Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (766 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
9.47Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
§ 82. ISOLATED MAXIMS OF JESUS, COMMON TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL
AKD THE SYNOPTICAL ONES.
THE long discourses of Jesus above examined are peculiar to tlie fourth gospel; it lias only a few brief maxims to wliicli tlie synoptists present parallels. Among the latter, we need not give a special examination to those wliicli are placed by Jolm in an equally suitable connexion, with tliat assigned, to them by tlie other evangelists (as xii. 25. comp. with Matt. x. 39; xvi. 25; and xiii. 16.
comp. witli Matt. x. 24.); and as tlie passage ii. 19 compared with Matt. xxvi. 61, must be reserved until we treat of tlic history of tlie Passion, there remain to us only three passages for our present consideration.
Tlie first of tlicse is iv. 44, where tlie evangelist, after having mentioned tliat Jesus departed from Samaria into Galileo, adds, For Jesus himself testified that a prophet has no honour in his own country, av~b<; yao b ‘I. Kp.apTvp’f]oev, o-i Trpo(pf)~ric; iv TT) 16’ia TrarplSi riuifv ova ^et. We find tlic same idea in Mattlicw xiii. 57. (Mark vi. 4; Luke iv. 24.), A prophet is not v:ithoiit honour, save in his own country and ill his ovn house, OVK, wi-t Trp^r^f a-rt/tcx-, el fiff iv rg naTpiSi. avrov ical iv -^ olnia avrov. ]3ut while in tlie latter case it stands in a highly appropriate connexion, as a remark prompted by the ungracious reception which Jesus met with in his native city, and wliicli caused him to leave it again: in Jolm, on tlic contrary, it is given as a motive for the return of Jesus into Ills own country, Galileo, where, moreover, lie is immediately said to be warmly received.
The experience stated in tlic above sentence, would rather have disinclined than induced Jesus to undertake a journey into Galileo;
hence tlie expedient of translating yap by although, is the best adapted to tlie necessity of tlic case, and has even been embraced by Kuinol, except tliat, unhappily, it is an open defiance of tlie laws of language.
“Unquestionably, if Jesus knew tliat tlic prophet held tills unfavourable position in Ills native wwitry, -n-aTptc, it is not probable that he would regard it as a reason for going thither. Some expositors,*
410 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
therefore, liave ‘been induced to understand Trarp’i^, not as the province, but in a narrower sense, as the native city, and to supply, after the statement that Jesus -went into Galilee, tlie observation, which they assume tlie evangelist to have omitted, that he avoided Ins native city Nazareth, for tlie reason given in tlie ensuing verse. But an ellipsis such as tills explanation requires us to suppose, belongs not less to tlie order of impossibilities than -the transmutation of “yap into though. The attempt to introduce tlie desiderated statement tliat Jesus did not visit his own fra-pig into tlie present passage lias been therefore renounced; but it has yet been thought possible to discover there an intimation that he did not soon return thither;
a delay for wliich tlie maxim, on -rpo^-y/c K. r. /I. might consistently be, quoted as a reason.* But to render tills interpretation admissible, the entire period of tlie absence of Jesus from Galilee must have been mentioned immediately before tlie notice of his return ; instead of this, however, only the short time tliat Jesus had tarried in Samaria is given (v. 45), so that in ludicrous disproportion of cause and effect, tlie fear of tlie contempt of Ills fellow countrymen would, on tlie above supposition, be made tlie reason for delaying his return into Galilee, not until after a residence of some months in Judea, but until after tlie lapse of two days spent in Samaria.
So long, therefore, as Galilee and Nazareth arc admitted to be the Tra-pl^ of Jesus, tlie passage in question cannot be vindicated from tlie absurdity of representing, tliat Jesus was instigated to return thither by tlie contempt wliicli lie knew to await him. Consequently, it becomes the interest of the expositor to recollect, tliat Matthew and Luke pronounce Bethlehem to lie tlie birthplace of Jesus, whence it follows tliat Judca was his native country, wliicli lie now forsook on account of tlie contempt lie liad there experienced, f But according toiv. 1. comp. ii. 24, iii. 26 ff’., Jesus liad won a considerable number of adherents in Judca, and could not therefore complain of a lack of honour, rip]: moreover tlie enmity of tlie Pharisees, hinted at in iv. 1, was excited by tlie growing consequence of Jesus in Judea, and was not at all rcfcrrible to such a cause as tliat indicated in tlie maxim: o-( -po^-rc K.. r /I. .Further, tlie entrance into Galileo is not connected in our passage witli a departure from Judea, but from Samaria; and as, according to tlie import of the text, Jesus departed from Samaria and went into Galilee, because lie had found tliat a prophet lias no honour in his own country, Samaria might rather seem to be pointed out as his native country, in conformity with tlie reproach cast on him by tlie Jews, viii. 4i->; though even tills supposition would not give consistency to the passage, for
So long, therefore, as Galilee and Nazareth arc admitted to be the Tra-pl^ of Jesus, tlie passage in question cannot be vindicated from tlie absurdity of representing, tliat Jesus was instigated to return thither by tlie contempt wliicli lie knew to await him. Consequently, it becomes the interest of the expositor to recollect, tliat Matthew and Luke pronounce Bethlehem to lie tlie birthplace of Jesus, whence it follows tliat Judca was his native country, wliicli lie now forsook on account of tlie contempt lie liad there experienced, f But according toiv. 1. comp. ii. 24, iii. 26 ff’., Jesus liad won a considerable number of adherents in Judca, and could not therefore complain of a lack of honour, rip]: moreover tlie enmity of tlie Pharisees, hinted at in iv. 1, was excited by tlie growing consequence of Jesus in Judea, and was not at all rcfcrrible to such a cause as tliat indicated in tlie maxim: o-( -po^-rc K.. r /I. .Further, tlie entrance into Galileo is not connected in our passage witli a departure from Judea, but from Samaria; and as, according to tlie import of the text, Jesus departed from Samaria and went into Galilee, because lie had found tliat a prophet lias no honour in his own country, Samaria might rather seem to be pointed out as his native country, in conformity with tlie reproach cast on him by tlie Jews, viii. 4i->; though even tills supposition would not give consistency to the passage, for
efiapTvp-iiaev tlie signification of the pluperfect, and to understand yap as an explicative, But 1 tlo nut sec how this can lie of any avail, for yup and ovv (v, 4.’>,) would still form a relation ot’ a^n-cement between two propositions, wliich one would have expected to be opposed to each other liy viv and 6s,
* Paulus. Cuinni 4, S. 2.”>1, .”>(;,-i- Tills id-ra is so entirely in the spirit of the ancient harmonists, tliat I can scarcely believe Lilcke to be the first to whom it liad occurred
DISCOURSES OF JESL’S IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
in Samaria also Jesus is said, iv. 39, to have liad a favourable reception. Besides, we have already seen* tliat the fourth evano-elist knows nothing of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, but on all occasions presupposes him to be a Galileau and a Nazarene. From the above considerations we obtain only tlie negative result, tliat it is impossible to discover any consistent relation between the maxim in question and tlie context. A positive result,-namely, how the maxim came to occupy its actual position, notwithstanding this want of relation, will perhaps be obtained when we have examined the two other passages belonging to tlie present head of our inquiry.
Tlie declaration xiii. 20, lie tliat recelveth you, rewiveth me, and he tliat rccciveth me rcceiveth him that sent lize, lias an almost verbal parallel in Matt. x. 40. In John, it is preceded by the prediction of the betrayal of Jesus, and his explanation to Ills disciples tliat he liad told them tills before it came to pass, in order tliat wlien his prediction was fulfilled., they might believe in him as the Messiah. What. is tlie connexion between tlicsc subjects and tlie above declaration, or between tlie latter and its ensuing context, where Jesus recurs to Ins betrayer ? It is said tliat Jesus wished to impress on liis disciples tlie hi^’li dignity of a messianic missionary, a dignity winch the betrayer thought lightly of losing;! but tlie negative idea of loss, on wliich this supposition turns, is not intimated in tlie text.
Others arc of opinion tliat Jesus, observing tlie disciples to be disheartened by tlie mention of the betrayer, sought to inspire them witli new courage by representing to them their hi”‘h value ::j: but in tliat case lie would hardly have reverted immediately after to tlie traitor.
Others, again, conjecture that some intermediate sentences have been omitted by tlie writer ;§ but this expedient is not much happier than tliat of Kuinol, who supposes tlie passage to be a gloss taken from Matt. x. 40, united originally to v. 1G of cliap. xiii. of John, but by some chance transposed to tlie end of the paragraph.
Others, again, conjecture that some intermediate sentences have been omitted by tlie writer ;§ but this expedient is not much happier than tliat of Kuinol, who supposes tlie passage to be a gloss taken from Matt. x. 40, united originally to v. 1G of cliap. xiii. of John, but by some chance transposed to tlie end of the paragraph.
Nevertheless, tlie indication of v. 16 is an useful way-mark.
This verse, as well as v. 20, lias a parallel in tlie discourse of instructions in Mattlicw (x. 24.); if a few fragments of tills discourse had readied tlie author of tlie fourth gospel through tlie medium of tradition, it is very probable tliat one of them would bring tlio others to liis recollection. In v. 16 there is mention of the sent, uToaro^oi;, and of hili’i u;1io sent Aim,, “re/^ac av-bv ; so in v. 20, of tliosc whom Jesus will send, and of Him wlio sent Jesus. It is true, tliat the one passage lias a humiliating, tlie other an encouraging tendency, and their affinity lies therefore, not in tlie sense, but in tlio words;
This verse, as well as v. 20, lias a parallel in tlie discourse of instructions in Mattlicw (x. 24.); if a few fragments of tills discourse had readied tlie author of tlie fourth gospel through tlie medium of tradition, it is very probable tliat one of them would bring tlio others to liis recollection. In v. 16 there is mention of the sent, uToaro^oi;, and of hili’i u;1io sent Aim,, “re/^ac av-bv ; so in v. 20, of tliosc whom Jesus will send, and of Him wlio sent Jesus. It is true, tliat the one passage lias a humiliating, tlie other an encouraging tendency, and their affinity lies therefore, not in tlie sense, but in tlio words;
so tliat as soon as the fourth evangelist puts down, from memory, traditional sayings of Jesus, we see him subject to tlie same law of association as tlie synoptists. It would have been the most natural arrangement to place v. 20 immediately after v. 16; but tlie thought of tlie traitor was uppermost in tlie mind of tlie writer, and lie could
* Vid. sup. g 39.+ I’aulus, L, J. 1, B, S. 158.
{ Lilcke, 2, S. 478. § Tholuck,
{ Lilcke, 2, S. 478. § Tholuck,
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
easily postpone the insertion of an apophthegm that had only a
verbal connexion with Ilia previous matter.
Our third passage, xiv. 31, lies yet farther witliin the domain of the history of the Passion than tlie one last examined, but as, like tills, it can be viewed quite independently, we sliall not be anticipating if we include it in our present chapter. In the above passage, the words Arise, let us go hence, eyelpecsOs, d’yw^sv ev-evOev, remind us of those by which Jesus, Matt. xxvi. 46, Mark xiv. 42, summons his disciples to join him in encountering tlie traitor : liise, let us be aoinq, eyeipEaOe dydip.sv. Tlie position of the words in Jolin is perplexing, because the summons to depart has no effect; Jesus, as it lie liad said nothing of the kind, immediately continues (xv. 1,), I
am the true vine, &c., and does not take his departure with his disciples until after he has considerably prolonged his discourse. Expositors of every hue have been singularly unanimous in explaining the above words by the supposition, that Jesus certainly intended at the moment to depart and betake himself to Getlisemane, but love for his disciples, and a strong desire to impart to them still farther admonition and comfort, detained him ; that hence, the first part of the summons, Arise, was executed, but tliat, standing in tlie room in which he had supped, lie pursued Ills discourse, until, later, (xviii.
1.), he also put into effect the words, let us go hence.* It is possible tliat the circumstances were such; it is also possible that tlie image of this last evening, with all its details, might be engraven so deeply and accurately in tlie memory of a disciple, that lie might narrate how Jesus arose, and how toucliingly lie lingered. But one wlio wrote under tlie influence of a recollection thus lively, would note the particulars which were most apparent; tlie rising to depart and the delay,-not the mere words, which without tlie addition of tliose
•ibic. Here conjecture arises that a reminiscence of tlie evangelical tradition presented itself to tlie writer, and tliat he inserted it just where it occured to him, not, as it happened, in the best connexion; and tills conjecture assumes probability so soon as we discover wliat might have reminded him of tlie above expression. In the synoptical parallels the command, I-ivse, let us lie going, is connected witli tlie announcement, Behold the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners-behold he is at hand that doth betray me ; with tlie announcement, tliat is, of tlie hostile power which is approaching, before which, however, Jesus exhibits no fear, but goes to encounter tlie danger witli the decision implied in that command.
In John’s gospel, also, Jesus, in the passage under our notice, liad been speaking of a liostile power when he said, The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me. It makes little difference tliat in Jolin it is tlie power tliat dwells in tlie betrayer, and in those led by him, wliile, in tlie synoptical gospels,
In John’s gospel, also, Jesus, in the passage under our notice, liad been speaking of a liostile power when he said, The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in me. It makes little difference tliat in Jolin it is tlie power tliat dwells in tlie betrayer, and in those led by him, wliile, in tlie synoptical gospels,
circumstances are altogether unintelli &. .
again, then, tlie
* Paulus, L. J. 1. B. S. 175 ; Lucke, Tholuek, Olshausen, in loc., Hug, Einleit. in Hnafl T 9 S. 9m
DISCOUESES OP JESUS IN THE FOUETH GOSPEL.
it is the betrayer who is impelled by that power, that is said to approach. If the author of the fourth gospel knew by tradition tliat Jesus liad united with the announcement of an approaching dano-er the words, Eise, let us be going, this expression would be likely to occur to him on tlie mention of the prince of this world; and as in tliat stage of his narrative he had placed Jesus and his disciples in tlie city and witliin doors, so that a considerable change of place waa necessary before they could encounter the enemy, lie added to ayufisv (let us go), evTevOsv ^hence). As, however, this traditional fragment liad intruded itself unawares into the train of thought, which he designed to put as a farewell discourse into tlie mouth of Jesus, it waa immediately lost sight of, and a free course was given to the stream of valedictory instruction, not yet exhausted.
Other books
Soul Conquered by Lisa Gail Green
Father's Day by Simon Van Booy
1st Chance by Nelson, Elizabeth
People Die by Kevin Wignall
The Sea of Tranquility by Millay, Katja
Vigilante by Kerry Wilkinson
Home of the Brave (Raine Stockton Dog Mysteries Book 9) by Donna Ball
In a Moon Smile by Coner, Sherri
SVH06-Dangerous Love by Francine Pascal
Fireproof by Alex Kendrick