tlic plain properly so called, and regards it as a less abrupt part of tlic mountain. But as one evangelist makes Jesua ascend tlie mountain to deliver Ills discourse, while the oilier makes him descend for tlic same purpose, these conciliators ought to admit, witli Olshausen, tliat if Jesus taught in the plain, according to Luke, Matthew^ lias overlooked tlie descent tliat preceded tlic discourse; or if, as Matthew says, Jesus tauglit seated o;i tlie mountain, Luke lias forgotten to mention tliat after lie liad descended, tlie pressure of tlic crowd induced him to reasccnd before lie commenced his harano-uc. And without doubt each was ignorant
00
 
of wliat lie omits, but each knew that tradition associated this discourse witli a sojourn of Jesus on a mountain. Matthew thought tlic mountain a convenient elevation for one addressing a multitud-c;
 
Luke, on tlic contrary, imagined a descent necessary for tlic purpose ; hence tlic double discrepancy, for lie who teaclics from a mountain is sufficiently elevated over his hearers to sit, but lie wlio teaches in a plain will naturally stand. Tlic chronological diver
* Augustin, de conscus. ev. ii. 19.; Storr, liber den Zweck des Evang. und dor Bricfe Joli., S. 347 ff. For further references sec Tholuck’s Auslegung der Bergpredigt, Einl.. % 1.
 
DISCOL’KSES OF JESUS IN THE THfiEE FIKST GOSPELS.359
 
gencies, as well as the local, must be admitted, if we would abstain from fruitless efforts at conciliation.*
 
The difference as to tlie length and contents of tlie discourse is susceptible of three explanations: either the concise record of Luke is a mere extract from tlie entire discourse wliicli Matthew gives without abridgment; or Mattlicw lias incorporated many sayings belonging properly to other occasions; or lastly, both tlicse causes of variety have concurred.
 
lie wlio, with Tholuck, wislics to preserve intact tlie fides divina, or with Paulus, tlie fides humana of the evangelists, will prefer tlic first supposition, because to withhold the true is more innocent than to add the false. Tlic, above theologians hold tliat tlie train of thought in tlic sermon on tlie mount as s;iven by Mattliew, is closely consecutive, and that this is a proof of its original unity. But any compiler not totally devoid of ability, can give a tolerable appearance of connectedness to sayings which did not originally belong to each other; and even tlicse commentators are obliged to adinitf tliat the alleged consecutivcness extends over no more than half tlie sermon, for from vi. 19, it is a string of more or less isolated sentences, some of them very unlikely to have been uttered on tlic occasion. More recent criticism has therefore decided that tlie shorter account of Luke presents tlie discourse of Jesus in its original form, and that Matthew lias taken tlie license of incorporating witli tills much tliat was uttered by Jesus at various times, so as to retain tlic general sketch-the exordium, peroration, and essential train of thought; wliile between these compartments he inserted many sayings more or less analogous borrowed from elsewhere.:}: This view is especially supported by the fact that many of the sentences, wliicli in Mattlicw make part of tlie sermon on tlie mount, are in Mark and Luke dispersed through a variety of scenes.
Compelled to grant this, yet earnestly solicitous to avert from the evangelist an imputation tliat might invalidate his claim to be considered an eye-witness, other theologians maintain tliat Mattliew did not compile tlic discourse under tlic idea tliat it was actually spoken on a sino-le occasion, but with tlic clearest knowledge tliat such was
0• o
not tlic casc.§ It is witli justice remarked in opposition to this, that when Mattliew represents Jesus as ascending tlie mountain before he begins Ills discourse, and descending after its close, he obviously makes tlicse two incidents tlic limits of a single address; and that wlien lie speaks of tlie impression which the discourse produced on the multitude, wliose presence lie states as the inducement to its delivery, lie could not but intend to convey tlie idea of a continuous harangue. || As to Luke’s edition of tlie sermon, there are parts in which the interrupted connexion betrays deficiencies, and there are
* Comp. De “ft’ette, exeg, Handbuch, 1, 1, S. 47 it’. 1, 2, S. 44.+ Tholuck, S.
24; Paulus, exeg. Handb., 1. B. S. 584.f. Schuiz, vom Abendmalil, S. 313 f.; Sieffert, S. 74 ft’.; Fritzsclie, S. 301.^ Okhausen, bibl. Comm., 1, S. 197; Kmi, in der Tub. Schrift, 1 834. 2. S. 33.II Schuiz-ut sun. S. 31,-’> • S<.linr.,.1,-,.n)iiir
 
360 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
additions which do not look genuine ;* it is also doubtful whether lie assigns a more appropriate connexion to the passages in the position of wliicli lie differs from Matthew ;f and hence, as we shall soon sec more fully, lie lias in this instance no advantage over his predecessor.
 
Tlie assemblage to whom the sermon on the mount was addressed, might from Luke’s account be supposed a narrow circle, for he states that the clioice of tlie apostles immediately preceded the discourse, and that at its commencement Jesus lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and he does not, like Matthew, note the multitude, oy/lovf, as part of tlie audience. On tlic other hand, Matthew also mentions that before tlie sermon the disciples gathered round Jesus and were taught by him; and Luke represents tlie discourse as being delivered in tlie audience of’the people (vii. 1); it is therefore evident tliat Jesus spoke to the crowd in general, but with a particular view to tlie edification of his disciples, j: We have no reason to doubt that a real harangue of Jesus, more than ordinarily solemn and public, was tlie foundation of the evangelical accounts before us.
 
Let us now proceed to an examination of particulars. In botli editions, the sermon on the mount is opened by a series of beatitudes ; in Luke, however, not only are several wanting which we find in Mattliew, but most of those common to both are in the former taken in another sense than in the latter.S The poor, TTTG)%O’I., are not specified as in Matthew by the addition, in spirit, ru TTVEVl^aT!; they are therefore not those who have a deep consciousness of inward poverty and misery, but tlie literally poor; neither is the liunger of the TTEIV&V-SC; (hungering) referred to T^V 6LK.aioawi]v (righteousness); it is therefore not spiritual hunger, but bodily;
 
moreover, the adverb vvv, now, definitively marks out those zvho hunger and those w/io weep, the tetvuv-eg and icXaiov-e^. Thus in Luke tlie antithesis is not, as in Mattliew, between the present sorrows of pious souls, whose pure desires are yet unsatisfied, and their satisfaction about to come; but between present suffering and future well-being in general.|| Tills mode of contrasting the aluv ov-og and tlie aluv y.i’k\w, the present age and the future, is elsewhere observable in Luke, especially in tlie parable of the rich man;
 
and without here inquiring which of tlie two representations is probably tlie original, I shall merely remark, that tills of Luke is conceived entirely in tlie spirit of tlie Ebionites,-a spirit which has of late been supposed discernible in Matthew.
 
It is a capital principle with tlie Ebionites, as they are depicted in the Clementine Homilies, that he wlio lias Ills portion in tlie present age, will be destitute in tlie age to come; wliile he who renounces eartlily pos
* Schleiermacher, uber den Lnkas, S. 89 f.•{• Tholnck, p. 11, and my Review ot the writings of Sien’crt and others in the Jahrbuch fur wiss. Kritik, Nov. 1834 ; now in my Charaktci istiken und Kritiken, S. 252 ff. . { Comp. Tholuck, ut sup. 8. 23 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handl.uch, 1, 1, S. 49.§ Storr, uber den Zweck u. s. w., S. 348 f. Ols

Other books

Cauliflower Ears by Bill Nagelkerke
Slow Sculpture by Theodore Sturgeon
Wolf's Bane by D. H. Cameron
"H" Is for Homicide by Sue Grafton
Sharp Turn by Marianne Delacourt
ValiasVillain by Jocelyn Dex