Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (754 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
8.36Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
DISCOL’RSES OF JESL’.S IX •rill’; TUBEE FIKST GOSPELS.
sessions, thereby accumulates heavenly treasures.* The last beatitude relates to tliose who are persecuted for tlie sake of Jesus. Luke in tlie parallel passage has, for tlie Son of man’s sake; hence the words for my sake in Mattliew, must be understood to refer to Jesus solely in his character of Messiah, f
Tlie beatitudes are followed in Luke by as many woes oval, which are wanting in Mattliew.In thcae tlie opposition established by the Ebionites between this world and tlie other, is yet more strongly marked; for woe is denounced on the rich, tlie full, and the joyous, simply as such, and tlicy are threatened with the evils corresponding to their present advantages, under tlie new order of tilings to be introduced by the Messiah; a view tliat reminds us of tlie Epistle of James, v. 1 ff. The last woe is somewhat stiffly formed after the model of tlic last beatitude, for it is evidently for tlie sake of tlie contrast to tlie true prophets, so much calumniated, tliat the false prophets are said, without any historical foundation, to have been spoken well of by all men.We may therefore conjecture, witli Schleiermacher,^ tliat we are indebted for tliese maledictions to the inventive fertility of tlie author of tlie third gospel. He added this supplement to the beatitudes, less because, as Schleiermacher supposes, lie perceived a chasm, which he knew not how to fill, than because he judged it consistent with tlie character of tlie Messiah, that, like Moses of old, lie sliould couple curses witli blessings. Tlie sermon on tlie mount is regarded as tlic counterpart of tlie law, delivered on Mount Sinai; but tlie introduction, especially in Luke, reminds us more of a passage in Deuteronomy, in which Moses commands tliat on tlie entrance of tlie Israclitish people into the promised land, one half of them sliall take their stand on Mount Gerizim, and pronounce a manifold blessing on tlie observers of tlie law, tlic other half on Mount Ebal, whence they were to fulminate as manifold a curse on its transgressors. We read in Josli. vili.
33 ft”, that this injunction was fiilfilled.§
With the beatitudes, Mattliew suitably connects tlie representation of tlic disciples as the salt of the earth, and the light of the •world (v. 13 ff.) In Luke, tlie discourse on the salt is, witli a rather different opening, introduced in another place (xiv. 34 f.), where Jesus admonishes his hearers to ponder the sacrifices tliat must be made by those wlio would follow him, and rather to abstain from.
the profession of discipleship than to maintain it dishonourably; and to this succeeds aptly enough the comparison of sucli degenerate disciples to salt that lias lost its savour. Thus the dictum accords
* Homil. xv. 7; coinp. Credner in Winer’s Zeitschrift f.wiss. Theologie, 1, S. 293 f.;
Schneckcnbiirger, uber das livangelium del- Aegyptier, § 6.f Schneekenburger, uber den Ursprung, S. 29. t Ut sup. S. 90. Neander agrees with him, ut sup. § The Kabbins also attached weight to these Mosaic blessings and curses, vid. Ligtitfoot, p 25o. As here we have eight blessings, they held that Abraham had been blessed benedictiomhus septem (Eaal Turini, in Gvu. xii. Lightfoot, p. 2,’iG); David, Daniel with his three companions, and the Messiah, benedictlonibus sex. (Targ. Kuth. 3. ibid.) They also counted together with tlie twenty beatitudlnes in the Psaims, as many ras in Isaiah. (Midrasch
THE LITE OF JESCS.
with either context, and from its aphoristical conciseness would be likely to recur, so that it, may have been really spoken in both discourses.On the contrary, it cannot have been spoken in tlie sequence in wliich it is placed by Mark (ix. 50): tor tlie idea tliat every one shall be salted with fire (in allusion to hell), lias no internal connexion with tlie comparison of tlie true disciples of Jesus to salt, denoting tlieir superiority; tlie connexion is merely external, resulting from tlie verbal affinity of aU^sw and
Tlie apothegm on tlie liglit which is not to be hidden, as tlie salt is not to be without savour, is also wanting in tlie sermon on tlie mount as given by Luke; who, however, omitting tlie special application to tlie disciples, lias substantially the same doctrine in two different places. We rind it tirst (viii. 16.) immediately after tlie ‘‘ntcrpretation of the parable of tlie sower, where it also occurs in Mark (iv.
21). It must be admitted that there is no incoherence in associating the shinino’ of the liaht with the fuctification of the seed; still, a
0
0
‘ ‘
0
‘ ‘
judicious teacher will pause on tlie interpretation of a parable, and will not disturb its effect by a hasty transition to new images. At any rate there is no intrinsic connexion between the shining of the inward liglit, and tlie declaration appended to it by Luke, that all secrets sliall be made manifest.We liave here a case which is of frequent recurrence with tills evangelist; tliat, namely, of a variety of isolated sayings being thrown confusedly together between two independent discourses or narratives. Thus between tlie parable of tlie sower and the narrative of the visit paid to Jesus by his mother and brethren, tlie apothegm on the liglit is inserted on account of its internal analogy with tlie parable ; then, because in this apothegm there occurs the opposition between concealment and manifestation, it suggested to tlie writer tlie otherwise heterogeneous discourse on tlie revelation of all secrets; whereupon is added, quite irrelevantly to the context, but, witli some relation to tlie parable, tlie declaration, Whosoever hath, to him shall be given. In tlie second passage on tlie manifestation of tlie liglit (xi. 33), tlie subject lias absolutely no connexion, unless we interpolate onc,t witli that of tlie context, which turns on tlie condemnation of the cotcmporaries of Jesus by the Nincvitcs. The fact is, that here again, between the discourses against tlie demand for signs and tliose at tlie Pharisee’s dinner, we have a chasm filled up witli disjointed fragments of harangues.
At v. 17 ft”, follows tlie transition to tlie main subject of the sermon ; the assurance of Jesus tliat lie came not to destroy tlie law and tlie prophets, but to fulfil, &c.Now as Jesus herein plainly
* Schneckenliurgcr, Beitrage, S. 58. Neander tries to show, very artificially, a real n^nn^inn ^+’tlirtno-ht s- I.”i7- Anm.-T Olslmusen in loc. Tlie tme reading is indicated
MSCOL’RSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIEST GOSPELS.363
presupposes tliat lie is himself the Messiah, to whom was ascribed authority to abolish a part of tlie law, tins declaration cannot properly belong to a period in which, if Matt. xvi. 13 ff. -he rightly placed, lie had not yet declared himself to be tlie Messiah. Luke (xvi.
17) inserts this declaration together witli tlie apparently contradictory one, tliat tlie law and tlie prophets were in force until the coming of John.These arc two propositions tliat we cannot suppose to have been uttcrrcd consecutively; and tlie secret of their conjunction in Luke’s gospel lies in tlie word i-’o/toc, law, which happens to occur in both.*’
It is to be observed that between tlie parable of the steward and tliat of tlie rich man, we have another of tliose pauses in which Luke is fond of introducing his fragments.
It is to be observed that between tlie parable of the steward and tliat of tlie rich man, we have another of tliose pauses in which Luke is fond of introducing his fragments.
So little, it appears from v. 20, is it the design of Jesus to inculcate a disregard of tlie Mosaic law, tliat lie requires a far stricter observance of its precepts than tlie Scribes and Pharisees, and lie makes the latter appear in contrast to himself as tlie underminers of the law.
Then follows a scries of Mosaic commandments, on which Jesus comments so as to show tliat lie penetrates into tlie spirit of tlie law, instead of cleaving to tlie mere letter, and especially discerns tlie worthlessness of the rabbinical glosses (48). This section, in tlie order and completeness in wliicli we find it in Matthew, is wanting in Luke’s sermon on tlie mount; a decisive proof tliat tlie latter has deficiencies.
For not only does tills chapter contain the fundamental thought of tlie discourse as given by Mattliew, but tlie desultory sayings wliicli Luke gives, concerning the love of enemies, mercifulness and beneficence, only acquire a definite purpose, and point of union in the contrast between tlie spiritual interpretation of the law given by Jesus, and tlie carnal one given by the doctors of the time.
Tlie words, too, with wliich Luke makes Jesua proceed after the last woe: -But I say unto you, and those at v. 39, .And he spake a parable unto them, have been correctly pointed out as indicative of chasms, f As regards the isolated parallel passages, tlie admonition to a quick reconciliation with an adversary (v. 25 f.), is, to say the least, not so easily brought into connexion with the foregoing matter in Luke (xii. 58.) as in Matthew.:}: It is still worse witli tlie passage in Luke wliicli is parallel witli Matt. v. 32; this text (relative to divorce), wliicli in Matthew is linked in the general chain of ideas, is in Luke (xvi. 18.) thrust into one of tlie apertures we have noticed, between tlie assurance of the perpetuity of tlie law and tlie parable of tlie rich man.
Olshauscn tries to find a thread of connexion between tlie passage and tlie one preceding it, by interpreting adultery, fioi.^eveiv, allegorically, as faithlessness to tlie divine law; and Schleiermacher§ attaclies it to tlie succeeding parable by referring it to tlie adulterous Herod: but such interpretations are altogether visionary. [| Probably tradition had apprized
Then follows a scries of Mosaic commandments, on which Jesus comments so as to show tliat lie penetrates into tlie spirit of tlie law, instead of cleaving to tlie mere letter, and especially discerns tlie worthlessness of the rabbinical glosses (48). This section, in tlie order and completeness in wliicli we find it in Matthew, is wanting in Luke’s sermon on tlie mount; a decisive proof tliat tlie latter has deficiencies.
For not only does tills chapter contain the fundamental thought of tlie discourse as given by Mattliew, but tlie desultory sayings wliicli Luke gives, concerning the love of enemies, mercifulness and beneficence, only acquire a definite purpose, and point of union in the contrast between tlie spiritual interpretation of the law given by Jesus, and tlie carnal one given by the doctors of the time.
Tlie words, too, with wliich Luke makes Jesua proceed after the last woe: -But I say unto you, and those at v. 39, .And he spake a parable unto them, have been correctly pointed out as indicative of chasms, f As regards the isolated parallel passages, tlie admonition to a quick reconciliation with an adversary (v. 25 f.), is, to say the least, not so easily brought into connexion with the foregoing matter in Luke (xii. 58.) as in Matthew.:}: It is still worse witli tlie passage in Luke wliicli is parallel witli Matt. v. 32; this text (relative to divorce), wliicli in Matthew is linked in the general chain of ideas, is in Luke (xvi. 18.) thrust into one of tlie apertures we have noticed, between tlie assurance of the perpetuity of tlie law and tlie parable of tlie rich man.
Olshauscn tries to find a thread of connexion between tlie passage and tlie one preceding it, by interpreting adultery, fioi.^eveiv, allegorically, as faithlessness to tlie divine law; and Schleiermacher§ attaclies it to tlie succeeding parable by referring it to tlie adulterous Herod: but such interpretations are altogether visionary. [| Probably tradition had apprized
* This cause is overlooked by Schleicrmacher, S. 203; conip. De Wette, in loc.
+ Schkierniacher, ut sup. S. 90. Tholuck, S. 21. t Tholuck. S. 12. 187 : De Wette. in
364 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
the evangelist tliat Jesus, after tlie foregoing declaration as to the perpetuity of the Mosaic law, had enunciated his severe principle on the subject of divorce, and hence lie gave it tin’s position, not knowing more of its original connexion. In Matt. xix. 9, we find a reiteration of this principle on an occasion very likely to call it forth.
The exhortations to patience and submissivencss, form, in Matthew, the spiritual interpretation of the old rule, an eye for an eye, &c., and are therefore a following out of the previous train of thought.
Ill Luke (vi. 29.), they are introduced witli much less precision by the command concerning love to enemies: which command is also decidedly better given in Matthew as tlic rectification of the precept, T/ion shalt love thy neighbour, and hate. thine enemy (43 ff.).
Again: tlie observation that to love friends is notliing more than bad men can do, is, in Matthew, made, in order to controvert the traditional perversion of the Mosaic injunction to love one’s neighbour, into a permission to hate enemies: in Luke, the observation follows the rule, Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, &c., which in Matthew occurs farther on (vli. 12.) without any connexion. On the whole, if tlie passage in Luke from vi. 2-36, be compared with tlie corresponding one in Mattliew, there will be found in tlie latter an orderly course of thought; in the former, considerable confusion.*
Tlie warnings against Pharisaic hypocrisy (vi. 1-6) are without a parallel in Luke; but he lias one of the model prayer, which recent criticism lias turned not a little to the disadvantage of Matthew.
The ancient harmonists, it is true, had no hesitation in supposing that Jesus delivered tills prayer twice,-in tlie connexion in wliicli it is given by Mattliew as well as under tlie circumstances narrated by Luke (xi. 1 ff.).+ But if Jesus had already in the sermon on tlic mount given a model prayer, his disciplea would scarcely have requested one afterwards, as if nothing of tlic kind had occurcd; and it is still more improbable tliat Jesus would repeat the same formulary, without any recollection tliat lie liad delivered it to these disciples long before. Hence our most recent critics liave decided tliat Luke alone lias preserved tlie natural and true occasion on which this prayer was communicated, and tliat like many other fragments, it was interpolated in Mattlicw’s sermon on the mount by tlie writer.^
But the vaunted naturalness of Luke’s representation, I, for one, cannot discover. Apart from the improbability, admitted even by the above critics, that tlie disciples of Jesus sliould have remained without any direction to pray until tlie last journey, in which Luke places the scene; it is anything but natural tliat Jesus should abstain from giving his disciples the exemplar which was in his mind until they souglit for it, and tliat tlien lie should forthwith fall intc prayer. He had, doubtless, often prayed in their circle from the
Other books
Peepshow by Leigh Redhead
The Amulet by William Meikle
THE TOKEN by Tamara Blodgett
A Season of Hope by Caldwell, Christi
The Altar by James Arthur Anderson
El nacimiento de la tragedia by Friedrich Nietzsche
Ghost Mimic by Jonathan Moeller
An Impossible Dilemma: A Psychological Thriller Novel by Netta Newbound
Cold Copper: The Age of Steam by Devon Monk
Charity Moon by DeAnna Kinney