Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (758 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
5.03Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
DISCOUESES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.377
That by this addition the previous parable was placed in a thoroughly false liglit, gave tlie writer little concern, perhaps because lie liad not seized its real meaning, or because, in the endeavour completely to disburtlien his evangelical meaning, lie lost all solicitude about tlie sequence of his passages.
It ouglit, in general, to be more considered, tliat those of our evangelists wlio, according to tlie now prevalent opinion, noted down oral traditions, must, in tlie composition of their writings have exerted their memory to an extent tliat would repress tlie activity of reflection; consequently tlie arrangement of the materials in their narratives is o-ovcrned by the association of ideas, tlie laws of wliicli are partly dependent on external relations; and we need not be surprised to find many passages, especially from the discourses of Jesus, ranged together for tlie sole cause tliat they happen to have in common certain striking consonant words.
It ouglit, in general, to be more considered, tliat those of our evangelists wlio, according to tlie now prevalent opinion, noted down oral traditions, must, in tlie composition of their writings have exerted their memory to an extent tliat would repress tlie activity of reflection; consequently tlie arrangement of the materials in their narratives is o-ovcrned by the association of ideas, tlie laws of wliicli are partly dependent on external relations; and we need not be surprised to find many passages, especially from the discourses of Jesus, ranged together for tlie sole cause tliat they happen to have in common certain striking consonant words.
If from hence we glance back on the position, tliat tlie parable of the unjust steward must have been spoken in connexion with the foregoing one of tlie prodigal son, we perceive tliat it rests merely on a false interpretation.According to Schleicrmachcr, it is the defence of the publicans against tlie Pharisees, that forms the bond;
but there is no trace of publicans and Pharisees in the latter parable.
According to Olshauscn, tlie compassionate love of God, represented in the foregoing parable, is placed in juxtaposition witli tlie compassionate love of man, represented in tlie succeeding one; but simple beneficence is the sole idea on which the latter turns, and a parallel between tills and tlie manner in wliicli God meets the lost with pardon, is equally remote from the intention of the teacher and the nature of tlie subject.
Tlie remark (v. 14) tliat tlie Pharisees heard all tliesc tilings, and, being covetous, derided Jesus, docs not necessarily refer to tlie individuals mentioned xv. 2, so as to imply that they liad listened to tlie intermediate matter as one continuous discourse ; and even if tliat were tlie case, it would only show tlie view of tlie writer witli respect to tlie connectedness of tlie parables; a view wliicli, in tlie face of the foregoing investigation, cannot possibly be binding on us.*
Tlie remark (v. 14) tliat tlie Pharisees heard all tliesc tilings, and, being covetous, derided Jesus, docs not necessarily refer to tlie individuals mentioned xv. 2, so as to imply that they liad listened to tlie intermediate matter as one continuous discourse ; and even if tliat were tlie case, it would only show tlie view of tlie writer witli respect to tlie connectedness of tlie parables; a view wliicli, in tlie face of the foregoing investigation, cannot possibly be binding on us.*
We have already discussed the passage from v. 15 to 18; it consists of disconnected sayings, and to tlie last, on adultery, is annexed tlie parable of tlie ricli man, in a manner which, as we have already noticed, it is attempted in vain to show as a real connexion.
It must, however, be conceded to Schleiermachcr, that if we separate them, tlie alternative, namely, tlie common application of tlie parable to tlie penal justice of God, is attended witli great difficulties.t For there is no indication throughout tlie parable, of any actions on tlie part of the rich man and Lazarus, tliat could, according to our notions, justify tlie exaltation of the one to a place in Abraham’s
dislocation of the associated passages, arc only so many proofs that it is absolutely r&
quisite to a satisfactory interpretatioiii
378 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
bosom, and the condemnation of the other to torment; the guilt of the
one appears to lie in his wealth, tlie merit of the other in his poverty.
It is indeed generally supposed of the rich man, tliat lie was immoderate in his indulgence, and that he had treated Lazarus unkindly.* But tlie latter is nowhere intimated; for tlie picture of the beggar lying at tlie door of the rich man, is not intended in tlie light of a reproach to the latter, because lie might easily have tendered his aid, and yet neglected to do so ; it is designed to exhibit the contrast, not only between the earthly condition of tlie two parties, but between their proximity in this life, and their wide separation in another.
So tlie other particular, tliat tlie beggar was eager for tlie crumbs that fell from tlie rich man’s table, docs not imply tliat the rich man denied him tills pittance, or tliat lie ought to have given him more tlian the mere crumbs; it denotes the deep degradation of tlie earthly lot of Lazarus compared witli that of the rich man, in opposition to their reversed position after death, when tlie ricli man is fain to entreat for a drop of water from the hand of Lazarus. On the supposition tliat tlie rich man liad been wanting in compassion towards Lazarus, tlie Abraham of tlie parable could only reply in the following manner: “Thou liadst once easy access to Lazarus, and yet thou didst not, relieve him; how then canst thou expect him to traverse a long distance to give tliee alleviation ?”
So tlie other particular, tliat tlie beggar was eager for tlie crumbs that fell from tlie rich man’s table, docs not imply tliat the rich man denied him tills pittance, or tliat lie ought to have given him more tlian the mere crumbs; it denotes the deep degradation of tlie earthly lot of Lazarus compared witli that of the rich man, in opposition to their reversed position after death, when tlie ricli man is fain to entreat for a drop of water from the hand of Lazarus. On the supposition tliat tlie rich man liad been wanting in compassion towards Lazarus, tlie Abraham of tlie parable could only reply in the following manner: “Thou liadst once easy access to Lazarus, and yet thou didst not, relieve him; how then canst thou expect him to traverse a long distance to give tliee alleviation ?”
The sumptuous life of tlie rich man, likewise, is only depicted as a contrast to the misery of tlie beggar ; for if lie liad been supposed guilty of excess, Abraham must have reminded him tliat lie liad taken too much of tlie good things of this life, not merely tliat lie liad received Ins share of them. Equally groundless is it, on tlie other hand, to suppose high moral excellencies in Lazarus, since there is no intimation of such in tlie description of him, which merely regards his outward condition,-neither are such ascribed to him by Abraham: his sole merit is, the having received evil in this life.
Thus, in this parable tlie measure of future recompense is not the amount of good done, or wickedness perpetrated, but of evil endured, and fortune cnjoyed,t and tlie aptcst motto for this discourse is to be found in the sermon on tlie mount, according to Luke’s edition:
-Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kinydom of God!
Woe. to you tliat are, ‘ricli ! for ye /lave received i/our consolation; a passage concerning which we have already remarked, tliat it accords fully witli tlie Ebionite view of tlie world. A similar estimation of external poverty is ascribed to Jesns by the other synoptists, in tlie narrative of tlie rich young man, and in tlie aphorisms on tlie camel and tlie needle’s eye (Matt. xix. 16 tf.; Mark x. 17 if.; comp. Luke xviii. 18 ff.). Whether this estimation belong to Jesus himself, or only to tlie synoptical tradition concerning liirn, it was probably generated by the notions of tlie Essencs.f We have hitherto con
Woe. to you tliat are, ‘ricli ! for ye /lave received i/our consolation; a passage concerning which we have already remarked, tliat it accords fully witli tlie Ebionite view of tlie world. A similar estimation of external poverty is ascribed to Jesns by the other synoptists, in tlie narrative of tlie rich young man, and in tlie aphorisms on tlie camel and tlie needle’s eye (Matt. xix. 16 tf.; Mark x. 17 if.; comp. Luke xviii. 18 ff.). Whether this estimation belong to Jesus himself, or only to tlie synoptical tradition concerning liirn, it was probably generated by the notions of tlie Essencs.f We have hitherto con
* Ti
t Comp. De Wettc, 1, 2, S. 86 f.
t On tlie Essencs as contemners nf ririirs (naTafpavriTuf; irAorroi;), coiiip.
Joseph, li. j. ii. viii. 3; Cnidiicr, ilber
t Comp. De Wettc, 1, 2, S. 86 f.
t On tlie Essencs as contemners nf ririirs (naTafpavriTuf; irAorroi;), coiiip.
Joseph, li. j. ii. viii. 3; Cnidiicr, ilber
DISCOUESES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIEST GOSPELS.379
sidcicd the contents of tlie parable down to v. 27; from whence to tlie conclusion tlie subject is, tlie writings of tlie Old Testament as the adequate and only means of grace.
In conclusion, we turn to a group of parables, among which some, as relating to tlie death and return of Christ, ought, according to our plan, to be exccptcd from tlie present, review; but so far as thcv arc connected with tlie rest, it is necessary to include them.
They arc tlie three parables of tlie rebellions husbandmen in tlie vineyard (Matt. xxi. 33 •ff. parall.), of the talents or mina; (Matt.
xxv. 14 ft’.: Luke xix. 12 ff.), and tlie marringe feast (Matt. xxii.
3 ff. ; Luke xiv. 16 ff.).
Of these tlie parable of the husbandmen in all tlie accounts, that of the talents in Matthew, and that of tlie marriage feast in Luke, arc simple parables, unattended with difficulty. -Not so tlie parable of tlie mina’ in Luke, and of tlie marriage feast in Matthew. Tliat tlie former is fundamentally tlie same witli tliat of tiie talents in Mattliew, is undeniable, notwithstanding tlie many divergencies. In botli are found tlie journey of a master; tlie assembling of tlie servants to entrust them with a capital, to be put into circulation ; after tlie return of tlie master, a reckoning in wliicli three servants arc. signalized, two of them as active, the third as inactive, whence tlie latter is punished, and tlie former rewarded ; and in tlie annunciation of tills issue tlie words of tlie master are nearly identical in tlie two statements. Tlie principal divergency is, tliat besides tlie relation between tlie master wlio journeys into a far country and his servants, in Luke there is a second relation between tlie forincr and certain rebellious citizens; and accordingly, wliile in Mattliew tlie piaster is simply designated avOpu-oc;, a man, in Luke lie is styled av0pu-:o(; evyevt^, a nobleman, and a J-dnydo’nz is assigned to him, the object of Ins journey being to receive, for himself a kingdom: an object of wliicli there is no mention in Mattliew. The subjects of tins personage, it is farther said, hated him, and after his departure renounced their allegiance. Hence at tlie return of tlie lord, tlie rebellious citizens, as well as tlie slothful servant, arc punished;
Of these tlie parable of the husbandmen in all tlie accounts, that of the talents in Matthew, and that of tlie marriage feast in Luke, arc simple parables, unattended with difficulty. -Not so tlie parable of tlie mina’ in Luke, and of tlie marriage feast in Matthew. Tliat tlie former is fundamentally tlie same witli tliat of tiie talents in Mattliew, is undeniable, notwithstanding tlie many divergencies. In botli are found tlie journey of a master; tlie assembling of tlie servants to entrust them with a capital, to be put into circulation ; after tlie return of tlie master, a reckoning in wliicli three servants arc. signalized, two of them as active, the third as inactive, whence tlie latter is punished, and tlie former rewarded ; and in tlie annunciation of tills issue tlie words of tlie master are nearly identical in tlie two statements. Tlie principal divergency is, tliat besides tlie relation between tlie master wlio journeys into a far country and his servants, in Luke there is a second relation between tlie forincr and certain rebellious citizens; and accordingly, wliile in Mattliew tlie piaster is simply designated avOpu-oc;, a man, in Luke lie is styled av0pu-:o(; evyevt^, a nobleman, and a J-dnydo’nz is assigned to him, the object of Ins journey being to receive, for himself a kingdom: an object of wliicli there is no mention in Mattliew. The subjects of tins personage, it is farther said, hated him, and after his departure renounced their allegiance. Hence at tlie return of tlie lord, tlie rebellious citizens, as well as tlie slothful servant, arc punished;
but in their case tlie retribution is tliat of dca.tli: the faithful servants, on tlie other liand, are not only rewarded generally by an entrance into tlie joy of their Lord, but royally, by the gift of a number of cities. There are other divergencies of less moment between Luke and Mattliew; such as, tliat the number of servants is undetermined by tlie one, and limited to ten by tlie other; tliat in Mattliew they receive talents, in Luke mina’; in tlie one unequal sums, in the other equal; in tlie one, they obtain unequal profits from unequal sums by an equal expenditure of effort, and arc therefore equally rewarded; in the other, they obtain unequal profits from equal sums by an unequal expenditure of effort, and arc therefore unequally rewarded.
Supposing tills parable to have proceeded from tlie lips of Jesus on two separate occasions, and that Mattliew and Luke are right in
“tlir’ir TOti’nt’l’+l \’<^ m.-l’nnfVo^inTi+a 1in i-t-inc-+ hn^Q /-ii-ilnr^i-o--! i+ +-H.C-+ 111 +lii^
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
more complex form given by Luke, and then in tlie simple one given by Matthew ;”* since the former places it before, tlie latter after the entrance into Jerusalem. But this would be contrary to all analogy.
The first presentation of an idea is, according to the laws of thought, the most simple ; -with tlie second new relations may be perceived, the subject may be viewed under various aspects, and brought into manifold combinations. There is, therefore, a foundation for Schlciermachcr’s opinion, that contrary to tlie arrangement in tlie Gospels, Jesus first delivered the parable in tlie more simple form, and amplified it on a subsequent occasion.f But for our particular case tills order is not less inconceivable than tlie other. The author of a composition such as a parable, especially when it exists only in his mind and on his lips, and is not yet fixed in writing, remains the perfect master of Ins materials even on tlicir second and more elaborate presentation ; tlie form wliicli lie had previously given to them is not rigid and inflexible, but pliant, so tliat lie can adapt tlie original thoughts and images to the additional ones, and thus give unity to his production. Hence, liad he wlio gave tlie above parable tlie form wliicli it lias in Luke, been its real author, lie would, after having transformed the master into a king, and inserted the particulars respecting the rebellious citizens, have entrusted arms to tlie servants instead of money (comp. Luke xxii. 36.), ^ and would have made them show tlicir fidelity rather by conflict with tlie rebels, tlian by increasing their capital; or in general would have introduced some relation between tlie two classes of persons in tlie parable, tlie servants and tlie citizens ; instead of wliicli, tlicy are totally unconnected throughout, and form two ill-cemented divisions.§
This sliows very decisively that tlie parable was not enriclied with tliese additional particulars by tlie imagination of its author, but tliat it was tlius amplified by another in tlie process of transmission.
Tills cannot have been effected in a legendary manner, by tlie gradual filling up of the original sketch, or the development of the primitive germ; for tlie idea of rebellious citizens could never be evolved from that of servants and talents, but must have been added from without, and therefore have previously existed as part of an independent whole.
This amounts to tlie position tliat we have here an example of two originally distinct parables, tlie one treating of servants and talents, the other of rebellious citizens, flowing together in consequence of tlicir mutually possessing the images of a ruler’s departure and return. || Tlie proof of our proposition must depend on our being able easily to disentangle tlie two parables : and tills we can effect in tlie most satisfactory manner, for by extracting v. 12, 14, 15, and 27, and slightly modifying them, we get in a, rather curtailed but consistent form, tlie
Tills cannot have been effected in a legendary manner, by tlie gradual filling up of the original sketch, or the development of the primitive germ; for tlie idea of rebellious citizens could never be evolved from that of servants and talents, but must have been added from without, and therefore have previously existed as part of an independent whole.
This amounts to tlie position tliat we have here an example of two originally distinct parables, tlie one treating of servants and talents, the other of rebellious citizens, flowing together in consequence of tlicir mutually possessing the images of a ruler’s departure and return. || Tlie proof of our proposition must depend on our being able easily to disentangle tlie two parables : and tills we can effect in tlie most satisfactory manner, for by extracting v. 12, 14, 15, and 27, and slightly modifying them, we get in a, rather curtailed but consistent form, tlie
Other books
Edin's embrace by Nadine Crenshaw
Things That Go Hump In The Night by Amanda Jones, Bliss Devlin, Steffanie Holmes, Lily Marie, Artemis Wolffe, Christy Rivers, Terra Wolf, Lily Thorn, Lucy Auburn, Mercy May
The Captive Heart by Dale Cramer
Jaclyn the Ripper by Karl Alexander
Damage Control (Valiant Knox) by Jess Anastasi
A Good Killing by Allison Leotta
The Alpine Advocate by Mary Daheim
This Gorgeous Game by Donna Freitas
Indecent by L. J. Anderson
Seventeen Against the Dealer by Cynthia Voigt