Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (771 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
11.58Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
These disciples (according to Mark), or their mother for them (according to Mattliew), petitioned for the two first places next to
* Tliat which decided tlie evangelist to place tlie visit after the parable of the sower, was probably not, as Schleiermacher thinks, a real chronological connexion. On the contrary, we recognize tlie usual characteristic of his arrangement, in the transition from the concludi.’ig sentence in tlie explanation of the parable : these are Ihry-ie/to hnvwy heard tfie word, ker.p it, o.wl linny forth, fruit iril!i patience, to the simihir expression of Jesus on tlie occasion of the vi-it: iho^e ‘n’ho lic
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Jesus in the messianic kingdom (Matt. xx. 20 ff.; Mark x. 35 ff.).*
Of such a request on the part of the sons of Zcbedee, the third evangelist knows nothing; but apart from this occasion, there is a further contention for pre-eminence, on which discourses are uttered, similar to those which tlie two first evangelists have connected with the above petition. At the last supper of wliicli Jesus partook with his disciples before his passion, Luke makes tlic latter fall into a (fn^oveiK’ia (disp-iite) which among them shall be the greatest; a dispute wliicli Jesus seeks to quell by tlie same reasons, and partly with the same words, that Mattliew and Mark give in connexion with tlie ayavaKTricsic; (indignation’), excited in tlie disciples generally by the request of tlie sons of Zebedee. Luke here reproduces a sentence which lie, in common with Mark, liad previously given almost in the same form, as accompanying tlie presentation of the cliild ; and which Matthew lias, not only on the occasion of Salome’s prayer, but also in the great anti-pharisaic discourse (comp. Luke xxii. 26; Mark ix. 35; Luke ix. 48; Matt. xx. 26 f., xxiii. 11).
However credible it may be that with the worldly messianic hopes of tlie disciples, Jesus should often have to suppress disputes among them on the subject of their future rank in the Messiah’s kingdom, it is by no means probable that, for example, the sentence, Whosoever zuill be great amony you, let him be the servant of all:
should be spoken, 1st, on the presentation of tlic cliild ; 2ndly, in connexion witli tlie prayer of the sons of Zebedee; Srdly, in the anti-pharisaic discourse, and 4thly, at the last supper.
There is here obviously a traditional confusion, whether it be (as Sieffert in such cases is fond of supposing’) tliat several originally distinct occurrences have been assimilated by tlic legend, i. e. the same discourse erroneously repeated on various occasions ; or that out of one incident tlic legend lias made many, i. e. lias invented various occasions for tlie same discourse. Our decision between these two possibilities must depend on tlie answer to tlie following question:
There is here obviously a traditional confusion, whether it be (as Sieffert in such cases is fond of supposing’) tliat several originally distinct occurrences have been assimilated by tlic legend, i. e. the same discourse erroneously repeated on various occasions ; or that out of one incident tlic legend lias made many, i. e. lias invented various occasions for tlie same discourse. Our decision between these two possibilities must depend on tlie answer to tlie following question:
Have tlie various facts, to which the analogous discourses on humility are attached, tlie dependent appearance of mere frames to the discourses, or tlie independent” one of occurrences tliat carry their trutli and significance in themselves.
It will not be denied that tlic petition of the sons of Zebedee, is in itself too specific and remarkable to be a mere background to the ensuing discourse; and the same judgment must be passed on the scene with tlie child: so tliat we have already two cases of con
* Schuiz, (uler das Abendmahl S. 320) speaks consistently with the tone of tlie recent criticism on Matthew wlien lie asserts, that he does not doubt fur a moment that every observant reader will, without hesitation, prefer the representation of Mark, wlio without mentioning the mother, confines the whole transaction to Jesus and tlie two apostles. But so far as historical probability is concerned, I would ask, why should not a woman, who was one of the female companions of Jesus (.Matt. xxvii. 56), have ventured on such a petition? As regards psychological probability, tlie sentiment of Iho church, in the choice of the passage lor St. James’s day, lias usually decided in favour of MAtthcw ;
for so solemn a prayer, uttered on the spur of the moment, is just in character witli a
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OS JESUS.
tention for pre-eminence subsisting in themselves.If we would assign to each of these occurrences its appropriate discourses, tlie declarations which Matthew connects witli tlie presentation of tlie child: Unless ye become as this child, dec., and, Whosoever shall humble himself as this child, cC’c., evidently belong to this occasion.
On tlie other hand, the sentences on ruling and serving in tlic world and in the kingdom of Jesus, seem to be a perfectly suitable comment on the petition of the sons of Zebedee, with which Matthew associates tlicm: also the saying about tlie first and the last, the greatest and the least, wliich Mark and Luke give so early as at the scene with tlie child, Matthew seems rightly to have reserved.
for the scene with tlie sons of Zebedee. It is otherwise with the contention spoken of by Luke (xxii. 24 ff.). Tills contention originates in no particular occasion, nor does it issue in any strongly marked scene, (unless we clioosc to insert Iiere tlie washing of tlie disciples’ feet, described by John, wlio, for tlic rest, mentions no dispute;-of wliicli scene, however, we cannot treat until we come to tlic history of the Passion.) On the contrary, this contention is ushered in merely by tlie words, sysve-o de nai ^i^oveinia EV av-o7c,nearly the same by whi-ch tlic first contention is introduced, ix. 46,and leads to a discourse from Jesus, which, as we have already noticed, Matthew and Mark represent him to have delivered in connexion with the earlier instances of rivalry: so tliat this passage of Luke lias nothing peculiarly its own, beyond its position, at tlie last supper.
This position, however, is not very secure; for that immediately after tlic discourse on the betrayer, so humiliating to the disciples, pride should so strongly have taken possession of them, is as difficult to believe, as it is easy to discover, by a comparison of v. 23 and 24, how the “writer might be led, witliout historical grounds, to insert here a. contention for pre-eminence. It is clear tliat tlie words nal avTO’t r’fp^avTO (Jv^rj-elv wp&c sav-ovg, -b, -ic; apa e’irf eS; avrGiv 6 -ov~o /(e/l/ldw Ttpdaauv; suggested to him tlie similar ones, eyevETO 6e /cat cf>i^oveiitia ev avroig, -o, T(^’ avruv Sonsl elvai [zsi^uv ;
This position, however, is not very secure; for that immediately after tlic discourse on the betrayer, so humiliating to the disciples, pride should so strongly have taken possession of them, is as difficult to believe, as it is easy to discover, by a comparison of v. 23 and 24, how the “writer might be led, witliout historical grounds, to insert here a. contention for pre-eminence. It is clear tliat tlie words nal avTO’t r’fp^avTO (Jv^rj-elv wp&c sav-ovg, -b, -ic; apa e’irf eS; avrGiv 6 -ov~o /(e/l/ldw Ttpdaauv; suggested to him tlie similar ones, eyevETO 6e /cat cf>i^oveiitia ev avroig, -o, T(^’ avruv Sonsl elvai [zsi^uv ;
that is, tlie disputes about the betrayer called to his remembrance the disputes about pre-eminence. One such dispute indeed, he had already mentioned, but had only connected with it, one sentence excepted, the discourses occasioned by the exhibition of the child;
he liad yet in reserve those which tlie two first evangelists attach to the petition of tlie sons of Zebedee, an occasion wliicli seems not to have been present to tlie mind of tlie third evangelist, whence lie introduces tlie discourses pertaining to it here, with tlie general statement tliat they originated in a contention for pre-eminence, wliich broke out among tlie disciples. Meanwhile the chronological position, also, of tlie two first-named disputes about rank, lias very little probability; for in both instances, it is after a prediction of tlie passion, which, like tlic prediction of the betrayal, would seem calcu”
lated to suppress such thoughts of earthly ambition.* We therefore
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
welcome tlie indication which tlic evangelical narrative itself presents, of tlic manner in which tlic narrators were led unhistorically to such an arrangement.
In tlic answer of Jesus to tlic prayer of Salome, the sail-cut point was tlic suffering tliat awaited him and Ills disciples ; hence by tlic most natural association of ideas, the ambition of the two disciples, the antidote to which was tlie announcement of approaching trial, was connected with tlie prediction of tlie passion. Again, oil tlic first occasion of rivalry, tlie preceding prediction of tlic passion leads in Mark and Luke to tlic observation, that tlic disciples did not understand tlic words of Jesus, and yet feared to ask liiin conccrnino’ them, whence it may be inferred tliat they debated and disputed on tlie subject among themselves; here, then, the association of ideas caused tlie evangelists to introduce the contention for pre-eminence, also carried on in tlie absence of Jesus.
In tlic answer of Jesus to tlic prayer of Salome, the sail-cut point was tlic suffering tliat awaited him and Ills disciples ; hence by tlic most natural association of ideas, the ambition of the two disciples, the antidote to which was tlie announcement of approaching trial, was connected with tlie prediction of tlie passion. Again, oil tlic first occasion of rivalry, tlie preceding prediction of tlic passion leads in Mark and Luke to tlic observation, that tlic disciples did not understand tlic words of Jesus, and yet feared to ask liiin conccrnino’ them, whence it may be inferred tliat they debated and disputed on tlie subject among themselves; here, then, the association of ideas caused tlie evangelists to introduce the contention for pre-eminence, also carried on in tlie absence of Jesus.
This explanation is not applicable to tlic narrative of Matthew, for tticre, between tlie prediction of tlic passion and tlie dispute of tlic disciples, tlie anecdote of the coin angled for by Peter, intervenes.
With tlic above contentions for pre-eminence, another anecdote is indirectly connected by means of tlic cliild which is put forward on one of tliosc occasions.
Children are brought to Jesus tliat lie may bless them ; tlie disciples wish to prevent it, but Jesus speaks the encouraging words, Suffer little children to coma v.nto rize, and adds that only for children, and tliose wlio resemble children, is the kingdom of heaven destined (Matt. xix. 13 ff.; Mark x. 13 ff.; Luke xviii. 15 ff.). Tills narrative lias many points of resemblance to tliat of the cliild placed in tlic midst of tlie disciples.
Istly, in both, Jesus presents children as a model, and” declares that only those who resemble children can enter tlic kingdom of God; 2ndly, in both, tlie disciples appear in tlie liglit of opposition to children; and, 3rdly, in botli, Mark says, that Jesus took tlic children in his arms (eray/ca/lio-a^ei’oc.) If these points of resemblance be esteemed adequate ground for reducing tlie two narratives to one, tlie latter must, beyond all question, be retained as the nearest to truth, because the saying of Jesus, Siijfcr little children &c. which, from its rctainin”‘
Children are brought to Jesus tliat lie may bless them ; tlie disciples wish to prevent it, but Jesus speaks the encouraging words, Suffer little children to coma v.nto rize, and adds that only for children, and tliose wlio resemble children, is the kingdom of heaven destined (Matt. xix. 13 ff.; Mark x. 13 ff.; Luke xviii. 15 ff.). Tills narrative lias many points of resemblance to tliat of the cliild placed in tlic midst of tlie disciples.
Istly, in both, Jesus presents children as a model, and” declares that only those who resemble children can enter tlic kingdom of God; 2ndly, in both, tlie disciples appear in tlie liglit of opposition to children; and, 3rdly, in botli, Mark says, that Jesus took tlic children in his arms (eray/ca/lio-a^ei’oc.) If these points of resemblance be esteemed adequate ground for reducing tlie two narratives to one, tlie latter must, beyond all question, be retained as the nearest to truth, because the saying of Jesus, Siijfcr little children &c. which, from its rctainin”‘
tills original form in all the narratives, bears the stamp of genuineness, could scarcely have been uttered on the other occasion; whereas, tlie sentences on children as patterns of humility, given in •connection with the contention about rank, might very well have been uttered under tlie circumstances above described, in retrospective allusion to previous contentions about rank. Nevertheless, tills might rather be tlie place for supposing an assimilation of originally diverse occurrences, since it is at least evident, tliat Mark lias inserted tlie expression evavKa/ltffa/.iei’oi: in both, simply on account of tlie resemblance between the two scenes.
§ 88. THE PURIFICATION OF THE TEMPLE.
JESUS, during Ids first residence in Jerusalem, according to John
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
12 ff. paralL), undertook the purification of the temple. The ancient
commentators thought, and many modern ones still think,* tliat these were separate events, especially as, besides tlie clironolo”-ical difference, there is some divergency between the three first cvano-elists and the fourth in their particulars. While, namely, the former, in relation to the conduct of Jesus, merely speak in general terms of an expulsion eK0dA^eiv, John says that he made a scourge of small cords ^pay&’.Utov en ffyomwv, for tills purpose: again, wliilc according to tlie former, lie treats all tlie sellers alike, he appears, according to Jolm, to make some distinction, and to use the sellers of doves somewhat more mildly; moreover, John does not say tliat he drove out tlie buyers, as well as tlic sellers. There is also a difference as to tlie language used by Jesus on tlie occasion; in tlie synoptical gospels, it is given in the form of an exact quotation from tlic Old Testament; in John, merely as a free allusion. But, above all, there is a difference as to tlie result: in the fourth gospel, Jesus is immediately called to account; in tlie synoptical gospels, we read nothing of this, and according to them, it is not until the following day tliat tlie Jewish authorities put to Jesus a question, wliicli seems to have reference to tlie purification of tlic temple (Matt. xxi. 23 ff.^, and to which Jesus replies quite otherwise tlian to the remonstrance in the fourth gospel. To explain .tlie repetition of such a measure, it is remarked that the abuse was not likely to cease on tlic first expulsion, and tliat on every revival of it, Jesus would feel himself anew called on to interfere; that, moreover, tlie temple purification in John is indicated to be an earlier event than that in the synoptical gospels, by the circumstance, tliat tlie fourth evangelist represents Jesus as being immediately called to accoi.mr, wliile his impunity in the other case appears a natural consequence of the heightened consideration which lie had in the meantime won.
Other books
Los niños del Brasil by Ira Levin
Unbridled and Unbranded by Elle Saint James
The Dragon's Descent by Laurice Elehwany Molinari
Hogfather by Terry Pratchett
You Said Forever (Club Decadence) by Taylor, Maddie
Roar by Aria Cage
Wild Years by Jay S. Jacobs
Beneath the Bones by Tim Waggoner
The Infinite Sea by Rick Yancey
Matecumbe by James A. Michener