Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (769 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
8.41Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
While the difference as to tlie more or less dramatic style of concluding and connecting forms, lies chiefly between Mattliew and the other synoptists ; another difference with respect to these forms exists between all tlie synoptists and John. While most of the synoptical anecdotes from the public life of Jesus are wound up by a panegyric, those of John generally terminate, so to speak, polemically. It is true that tlie three first evangelists sometimes mention, by way of conclusion, tlie offence tliat J esus gave to the narrowhearted, and tlie machinations of Ills enemies against liiin (Matt. viii.
34; xii. 14; xxi. 46 ; xxvi. 3 f.; Luke iv. 28 f.; xi. 35 f.); and, on the other liand, tlie fourth evangelist closes some discourses and miracles by tlie remark, that in consequence of them, many believed on Jesus (ii. 23; iv. 39. 53; vii. 31. 40 f.; viii 30; x. 42 ; xi. 45).
But in the synoptical gospels, throughout the period previous to the residence of Jesus in Jerusalem, we find forms implying that tlie fame of Jesus had extended far and wide (Matt. iv. 24; ix. 26. 31;
Mark i. 28. 45 ; v. 20; vii. 36; Luke iv. 37 ; v. 15; vii. 17 ; viii.
39); that tlie people were astonished at his doctrine (Matt. vii. 28;
Mark i. 22; xi. 18; Luke xix. 48), and miracles (Matt. viii. 27;
ix. 8; xiv. 33; xv. 31), and hence followed him from all parts (Matt. iv. 25; viii. 1; ix, 36; xii. 15; xiii. 2; xiv. 13).In the fourth gospel, on tlie contrary, we are continually told that the Jews sought to kill Jesus (v. 18 ; vii. 1); tlie Pharisees wish to take him, or send out officers to seize him (vii. 30. 32. 54; comp. viii. 20;
x. 39); stones are taken up to cast at him (viii. 59 ; x. 31); and cvp.n in tlinsp. iiaaaivo-p.c; whpro there is mention of a favourable dis
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
position on the part of the people, tlie evangelist limits it to one portion of them, and represents the other as inimical to Jesus (vii.
11-13).He is especially fond of drawing attention to such circumstances, as tliat before tlie final catastrophe all the guile and power of tlie enemies of Jesus were exerted in vain, because his liour was not yet come (vii. 30; viii. 20); tliat the emissaries sent out against him, overcome by tlie force of his words, and the dignity of his person, retired without fulfilling their errand (vii. 32. 44 ff.);
and tliat Jesus passed unharmed through the midst of an exasperated crowd (viii. 59; x. 39: comp. Luke iv. 30).
The writer, as we liave above remarked, certainly does not intend us in tliese instances to think of a natural escape, but of one in which tlie higher nature of Jesus, his invulnerability so long as lie did not clioose to lay down his life, was his protection. And tins throws some liglit on tlie object which the fourth evangelist had in view, in giving prominence to sucli traits as those just enumerated : they helped him to add to the number of tlie contrasts, by wliicli, throughout his works, lie aims to exalt the person of Jesus. Tlie profound-wisdom of Jesus, as tlie divine Logos, appeared the more resplendent, from its opposition to the rude unapprehensiveness of the Jews ; his goodness wore a more touching aspect, confronted with tlie inveterate malice of his enemies; his appearance gained in impressiveness, by the strife lie excited among the people; and his power, as that of one who liad life in himself, commanded tlie more reverence, tlie oftcncr his enemies and their instruments tried to seize him, and, as if restrained by a higher power, w-ere not able to lay hands on him,tlie more marvellously lie passed through the ranks of adversaries prepared to take away his,l’ife. It lias been made matter of praise to the fourth evangelis,t,-’tliat lie alone presents the opposition of tlie pharisaic party to Jesus, in its rise and gradual progress: but there are reasons for,questioning whether tlie course of events described by him, be^n’ot rather fictitious than real. Partially fictitious, it evideiitlyTs; for lie appeals to tlie supernatural for a reason why the Pharisees so long effected nothing against Jesus: “whereas the synoptists preserve tlie natural sequence of tlie facts by stating as a ‘cause, tliat tlie Jewish hierarchy feared tlie people, wlio where attached to Jesus as a prophet (Matt. xxi. 46; Mark xii. 12; Luke xx. 19). If then tlie fourth evangelist was so far guided by his dogmatical interest, tliat for tlie escape of Jesus from the more early snares and assaults of his enemies, lie invented such a reason as best suited his purpose; wliat shall assure us that lie has not also, in consistency witli tlie characteristics which we have already discerned in him, fabricated, for tlie sake of tliat interest, entire scenes of the kind above noticed ?Not tliat we liold it improbable, tliat many futile plots and attacks of the enemies of Jesus preceded the final catastrophe of his fate:-we are only dubious whether these attempts were precisely such as the gospel of John describes.
The writer, as we liave above remarked, certainly does not intend us in tliese instances to think of a natural escape, but of one in which tlie higher nature of Jesus, his invulnerability so long as lie did not clioose to lay down his life, was his protection. And tins throws some liglit on tlie object which the fourth evangelist had in view, in giving prominence to sucli traits as those just enumerated : they helped him to add to the number of tlie contrasts, by wliicli, throughout his works, lie aims to exalt the person of Jesus. Tlie profound-wisdom of Jesus, as tlie divine Logos, appeared the more resplendent, from its opposition to the rude unapprehensiveness of the Jews ; his goodness wore a more touching aspect, confronted with tlie inveterate malice of his enemies; his appearance gained in impressiveness, by the strife lie excited among the people; and his power, as that of one who liad life in himself, commanded tlie more reverence, tlie oftcncr his enemies and their instruments tried to seize him, and, as if restrained by a higher power, w-ere not able to lay hands on him,tlie more marvellously lie passed through the ranks of adversaries prepared to take away his,l’ife. It lias been made matter of praise to the fourth evangelis,t,-’tliat lie alone presents the opposition of tlie pharisaic party to Jesus, in its rise and gradual progress: but there are reasons for,questioning whether tlie course of events described by him, be^n’ot rather fictitious than real. Partially fictitious, it evideiitlyTs; for lie appeals to tlie supernatural for a reason why the Pharisees so long effected nothing against Jesus: “whereas the synoptists preserve tlie natural sequence of tlie facts by stating as a ‘cause, tliat tlie Jewish hierarchy feared tlie people, wlio where attached to Jesus as a prophet (Matt. xxi. 46; Mark xii. 12; Luke xx. 19). If then tlie fourth evangelist was so far guided by his dogmatical interest, tliat for tlie escape of Jesus from the more early snares and assaults of his enemies, lie invented such a reason as best suited his purpose; wliat shall assure us that lie has not also, in consistency witli tlie characteristics which we have already discerned in him, fabricated, for tlie sake of tliat interest, entire scenes of the kind above noticed ?Not tliat we liold it improbable, tliat many futile plots and attacks of the enemies of Jesus preceded the final catastrophe of his fate:-we are only dubious whether these attempts were precisely such as the gospel of John describes.
426
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
§ 85. ISOLATED GROUPS OF ANECDOTES-IMPUTATION OF A LEAGUE
WITH BEELZEBUB, AND DEMAND OP A SIGN.
IN conformity with the aim of our criticism, we shall here confine our attention to those narratives, in which the influence of the legend may be demonstrated. The strongest evidence of this influence is found where one narrative is blended with another, or where tlie one is a mere variation of the other: hence, chronology liaving refused us its aid, we shall arrange the anecdotes about to be considered
according to their mutual affinity.
To begin with the more simple form of legendary influence:
Schuiz has already complained, tliat Matthew mentions two instances, in which a league with Beelzebub was imputed to Jesus, and a sign demanded from Ilim; circumstances which in Mark and Luke liappcn only once.*
The first time tlie imputation occurs (Matt. ix. 32 ft’.), Jesus has cured a dumb dcinonianic; at tills the people marvel, but tlie Pharisees observe, JIe casts out demons through tha prince, (ap^uv) of tlw demons. Matthew does not here say that Jesus returned any answer to this accusation. On tlie second occasion (xii. 22. ff), it is a blind and dumb demonianic whom Jesus cures; again tlie people are amazed, and again tlie Pharisees declare tliat the cure is effected by tlie help of Beelzebub, tlie ap,V”r of tlie demons, whereupon Jesus immediately exposes tlie absurdity of the accusation. Tliat it should have been alleged against Jesus more than once when he cast out demons, is in itself probable. It is however suspicious that tlie demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the Pharisees, is in both instances dumb (in tlie second only, blindness is added). Dcmoniacs were of many kinds, every variety of malady being ascribed to the influence of evil spirits ; why, then, sliould tlie above imputation be not once attaclied to the cure of another kind of demoniac, but twice to that of a dumb one’? The difficulty is heightened, if we compare tlie narrative of Luke (xi.
The first time tlie imputation occurs (Matt. ix. 32 ft’.), Jesus has cured a dumb dcinonianic; at tills the people marvel, but tlie Pharisees observe, JIe casts out demons through tha prince, (ap^uv) of tlw demons. Matthew does not here say that Jesus returned any answer to this accusation. On tlie second occasion (xii. 22. ff), it is a blind and dumb demonianic whom Jesus cures; again tlie people are amazed, and again tlie Pharisees declare tliat the cure is effected by tlie help of Beelzebub, tlie ap,V”r of tlie demons, whereupon Jesus immediately exposes tlie absurdity of the accusation. Tliat it should have been alleged against Jesus more than once when he cast out demons, is in itself probable. It is however suspicious that tlie demoniac who gives occasion to the assertion of the Pharisees, is in both instances dumb (in tlie second only, blindness is added). Dcmoniacs were of many kinds, every variety of malady being ascribed to the influence of evil spirits ; why, then, sliould tlie above imputation be not once attaclied to the cure of another kind of demoniac, but twice to that of a dumb one’? The difficulty is heightened, if we compare tlie narrative of Luke (xi.
14 f), which, in its introductory description of tlie circumstances, corresponds not to tlie second narrative in Matthew, but to tlie first;
for as there, so in Luke, tlie demoniac is only dumb, and his cure and the astonishment of the people are told witli precisely the same form of expression:-in all which points, tlie second narrative of Mattliew is more remote from tliat of Luke. But with tills cure of tlie dumb demoniac, wliicli Mattliew represents as passing off in silence on tlie part of Jesus, Luke connects tlie very discourse which Mattliew appends to tlie cure of tlie one both blind and dumb; so tliat Jesus must on botli these successive occasions, have said the same thing. This is a very unlikely repetition, and united with tlie improbability, that tlie same accusation sliould be twice made in connexion with a dumb demoniac, it suggests tlie question, whether legend may not here have doubled one, and the same incident? How this can liave taken place, Mattliew himself shows us, by represent
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.427
ing tlie demoniac as, in tlie one case, simply dumb, in tlie other, blind also. Must it not liave been a striking cure wliicli excited, on tlie one hand, the astonishment of tlie people, on the other, this desperate attack of tlie enemies of Jesus ? Dumbness alone might soon appear an insufficient malady for tlie subject of tlie cure, and the legend, ever, prone to enhance, might deprive him of siglit also.
If then, together witli this new form of the legend, the old one too was handed down, what wonder tliat a compiler, more conscientious than critical, such as tlie author of tlie first gospel, adopted both as distinct histories, merely omitting on one occasion the discourse of Jesus, for the sake of avoiding repetition.*
Mattliew, having omitted (ix. 34) the discourse of Jesus, was obliged also to defer tlie demand of a sign, which required a previous rejoinder on tlie part of Jesus, until his second narration of the charge concerning Bclzebub; and in tills point again tlie narrative of Luke, who also attaclics tlie demand of a sign to tlie accusation, is parallel witli tlie latter passage of Matthew, f But Matthew not only has, with Luke, a demand of a sign in connexion witli the
* Schleiermacher (S, 175), does not perceive the connexion of the discourse on the blasphemy against tlie Holy Gliost, in Matthew (xii, 31 f.) though it links on excellently to the foregoing expression, eyu iv •srvei’fia.Ti Scov enfSuW.u -u Saifiovia (v. 38), It is more easy, however, to understand this difficulty, than that he sliould think (S. 183 f,) that discourse better introduced in Luke (xii* 10)i For here, between the preceding proposition, tliat. whosoever denies the Son of man before men, shall be denied before tlie angels of God, and tlie one in question, the only connexion is that the expression upvuff’Qa.i. T&V
vlov TOV uv^pc-iTTOV brought to the writer’s recollection the words Enrsiv Etc Uyov rbv vlov TOV
dvi?p(J7roy.One proof of this is tliat between the latter passage and the succeeding declaration, that tlie necessary words would be given to the disciples, when before tlie tribunal, by the irvevp.a uf’iov, the connexion consists just as siipcrlicially in the expression irvEv^a flyiov. Wliat follows in Matthew (v, 33-37), had been partly given already in the sermon on the mount, but stands licre in a better connexion than Schleiermacher is willing to admit.
^ Luke makes tlie demand of a sign follow immediately on the accusation, and then gives in succession the answers of Jesus to both. This representation modern criticism holds to be far more probable than that of Matthew, wlio gives first the accusation and its answer, tlien tlie demand of a sign and its refusal; and tills judgment is grounded on the difficulty of supposing, that after Jesus had given a sufficiently long answer to tlie accusation, the very same people who liad urged it would still demand a sign (Schleiermacher, S. 175 ; Schneckenburger, fiber den L’rsprung, S. 52 f.) But on the other liand, it is equally improbable tliat Jc.sns, after having some time ago delivered a forcible discourse on tlie more important point, the accusation concerning Beelzebub, and even after an interruption which had led him to a totally irrelevant declaration (Luke xi.
27 ft), should revert to tlie less important point, namely, the demand of a sign, The discourse OH tlie departure and return of the unclean spirit, is in Matthew (v. 4:3-4-5) annexed to tlie reply of Jesus to this demand ; but in Luke (xi. 24; ff.) it follows the answer to the imputation of a league with Beelzebub, and this may at first seem to be a more suitable arrangcmcnti But on a closer examination, it will appear very improbable that Jesus should conclude a defence, exacted from him by his enemies, with so calm and purely theoretical a discourse, which supposes an audience, if not favourably prepossessed, at least open to instruction ; and it will be found tliat here again there is no further connexion than that both discourses treat of tlie expulsion of demons. By this single feature of resemblance, tlie writer of the third gospel was led to sover the connexion between the answer to (lie oft-named accusation, and that to the demand of a sign, wliich accusation and demand, as the s;rongest proofs of the malevolent unbelief of the enemies of Jesus, seem to have been associated by tradition. The first evangelist refrained from this violence, and reserved tlie discourse on the return of the unclean spirit, which was suggested by the suspicion cast on tlie expulsion of demons by Jesus, until he had communicated thff
Other books
Life After Wife by Carolyn Brown
After You by Julie Buxbaum
Embarkment 2577 by Maria Hammarblad
0316382981 by Emily Holleman
Skyfire by Mack Maloney
10 Years Later by J. Sterling
The Wrong Girl by David Hewson
Bad Impressions (Revive Me #1) by Franca Storm
A Wall of Light by Edeet Ravel