Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (768 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.86Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
The external relation of tlie discourses of Jesus in John’s gospel is also twofold; for they may be compared botli witli tliose discourses which tlie synoptists put into tlie mouth of Jesus, and witli tlie manner in whicli the author of tlie fourth gospel expresses himself wlien he is avowedly tlie speaker.
As a result of tlio former comparison, critics have pointed out the important difference that exists between the respective discourses in their matter, as well as in their form. In the first three gospels, Jesus closely adapts his teaching to the necessities of his sb”pherdless people, contrasting, at one time, the corrupt institutions of the Pharisees witli tlie moral and religious precepts of the Mosaic law;
at another, the carnal messianic liopes of the age with the purely spiritual nature of his kingdom, and tlie conditions of entrance there-.
in. In tlie fourth gospel, on the contrary, lie is perpetually dilating, and often in a barren, speculative manner, on tlie doctrine of his person and higher nature: so tliat in opposition to tlie diversified doctrinal and practical materials of tlie synoptical discourses, we have in John a one-sided dogmatism.* That this opposition does not hold invariably, and tliat in the discourses of tlie synoptical gospels there arc passages which have more affinity witli tliose of John, and vice versa, must be granted to judicious critics ;f but the important preponderance of tlie dogmatical element on tlie one side, and of tlie practical on tlie oilier, is a difficulty tliat demands a thorough explanation. In answer to this requisition, it is common to adduce tlie end wliicli Jolin is supposed to have had in view in the composition of his gospel: namely, to furnish a supplement to the first three gospels, and to supply their omissions. But if Jesus tauglit first in one style, then in another, how was it that the synoptists selected almost exclusively tlie practical and popular, John, nearly witliout exception, the dogmatic and speculative portions of Ins discourse ? This is accounted for in a manner intrinsically probable. In the oral tradition, it is observed, on whicli the first three gospels were founded, tlie simple and popular, the concise and sententious discourses of Jesus, being the most easy of retention, would alone be propagated, wliile his more profound, subtle and diffuse discourses would be lost.f But according to tlie above supposition, tlie fourth evangelist, came as a gleaner after tlie synoptists: now it is certain tliat all tlie discourses of Jesus having a practical tendency liad not been preserved by them ; hence, tliat the former has almost invariably avoided giving any relic of such discourses, can only be
* Bretgchneiuer, Probab. p. 2, 3, 31 ff.+ De Wette Einleit. in das NT. § 103;
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
explained Ly his preference for tlie dogmatic and speculative vein:
a preference which must have had both an objective and a subjective source, tlic necessities of Ins time and circumstances, and tlic Lent of Ills own mind.
Tills is admitted even by critics who are favourable to the authenticity of tlic fourth gospel,* witli tlie reservation, tliat that preference betrays itself only negatively, by omission, not positively, by addition.
Tills is admitted even by critics who are favourable to the authenticity of tlic fourth gospel,* witli tlie reservation, tliat that preference betrays itself only negatively, by omission, not positively, by addition.
There is a fin-thcr difference between tlic synoptical gospels and tlie fourth, as to tlie form of teacliing adopted by Jesus ; in the one, it is aphoristic and parabolic, in the other, dialectic.t We have seen that tlic parable is altogether wanting in tlie fourth gospel, and it is natural to ask why, since Luke, as well as Matthew, lias many admirable parables peculiar to himself, John lias not been able to make a rich gleaning, even after tliose two predecessors ? It is true tliat isolated apothegms and sentences, similar to tlic synoptical ones, are not entirely absent from tlic fourth gospel: but, on the other hand, it must be admitted that tlic prevailing aphoristic and parabolic form of instruction, ascribed to Jesus by the synoptists, is more suited to tlic character of a popular teacher of Palestine, than the dialectic form which lie is made to adopt by Jolm.{
But the relation of the discourses of Jesus in tlie gospel of John, to the evangelist’s own style of thinking and writino’, is decisive.
Here we find a similarity^ which, as it extends to the discourses of a third party, namely, tlie Baptist, cannot be explained by supposing tliat tlie disciple had formed his style on tliat of the master,!)
but requires us to admit tliat the evangelist lias lent Ins own style to the principal characters in his narrative. Tlie latest commentator on John has not only acknowledged this with regard to the colouring of tlic expression; lie even thinks that in the matter itself lie can here and there detect the explanatory amplifications of tlie evangelist, wlio, to use Ills own phrase, has had a hand in tlie composition of tlie longer and more difficult discourses.^ But since the evangelist docs not plainly indicate his additions, what is to assure us that they are not throughout interwoven with tlie ideas of Jesus, nay, tliat all tlio discourses which he communicates are not entirely his own productions ? The style furnishes no guidance, for tills is every whore tlio same, and is admitted to be the evangelist’s own;
neither docs tlie sense, for in it also there is no essential difference whether tlie evangelist speaks in his own name, or in that of Jesus:
where then is tlie guarantee tliat tlie discourses of Jesus are not, as the author of tlie Probalailia maintains, free inventions of the fourth evangelist ?
Lucke adduces some particulars, which on tills supposition would be in his opinion inexplicable.** First, tlie almost verbal agreement
* Tholuck, nt sup.
) BntscliiK’ulcr, ut sup.
^ De Wette, lit sup. ‘^ 10-’>.
3 Ccnnp.
) BntscliiK’ulcr, ut sup.
^ De Wette, lit sup. ‘^ 10-’>.
3 Ccnnp.
Schuize, der M’liril’ist. Charukter uinl Werth des Johannes. 180;!.
|i Stronck-dc doutrina • •<• .• -,. i.,i,.,...,:., ,,^,^-t,^; ,ifi .Tpun miK.-ish-i doctrinani dictioncinclue exactu composita,
|i Stronck-dc doutrina • •<• .• -,. i.,i,.,...,:., ,,^,^-t,^; ,ifi .Tpun miK.-ish-i doctrinani dictioncinclue exactu composita,
DISCOURSES OF JESUS IN THE FOURTH GOSPEL.
of Jolm with the synoptists in isolated sayings of Jesus. But aa tlie fourth evangelist was witliin the pale of the Christian community, lie must have had at his command a tradition, from which, though drawing generally on his own resources, he might occasionally borrow isolated, marked expressions, nearly unmodified. Another argument of Lucke is yet more futile.
If, lie says, John liad really liad tlie inclination and ability to invent discourses for Jesus, lie would have been more liberal in long discourses; and tlic alternation of brief remarks with prolonged addresses, is not to be explained on the above supposition.
But this would follow only if tlie author of tlic fourth gospel appeared to be a tasteless writer, whose perception did not tell him, tliat to one occasion a short discourse was suitable, to another a long one, and that tlie alternation of diffuse harangues witli concise sentences was adapted to produce tlie best impression.
Of more weight is tlie observation of Paulus, that if tlie fourth evangelist liad given tlic rein to his invention in attributing discourses to Jesus, he would have obtruded more of his own views, of which lie lias given an abstract in his prologue; whereas the scrupulousness with wliieli he abstains from putting Ills doctrine of the Logos into tlic mouth of Jesus, is a proof of tlie faithfulness with which lie confined himself to the materials presented by his memory or Ills authorities.* But the doctrine of tlic Logos is substantially contained in the succeeding discourse of Jesus; and that tlic form in which it is propounded by tlie evangelist in his preface, docs not also reappear, is sufficiently explained by tlie consideration, that lie must have known that form to be altogether foreign to the teaching of Jesus.
If, lie says, John liad really liad tlie inclination and ability to invent discourses for Jesus, lie would have been more liberal in long discourses; and tlic alternation of brief remarks with prolonged addresses, is not to be explained on the above supposition.
But this would follow only if tlie author of tlic fourth gospel appeared to be a tasteless writer, whose perception did not tell him, tliat to one occasion a short discourse was suitable, to another a long one, and that tlie alternation of diffuse harangues witli concise sentences was adapted to produce tlie best impression.
Of more weight is tlie observation of Paulus, that if tlie fourth evangelist liad given tlic rein to his invention in attributing discourses to Jesus, he would have obtruded more of his own views, of which lie lias given an abstract in his prologue; whereas the scrupulousness with wliieli he abstains from putting Ills doctrine of the Logos into tlic mouth of Jesus, is a proof of tlie faithfulness with which lie confined himself to the materials presented by his memory or Ills authorities.* But the doctrine of tlic Logos is substantially contained in the succeeding discourse of Jesus; and that tlic form in which it is propounded by tlie evangelist in his preface, docs not also reappear, is sufficiently explained by tlie consideration, that lie must have known that form to be altogether foreign to the teaching of Jesus.
We therefore liold it to be established, tliat tlie discourses of Jesus in John’s gospel are mainly free compositions of tlie evangelist ; but we have admitted tliat lie lias culled several sayings of Jesus from an authentic tradition, and hence we do not extend tills proposition to those passages which are countenanced by parallels in tlic synoptical gospels.
In these compilations we have an example of tlie vicissitudes which bcfal discourses, tliat are preserved only in tlie memory of a second party.
Severed from their original connexion, and broken up into smaller and smaller fragments, they present wlicn reassembled tlic appearance of a mosaic, in which the connexion of tlic parts is a purely external one, and every transition an artificial juncture.
Tlie discourses of Jesus in Jolm present just tlic opposite appearance.
Their gradual transitions, only rendered occasionally obscure by the mystical depths of i. ailing in which they lie,-transitions in wliicli one thought develops itself out of another, and a succeeding proposition is frequently but an explanatory amplification of tlie preceding, \-are indicative of a pliable,
In these compilations we have an example of tlie vicissitudes which bcfal discourses, tliat are preserved only in tlie memory of a second party.
Severed from their original connexion, and broken up into smaller and smaller fragments, they present wlicn reassembled tlic appearance of a mosaic, in which the connexion of tlic parts is a purely external one, and every transition an artificial juncture.
Tlie discourses of Jesus in Jolm present just tlic opposite appearance.
Their gradual transitions, only rendered occasionally obscure by the mystical depths of i. ailing in which they lie,-transitions in wliicli one thought develops itself out of another, and a succeeding proposition is frequently but an explanatory amplification of tlie preceding, \-are indicative of a pliable,
* In Ins review of the 2nd Ed. of Lflcke’s Commentar., in the Lit. Blatt der allgem.
Kirchenzeitung 1S31, no. 18.f This peculiarity of the discourses in John cannot be lietter described than by Erasmus in his Epist. ad Ferdinandum, prefatory to Ins Para
420
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
unresisting mass, such as is never presented, to a writer by the traditional sayings of another, but such as proceeds from the stores of his own thought, which he moulds according to hia will. For this reason the contributions of tradition to these stores of thought, (apart from the sayings which are also found, in the earlier gospels,)
were not so likely to have been particular, independent dicta of Jesus, as rather certain ideas which formed the basis of many of his discourses, and which were modified, and developed according to the tent of a mind of Alexandrian or Greek culture. Such are the correlative ideas of TTOTTJP and vwc: (father and son), ‘j>&<; and anorog {light and darkness), ^”i) and -Sava-oi; (life and death), avu and Bdi-di {above and beneath), Gap!; and •nvev^a (flesh and spirit) ; also some symbolical expressions, as ap-oc; r!]<; <,uf](; {bread of life), vSwfi i,C>v {water of life). These and a few other ideas, variously combined by an ingenious author, compose the bulk of the discourses attributed to Jesus by John; a certain uniformity necessarily attending this elemental simplicity.
EVENTS
IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OP JESUS, EXCLUDING THE
MIRACLES.
§ 84. GENERAL COMPARISON OF THE MANNER OF NARRATION THAT
DISTINGUISHES THE SEVERAL EVANGELISTS.
IF, before proceeding to the consideration of details, we compare the general character and tone of the historical narration in the various gospels, we find differences, first, between Matthew and the two other synoptists; secondly, between the three first evangelists
collectively and the fourth.
Among the reproaches which modem criticism has heaped on
the gospel of Matthew, a prominent place has been given to its want of individualized and dramatic life; a want which is thought to prove that the author was not an eye-witness, since an eye-witness is ordinarily distinguished by the precision and minuteness of his narration.* Certainly, when we read the indefinite designation
rnliocrentibv-s conte.ceras, nmmunquam ex contranis, nonnunquam ex sim’ilibus, nonnunquam ex ‘‘‘*”-^’l nratwnis quodque mewhrum semper excipiat prius, szc ut
---*n«*
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LITE OF JESUS,421
of times, places and persons, the perpetually recurring rvre, then, wapdyuv eneWev, departing from thence, avSpuircx;, a man, which characterize tills gospel; wlien we recollect its wholesale statements, such as that Jesus went through all the cities and villages (ix. 35;
xi. 1; comp. iv. 23); tliat they brought to him all sick people, and that lie liealed them all (iv. 24 f.; xiv. 35 f.; comp. xv. 29 ff.);
and finally, the bareness and brevity of many isolated narratives:
we cannot disapprove tlie decision of this criticism, that Matthew’s whole narrative resembles a record of events which, before they were committed to writing, liad been long current in oral tradition, and had tlius lost tlie impress of particularity and. minuteness. But it must be admitted, that this proof, taken alone, is not absolutely convincing; for in most cases we may verify the remark, that even an eye-witness may be unable graphically to narrate what lie has seen.*
But our modern critics liave not only measured Matthew by the standard of wliat is to be expected from an eye-witness, in the abstract; they have also compared him witli Ins fellow-evangelists.
They are of opinion, not only tliat Jolin decidedly surpasses Matthew in tlie power of delineation, both in their few parallel passages and in his entire narrative, but also tliat the two other synoptists, especially Mark, are generally far clearer and fuller in their style of narration, f This is tlie actual fact, and it ought not to be any longer evaded. With respect to tlie fourth evangelist, it is true that, as one would have anticipated, he is net devoid of general, wliolesale statements, such as, that Jesus during the feast did many miracles, tliat hence many believed on him (ii. 23), with others of a similar kind (iii. 22; vii. 1): and he not seldom designates persons indecisively.
Sometimes, however, lie gives the names of individuals whom Mattlicw does not specify (xii. 3, 4; comp. with Matt. xxvi. 7, 8 ; and xviii. 10. with Matt. xxvi. 51; also vi. 5 ff.
Sometimes, however, lie gives the names of individuals whom Mattlicw does not specify (xii. 3, 4; comp. with Matt. xxvi. 7, 8 ; and xviii. 10. with Matt. xxvi. 51; also vi. 5 ff.
with Matt. xiv. 16 f.); and lie generally lets us know the district or country in whicli an event happened. His careful chronology we have already noticed; but the point of chief importance is that his narratives, (e, g. that of the man born blind, and. that of tlie resurrection of Lazarus,) liave a dramatic and life-like character, whicli we seek in vain in the first gospel. The two intermediate evangelists are not free from indecisive designations of time (e. g.
Mark viii. 1; Luke v. 17 ; viii. 22); of place (Mark iii. 13 ; Luke vi. 12); and of persons (Mark x. 17; Luke xiii. 23); nor from statements tliat Jesus went through all cities, and liealed all the sick (Mark i. 32 ff.; 38 f.; Luke iv. 40 f.); but they often give ua the details of what Matthew has only stated generally. Not only does Luke associate many discourses of Jesus witli special occasions concerning which Matthew is silent, but botli he and Mark notice the office or names of persons, to whom Mattliew gives no precise
* Olshauaen, b. Comm. 1, S. 15. + See the above named critics, passim ; and Hug.
422 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
designation (Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke viii. 41; Mattli. xix.
16; Luke xviii. 18; Matt. xx. 30; Mark x. 46). But it is chiefly in tlie lively description of particular incidents, that we perceive the decided superiority of Luke, and still more of Mark, over Matthew. Let tlie reader only compare tlie narrative of tlie execution of John tlie Baptist in Mattlicw and Mark (Mattli. xiv. 3:
Mark vi. 17), and tliat of tlie demoniac or dcmoniacs of Gadara (Matt. viii. 28 ff. parall.).
These facts are, in tlie opinion of our latest critics, a confirmation of tlie fourth evangelist’s claim to tlie character of an eye-witness, and of tlie greater proximity of tlie second and third evangelists to tlie scenes they describe, than can Le attributed to tlie first. But, even allowing tliat one wlio does not narrate graphically cannot he an eye-witness, tin’s docs not involve tlie proposition tliat whoever docs narrate graphically must be an eye-witness. In all cases in wliicli there are extant two accounts of a single fact, tlie one full, tlie other concise, opinions may be divided as to wliicli of them is the original.* When tliese accounts liave been liable to the modifications of tradition, it is important to bear in mind that tradition has two tendencies: the one, to sublimate the concrete into tlie abstract, tlie individual into tlie general; the other, not less essential, to substitute arbitrary fictions for tlie historical reality wliicli is lost.f If then we put tlie want of precision in the narrative of tlie first evangelist to tlie account of tlie former function of the legend, ouo-ht we at
o
7 0
7 0
once to regard tlie precision and dramatic effect of tlie other gospels, as a proof tliat their authors were eye-witnesses? Must we not rather cxamino whether tlicsc qualities bo not derived from tlie second function of tlie legend?.): Tlie decision with which tlie other inference is drawn, is in fact merely an after-taste of the old orthodox opinion, tliat all our gospels proceed immediately from eye-witnesses, or at least through a medium incapable of error. Modern criticism has limited tills supposition, and admitted the possibility that one or the other of our gospels may liave been affected by oral tradition.
Accordingly it maintains, not without probability, tliat a gospel in which the descriptions are throughout destitute of colouring and life, cannot be tlie production of an eye-witness, and must liave suffered from tlie effacing fingers of tradition. But tlie counter proposition, tliat tlie other gospels, in which tlie style of narration is more detailed and dramatic, rest on tlie testimony of eye-witnesses, would only follow from tlie supposed necessity that this must. be the case witli some of our gospels.
For if such a supposition be made witli respect to several narratives of both the above kinds, there is no question that the more graphic and vivid ones are with preponderant probability to be referred to eye-witnesses. But this supposition lias
For if such a supposition be made witli respect to several narratives of both the above kinds, there is no question that the more graphic and vivid ones are with preponderant probability to be referred to eye-witnesses. But this supposition lias
* Conip. Sunnier, ttbcr die Qucllen des Markus, S. 42 ff.
•)- Kern, uber den Trs.pr, ties Ev”i -MiUthi lit sup, St TO fi^ 1 sav, examim’. u’hvtker-not, consider it dvcidfd fhrii ^^ *!,„» +i./, „,.,...„„+:,.„ ^ ^, ,„»„„„»-. tiiot T i,c.’ 1 ntli thp n;irtu-ii1antv and tlie brevitv ul
•)- Kern, uber den Trs.pr, ties Ev”i -MiUthi lit sup, St TO fi^ 1 sav, examim’. u’hvtker-not, consider it dvcidfd fhrii ^^ *!,„» +i./, „,.,...„„+:,.„ ^ ^, ,„»„„„»-. tiiot T i,c.’ 1 ntli thp n;irtu-ii1antv and tlie brevitv ul
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
42S
merely a subjective foundation. It was an easier transition for commentators to make from tlie old notion that all the gospels were immediately or mediately autoptical narratives, to tlie limited admission that perhaps one may fall short of this character, than to the eeneral admission tliat it mav be equally wanting to all.
But, accordino- to the rigid rules of consequence, with the orthodox view of tlie scriptural canon, falls the assumption of pure ocular testimony, not only for one or oilier of tlie gospels, but for all: tlie, possibility of the contrary must be presupposed in relation to them all, and tlicir pretensions must be estimated according to their internal character, compared with the external testimonies. From this point of view-tlie only one that criticism can consistently adopt-it is as probable, considering tlie nature of tlie external testimonies examined in our Introduction, that the three last evangelists owe the dramatic effect in which they surpass Matthew, to tlie embellishments of a more mature tradition, as tliat tins quality is tlie result of a closer communication with eye-witnesses.
But, accordino- to the rigid rules of consequence, with the orthodox view of tlie scriptural canon, falls the assumption of pure ocular testimony, not only for one or oilier of tlie gospels, but for all: tlie, possibility of the contrary must be presupposed in relation to them all, and tlicir pretensions must be estimated according to their internal character, compared with the external testimonies. From this point of view-tlie only one that criticism can consistently adopt-it is as probable, considering tlie nature of tlie external testimonies examined in our Introduction, that the three last evangelists owe the dramatic effect in which they surpass Matthew, to tlie embellishments of a more mature tradition, as tliat tins quality is tlie result of a closer communication with eye-witnesses.
Tliat we may not anticipate, let us, in relation to this question, refer to the results we have already obtained. The greater particularity by which Luke is distinguished from Mattliew in his account of tlie occasions that suggested many discourses of Jesus, has appeared to us often to be tlie result of subsequent additions; and the names of persons in Mark (xiii. 3. comp. v. 37; Luke viii. 51.) have seemed to rest on a mere inference of tlie narrator. Now, however, tliat we arc about to er.ter on an examination of particular narratives, w; will consider, from tlie point of view above indicated, the constant forms of introduction, conclusion, and transition, already noticed, in tlie several gospels. Here we rind the difference between Matthew and the other synoptists, as to tlicir more or less dramatic style, imprinted in a manner tliat can best teacli us how much tills style is worth.
Mattliew (viii. 16 f.) states in general terms, tliat on tlie eveningafter tlie cure of Peter’s mother-in-law, many dcmoniacs were brought to Jesus, all of whom, together witli others that were sick, lie healed.
Mark (i. 32.) in a highly dramatic manner, as if lie himself had witnessed the scene, tells, tliat on the same occasion, the wliole city was gathered together at tlie door of tlie liouse in wliicli Jesus w^as ; at another time, he makes tlie crowd block up the entrance (ii. 2.); in two other instances, lie describes tlie concourse as so great, tliat Je.sus and his disciples could not take their food (iii. 20; vi. 31.); and Luke on one occasion states, tliat tlie people even gathered togetlier in innumerable multitudes so tliat they trode one upon another.
(xii. 1.). All highly vivid touches, certainly: but tlie want of them can hardly be prejudicial to Matthew, for they look thoroughly like strokes of imagination, such as abound in Mark’s narrative, and often, as Schlcicrmachcr observes,* give it almost an apocryphal appearance. In detailed narratives, of which we shall presently notice
THE LIFE OF JE8US.
many examples, while Matthew simply tells what Jesus said on a certain occasion, the two other evangelists are able to describe tlie glance with which his words were accompanied (Mark iii. 5; x. 21;
Luke vi. 10). On tlie mention of a blind beggar of Jericho, Mark is careful to give us his name, and the name of his father (x. 46).
From these particulars we might already augur, wliat tlie examination of single narratives will prove: namely, that tlie copiousness of Mark and Luke is the product of tlie second function of tlie legend, which we may call the function of embellishment. Was tills embellishment gradually wrought out by oral tradition, or was it the arbitrary addition of our evangelists ? Concerning tills, there may be a difference of opinion, and a degree of probability in relation to particular passages is tlie nearest, approach that can be made to a decision. In any case, not only must it be granted, that a narrative adorned by tlie writer’s own additions is more remote from primitive truth tlian one free from sucli additions; but we may venture to pronounce that the earlier efforts of tlie legend are rapid sketches, tending to set off’ only the leading points whether of speech or action, and that at a later period it aims rather to give a symmetrical effect to tlie whole, including collateral incidents; so that, in either view, the closest approximation to truth remains on tlie side of the first gospel.
Other books
Primal Cravings by Susan Sizemore
Whiskey’s Gone (A Fina Fitzgibbons Brooklyn Mystery Book 3) by Susan Russo Anderson
Ajax Penumbra 1969 (Kindle Single) by Sloan, Robin
Cautiva de Gor by John Norman
Dance with the Devil by Sandy Curtis
Moth to the Flame by Maxine Barry
The Alterra Histories: The Fire King by C. S. Marks
Escapement by Rene Gutteridge
Rebel with a Cause by Natalie Anderson
A Fighting Man by Sandrine Gasq-Dion