Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (761 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
8.39Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Immediately before tills question of Jesus, the first two evangelists narrate a conversation witli a lawyer, vofiiiwg, or scribe, ypafi/m-Evc, concerning the greatest commandment. (Matt. xxii. 34 ff.;
Mark xii. 28 ff.) Matthew annexes this conversation to the dispute with tlie Sadducees, as if tlie Pharisees wislicd, by their question as to the greatest commandment, to avenge tlie defeat of tlie Sadducees. It is well known, however, that these sects were not thus friendly; on the contrary, -we read in tlie Acts (xxiii. 7), tliat the Pharisees were inclined to go over to the side of one wliom they had
.«.„., -nr . . .
. ,TT...^^.
I
<-,i...,».i i „ c 1 In e . «l«n Pan1ns himself.
. ,TT...^^.
I
<-,i...,».i i „ c 1 In e . «l«n Pan1ns himself.
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THEEE FIRST GOSPELS.389
previously persecuted, solely because he had had the address to take the position of an opponent towards the Sadducees. We may Iiere quote Schneckenburger’s observation,* that Matthew not seldom (iii. 7 ; xvi. 1) places the Pharisees and Sadducees side by side in a way tliat represents, not their real hostility, but their association in tlie memory of tradition, in wliich one opposite suggested another.
In flits respect, Mark’s mode of annexing tills conversation to tile foregoing, is more consistent; but all tlie synoptists seem to labour under a common mistake in supposing tliat tliesc discussions, grouped together in tradition on account of their analogy, followed each other so closely in time, that one colloquy elicited another. Luke does not give the question concerning tlie greatest commandment in connexion with tlie controversies on the resurrection and on tlie Messiah ; but lie lias a similar incident earlier, in his narrative of the journey to Jerusalem (x. 25 ft’.).
The general opinion is tliat the first two evangelists recount tlie same occurrence, and the third, a distinct one.f It is true tliat tlie narrative of Luke differs from that of Mattliew and Mark, in several not immaterial points.
The first difference, which we liave already noticed, relates to chronological position, and this has been tlie cliief inducement to tlie supposition of two events.
The next difference lies in the nature of the question, which, in Luke, turns on the rule of life calculated to insure tlie inheritance of eternal life, but, in tlie other evangelists, on tlie greatest commandment. The third difference is in tlie subject wlio pronounces this commandment, tlie first two synoptists representing it to be Jesus, tlie third, tlie lawyer. Lastly, there is a difference as to tlie issue, tlie lawyer in Luke putting a second, self-vindicatory, question, wliich calls forth the parable of tlie good Samaritan;
The general opinion is tliat the first two evangelists recount tlie same occurrence, and the third, a distinct one.f It is true tliat tlie narrative of Luke differs from that of Mattliew and Mark, in several not immaterial points.
The first difference, which we liave already noticed, relates to chronological position, and this has been tlie cliief inducement to tlie supposition of two events.
The next difference lies in the nature of the question, which, in Luke, turns on the rule of life calculated to insure tlie inheritance of eternal life, but, in tlie other evangelists, on tlie greatest commandment. The third difference is in tlie subject wlio pronounces this commandment, tlie first two synoptists representing it to be Jesus, tlie third, tlie lawyer. Lastly, there is a difference as to tlie issue, tlie lawyer in Luke putting a second, self-vindicatory, question, wliich calls forth the parable of tlie good Samaritan;
while in tlie two other evangelists, lie retires either satisfied, or silenced by tlie answer to the first.
Meanwhile, even between the narrative of Mattliew and that of Mark, there are important divergencies.
The principal relates to tlie character of the querist, wlio in Matthew proposes liis question with a view to tempt Jesus (w)v) as the putting a person to tlie proof to subserve interested views, pronounces tliat the word -retpd^uv in tills instance can Only be intended in a good sense. But tlie sole ground for tills interpretation lies, not in Mattliew; but in Mark, and in the iinlbunded supposition tliat tlie two writers could not have a different idea of tlie character and intention of the inquiring doctor of tlie law.
Meanwhile, even between the narrative of Mattliew and that of Mark, there are important divergencies.
The principal relates to tlie character of the querist, wlio in Matthew proposes liis question with a view to tempt Jesus (w
Fritzsche lias correctly pointed out the difficulty of conciliating Mattliew and Mark as lying, partly in the meaning of the word mipd^v, and parly in tlie context, it being inadmissible to suppose one among a series of malevolent questions friendly, witliout any intimation of the distinction on tlie part of tlie writer. With tills important
* TT.I... .1.,.. TT,.^.:,.», „ „ c a AS 17.+ Pai.lna and Olsliause.i. in loc.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
diversity is connected the minor one, tliat while in Matthew, the scribe, after Jesus lias recited the two commandments, is silent, apparently from shame, which is no sign of a friendly disposition on his part towards Jesus; in Mark, lie not only bestows on Jesus tlic approving expression, Well, Muster, thou hast said the truth, but enlarges on Ills doctrine so as to draw from Jesus the declaration tliat lie lias answered discreetly, and is not far from the kingdom of God. It may be also noticed tliat while in Matthew Jesus simply repeats the commandment of love, in Mark lie prefaces it by the words, Hear, 0 Israel, the .Lord t/t.y God is one .Lord. Thus, if it be lield tliat tlie differences between tlie narrative of Luke, and tliat of the two other evangelists, entail a necessity for supposing that they arc founded on two separate events; tlie no slighter differences between Mark and Mattlicw, must in all consistency be made a reason for supposing a third. But it is so difficult to credit the reality of three occurrences essentially alike, tliat the other alternative, of reducing them to one, must, prejudice apart, be always preferred. The narratives of Mattlicw and Mark arc tlic most easily identified ; but there are not wanting points of contact between Matthew and Luke, for in both tlie lawyer vojuabc; appears as a tempter (rreipd^w’), and is not impressed in favour of Jesus by his answer;
nor even between Luke and Mark, for these agree in appending explanatory remarks to tlic greatest commandment, as w^ll as in tlic insertion of forms of assent, such as Thou heist answered right, Thozi hast said the truth.
Hence it is evident tliat to fuse only two of their narratives is a half measure, and that we must cither regard all three as independent, or all three as identical: whence again we may observe tlie freedom wliicli was used by tlic early Christian legend, in giving various forms to a single fact or idea,tlic fundamental fact in tlic present case being, tliat, out of tlie whole Mosaic code, Jesus liad selected tlic two commandments concerning tlic love of God and our neighbour as tlic most excellent.”*
Hence it is evident tliat to fuse only two of their narratives is a half measure, and that we must cither regard all three as independent, or all three as identical: whence again we may observe tlie freedom wliicli was used by tlic early Christian legend, in giving various forms to a single fact or idea,tlic fundamental fact in tlic present case being, tliat, out of tlie whole Mosaic code, Jesus liad selected tlic two commandments concerning tlic love of God and our neighbour as tlic most excellent.”*
We come now to tlie great anti-pharisaic discourse, which Matthew gives (xxiii.) as a sort of pitched battle after the skirmishing of tlie preceding disputations.Mark (xii. 38 ft’.) and Luke (xx.
45 ft’.) have also a discourse of Jesus against tlie scribes ypci/i/za-etc, but extending no farther than a few verses. It is however highly probable, as our modern critics allow, + that Jesus sliould launch out into fuller invectives against tliat body of men under tlie circumstances in which .Mattlicw places that discourse, and it is almost certain tliat such sharp enunciations must have preceded the catastrophe; so tliat it is not admissible to control tlie account of tlie first evangelist by tlie meagre one of tlie two other synoptists,t especially as tlic former is distinguished by connectedness and unity.
It is true tliat much of wliat Mattlicw here presents as a continuous address, is assigned by Luke to various scenes and occasions, and
* Conip. Dr. Wette, exeg. Handb., 3, 1, S. 18C. + Sieffert, uber den Urspruns des
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE THREE FIRST GOSPELS.
it would hence follow that the former has, in this case again, blended the original elements of tlie discourse with kindred matter, bclono-inoto the discourses of various periods,* if it could be shown tliat the.
arrangement of Luke is tlie correct one: a position which must therefore be examined. Those parts of the anti-pharisaic harangue which Luke has in common with Mattlicw, are, excepting tlie couple of verses which lie places in the same connexion as Matthew, introduced by him as concomitant with two entertainments to which lie represents Jesus as being invited by Pharisees (xi. 37 ft”. ; xiv. 1 ft’.)-a politeness on their part which appears in no other Gospel.Tlie expositors of tlie present day, almost with one voice, concur in admiring tlie naturalness and faithfulness witli which Luke lias preserved to us the original occasions of tliese discourses.! It is certainly natural enough tliat, in the second entertainment, Jesus, observing the efforts of tlie guests to obtain tlie highest places for themselves, sliould take occasion to admonish tlicra against assuming the precedence at feasts, even on the low ground of prudential considerations ; and tills admonition appears in a curtailed form, and without any special cause in tlic final anti-pharisaic discourse in Matthew, Mark, and even in Luke again (xx. 46).
But is it otherwise with tlie discourse wliicli Luke attaclics to tlie earlier entertainment in tlie Pharisee’s house. In tlic very commencement of this repast, Jesus not only speaks of tlie ravening, dpnayfj, and wickedness, TTorrjpia, with wliicli tlie Pharisees till tlie cup and platter, and honours them witli the title of fools, a(j)poveg, but breaks forth into a denunciation of woe oval, against them and tlie scribes and doctors of the law, threatening them with retribution for all tlic blood that liad been slied by their fathers, wliose deeds they approved. We grant tliat Attic urbanity is not to be expected in a Jcwisli teacher, but even according to tlie oriental standard, such invectives uttered at, table against tlie liost and his guests, would be the grossest dereliction of what is due to hospitality.
Tills was obvious to Schleiermaclier’s acute perception; and lie therefore supposes tliat the meal passed oft’ amicably, and tliat it was not until its close, when Jesus was again out of tlie house, tliat the host expressed his surprise at the neglect of the usual ablutions by Jesus and Ins disciples, and that Jesus answered witli so much asperity.^ But to assume that the writer has not described tlie meal itself and the incidents tliat accompanied it, and that lie has noticed it merely for tlie sake of its connexion witli tlio subsequent discourse, is an arbitrary mode of overcoming the diftieulty. For the text runs thus :
And he went in. and sat doicn to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled tliat lie, had not first -washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, elaeAOuv SK avKmoev b 6s ‘S’apiaalof i6w eOavpaaev, 6ri. ov TTpu-ov sl3a~~ia0r]-• sirrs SK 6 Kvpto^ 7-p6(- avTov.It is niani
But is it otherwise with tlie discourse wliicli Luke attaclics to tlie earlier entertainment in tlie Pharisee’s house. In tlic very commencement of this repast, Jesus not only speaks of tlie ravening, dpnayfj, and wickedness, TTorrjpia, with wliicli tlie Pharisees till tlie cup and platter, and honours them witli the title of fools, a(j)poveg, but breaks forth into a denunciation of woe oval, against them and tlie scribes and doctors of the law, threatening them with retribution for all tlic blood that liad been slied by their fathers, wliose deeds they approved. We grant tliat Attic urbanity is not to be expected in a Jcwisli teacher, but even according to tlie oriental standard, such invectives uttered at, table against tlie liost and his guests, would be the grossest dereliction of what is due to hospitality.
Tills was obvious to Schleiermaclier’s acute perception; and lie therefore supposes tliat the meal passed oft’ amicably, and tliat it was not until its close, when Jesus was again out of tlie house, tliat the host expressed his surprise at the neglect of the usual ablutions by Jesus and Ins disciples, and that Jesus answered witli so much asperity.^ But to assume that the writer has not described tlie meal itself and the incidents tliat accompanied it, and that lie has noticed it merely for tlie sake of its connexion witli tlio subsequent discourse, is an arbitrary mode of overcoming the diftieulty. For the text runs thus :
And he went in. and sat doicn to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled tliat lie, had not first -washed before dinner. And the Lord said unto him, elaeAOuv SK avKmoev b 6s ‘S’apiaalof i6w eOavpaaev, 6ri. ov TTpu-ov sl3a~~ia0r]-• sirrs SK 6 Kvpto^ 7-p6(- avTov.It is niani
* Schuiz, Ulicr (las Abendmahl, S. 313 f.; Schncckcnburger, liber den Ursprung, S.
54.t iSclileierniac-her, uber den Lukas, S. 182, 19(i, f.; Okhausen, in loc., and the
THE LIFE OP JESUS.
festly impossible to thrust in between these sentences the duration of tlie meal, and it must liave been tlie intention of the writer to attacli he. marvelled eOavyuicev to he sat down to meat dvs-reffsv, and he said ewer to he marvelled iOav^aaev. But if this could not really have been the case, unless Jesus violated in the grossest manner tlie simplest dictates of civility, there is an end to the vaunted accuracy of Luke in Ills allocation of tins discourse: and we have only to inquire how he could be led to give it so false a position.
Tills is to be discovered by comparing tlie manner in which tlie two Other synoptists mention the offence of tile Pharisees, at the omission of tlie ablutions before meals by Jesus and his disciples: a circumstance to wliicli they annex discourses different from those given by Luke. In Matthew (xv. 1 ft’), scribes and Pharisees from Jerusalem ask Jesus why his disciples do not observe tlie custom of washing before meat? It is thus implied tliat they knew of this omission, as may easily be supposed, by report. In Mark (vil. 1 ff.), they look on (tdovTe?), while some disciples of Jesus cat witli ua•washen hands, and call them to account, for this irregularity. Lastly, in Luke, Jesus himself dines with a Pharisee, and on tills occasion it is observed, that lie neglects tlie usual wasliings. This is an evident climax : hearing, witnessing taking food togetlier. Was it formed, in tlie descending gradation, from Luke to Mattliew, or, in the ascending one, from Mattliew to Luke ? From tlie point of viewadopted by the recent critics of tlie first Gospel, tlie former mode will be held tlie most probable, namely, that the memory of the original scene, tlie repast in the Pharisee’s house, was lost in the process of tradition, and is therefore wanting in tlie first Gospel.
But, apart from tlie difficulty of conceiving tliat this discourse was uttered under tlie circumstances with wliicli it is invested by Luke, it is by no means in accordance with tlie course of tradition, when once in possession of so dramatic a particular as a feast, to let it fall again, but rather to supply it, if lacking. The general tendency of the legend is to transform the abstract into the concrete, the mediate into tlie immediate, liearsay into vision, tlie spectator into the participator ; and as the offence taken against Jesus by tlie Pharisees referred, among other tilings, to the usages of tlie table, notliing was more natural than for legend to associate the origin of tlie offence with a particular place and occasion, and for tills purpose to imagine invitations given to Jesus by Pharisees-invitations wliicli would be historically suspicious, if for no other reason than tliat Luke alone knows anything of them.
Here, then, we again find Luke in his favourite employment of furnishing a frame to tlie discourses of Jesus which tradition had delivered to him; a procedure much farther removed from historic faithfulness, than tlie effort of Mattliew to give unity to discourses gathered from different periods, without adding matter of his own.
Tlie formation of tlie climax above displayed, can only be conceived, in accordance with tlie general relation between the synoptists, in the following manner: Mark, who in this
Here, then, we again find Luke in his favourite employment of furnishing a frame to tlie discourses of Jesus which tradition had delivered to him; a procedure much farther removed from historic faithfulness, than tlie effort of Mattliew to give unity to discourses gathered from different periods, without adding matter of his own.
Tlie formation of tlie climax above displayed, can only be conceived, in accordance with tlie general relation between the synoptists, in the following manner: Mark, who in this
Other books
The Informant by Marc Olden
The Templar Salvation (2010) by Raymond Khoury
Winnie the Pooh by A. A. Milne
My Hundred Lovers by Susan Johnson
Lydia's Hope by Marta Perry
Redemption Rains by A D Holland
Shadow Fire by Wheaton, Kimber Leigh
The Slow Moon by Elizabeth Cox
The Affair: Week 5 by Beth Kery
The Life by Bethany-Kris