Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (772 page)

Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online

Authors: George Eliot

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
6.42Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
But allowing to these divergencies their full weight, tlie agreement between tlic two narratives preponderates.
 
We liave in botli tlie same abuse, tlie same violent mode of checking it, by casting out (eitpd^ew) the people, and overt In’owing (avaorpE^eiv) tlie tables;
 
nay, virtually, tlic same language in justification of this procedure, for in Jolm, as well as in tlie other gospels, tlie words of Jesus contain a reference, though not a verbally precise one, to Isai. Ivi. 7;
 
Jer. vii. 11.
 
These important points of resemblance must at. least extort sucli an admission as that of Sieffert,t namely, that the two occurrences, originally but little alike, were assimilated by tradition, tlie features of tlic one being transferred to tlic other. But thus much seems clear; the synoptists know as little of an earlier event of this kind, as in fact of an earlier visit of Jesus to Jerusalem: and tlie fourth evangelist seems to have passed over tlie purification of the temple after tlie last entrance of Jesus into tlie metropolis, not because lie presumed it to be already known from tlie other gospels,
* Paulus and Tholuck, in loc.; Neander, I- J. Clir., S. 388, Anni.
 
rrfonrntln. 0 IHQ 4f
i Ucber dec
436 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
 
but because he believed that he must give an early date to the sole act of tlie kind with which lie was acquainted. It” then each of the evangelists knew only of one purification of tlie temple, we are not warranted cither by the sliglit divergencies in the description of the event, or by tlie important difference in its chronological position, to suppose tliat there were two; since chronological differences are by no means rare in the gospels, and are quite natural in writings of traditional origin. It is therefore witli justice that our most modern interpreters have, after tlie example of some older ones, declared them selves in favour of tlie identity of tlie two histories.*
 
On wliicli side lies the error? We may know beforehand how tlie criticism of the present day will decide on this question : namely, in favour of tlie fourth gospel. According to Lueke, the scourge, the diversified treatment of the different classes of traders, the more indirect allusion to tlie Old Testament passage, are so many indications that the writer was an eye and ear witness of tlie scene he describes ; while as to chronology, it is well known tliat this is in no decree regarded by the synoptists, but only by John, whence, according to Sicffert,t to surrender tlie narrative of the latter to tliat of the former, would be to renounce the certain for tlie uncertain.
As to John’s dramatic details, we may match them by a particular peculiar to Mark, And they would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple (v. 16), which besides has a support in tlie Jewish custom wliicli did not permit tlie court of tlie temple to be made a thoroughfare.:}: If, nevertheless, tills particular is put to tlie account of Mark’s otherwise ascertained predilection for arbitrary embellishment, § wliat authorizes us to regard similar artistic touches from tlie fourth evangelist, as necessary proofs of his having been an eye witness ? To appeal here to his character of eye witness as a recognized fact, [| is too glaring a petitio princzpii, at least in the point of view taken by a comparative criticism, in wliicli the decision as to whether the artistic details of tlie fourth evangelist are mere embellishments, must depend solely on intrinsic probability.
Although the different treatment of tlie different classes of men is in itself a probable feature, and tlie freer allusion to the Old Testament is at least an indifferent one; it is quite otherwise with the most striking feature in tlie narrative of John. Origen has set tlie example of objecting to tlie twisting and application of tlie scourge of small cords, as far too violent and disorderly a procedure.^ Modern interpreters soften tlie picture by supposing tliat Jesus used the scourge merely against tlie cattle*”“ (a supposition, however, opposed to the text, which represents all -navra<; as being driven out by tlie scourge); yet still they cannot avoid perceiving tlie use of a scourge at all to be unseemly in a person of the dignity of Jesus, and only
* Lttcke, 1, S. 435 ff.; De Wette, exeg. Handb. i. 1, S. 174 f.; i. 3, S. 40i
 
t Ut sup. S. 109 ; Comp. Schneckenhurger, S. 26 f. \ Lightfoot, S. C32, from Bab. Jevamoth, f. vi, 2.
 
§ Lueke, S. 438. || Lueke, S. 437 ; Sieffert, S. 110. ^ Comm. in Joh. torn.
10, 9 17 ; Opp. 1, p. 822, cd. Lommatzsch. ** Kuinol, in loc.
 
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
calculated to aggravate the already tumultuary character of tlie proceeding.* The feature peculiar to Mark is encumbered with no such difficulties, and while it is rejected, is this of John .to be received ?
Certainly not, if we can only find an indication in wliat way tlie fourth evangelist might be led to the free invention of such a particular. Now it is evident from tlie quotation v. 17, which is peculiar to him, tliat lie looked on the act of Jesus as a demonstration of holy zeal-a sufficient temptation to exaggerate tlie traits of zcalousness in his conduct.
 
In relation to tlie chronological difference, we need only remember how tlie fourth evangelist antedates tlie acknowledgment, of Jesus as the Messiali by tlie disciples, and the conferring of the name of Peter on Simon, to be freed from tlie common assumption of his pre-eminent chronological accuracy, wliicli is alleged in favour of Ills position of the purification of tlie temple. For this particular case, however, it is impossible to show any reason wliy the occurrence in question would better suit tlie time of the first, tlian of the last passover visited by Jesus, whereas there are no sliglit grounds for tlie opposite opinion. It is true that nothing in relation to chronology is to be founded on the improbability that Jesus sliould so early have referred to Ills death and resurrection, as lie must have done, according to John’s interpretation of the saying about tlie destruction and rebuilding of tlie temple ;f for we shall see, in tlie proper place, tliat this reference to tlie death and resurrection, owes its introduction into tlie declaration of Jesus to tlie evangelist alone. But it is no inconsiderable argument against John’s position of the event, that Jesus, with his prudence and tact, would hardly have ventured tlius early on so violent an exercise of his messianic authority.} For in that first period of his ministry lie had not given himself out as tlie Messiali, and under any other than messianic authority, such a step could than scarcely have been hazarded; moreover, he in tlie beginning rather chose to meet his cotemporaries on friendly ground, and it is therefore hardly credible that he should at once, without trying milder means, have adopted an appearance so antagonistic.
But to tlie last week of his life such a scene is perfectly suited.
Then, after his messianic entrance into Jerusalem, it was his direct aim in all tliat lie did and said, to assert his mcssiahship, in defiance of tlie contradiction of his enemies ; then, all lay so entirely at stake, tliat nothing more was to be lost by such a step.
 
As regards the nature of the event, Origen long ago thought it incredible, that so great a multitude sliould have unresistingly submitted to a single man,-one, too, whose claims had ever been obsii
* Brctclmcidcr, Probal). p. 43.f English Commentators, ap. Lueke, 1, S. 435 f.
Anm. f Eng. Cumin, ap Lueke. According to Keander (S. 387, Anm.), Jesus, after his last entrance into Jerusalem, when the enthusiasm of tlie populace was on his side, must have shunned every act that could be interpreted into a design of using external force, and thus creating disturbances. But lie must equally have shunned this at the beginning, as at the end, of his career, and the proceeding in tlie temple was rather a provocation of external force against himself, than a use of it for his own purposes.
 
THE LIFE Off JESU8.
 
nately contested: his only resource in this exigency is to appeal to tlie superhuman power of Jesus, by virtue of which lie was able suddenly to extinguish tlie wrath of Ills enemies, or to render it impotent ; and hence Origen ranks tills expulsion among tlie greatest miracles of Jesus.* Modern expositors decline the miracle,! but Paulus is tlie only one among them wlio lias adequately wciglicd Origen’s remark, that in tlie ordinary course of tilings tlie multitude would have opposed themselves to a single person.
 
Whatever may be said of tlie surprise caused by the suddenness of tlie appearance of Jesus:}: (if, as John relates, lie made himself a scourge of cords, he would need some time for preparation), of the force of right on Ills side§ (on the side of those whom lie attacked, however, there was established usa°’e); or, finally, of the irresistible impression produced by tlie personality of Jesus || (on usurers and cattle-dealers-on brutemen, as Paulus calls them ?) : still, such a multitude, certain as it might be of tlie protection of tlie priesthood, would not have unresistingly allowed themselves to be driven out of tlie temple by a single man.
 
Hence Paulus is of opinion tliat a number of others, equally scandalized by the sacrilegious traffic, made common cause with Jesus, and that to their united strength tlie buyers and sellers were compelled to yicld.*[ But this supposition is fatal to tlie entire incident, for it makes Jesus tlie cause of an open tumult; and it is not easy either to reconcile this conduct with his usual aversion to every tiling revolutionary, or to explain the omission of his enemies to use it as an accusation against him. For tliat they held themselves bound in conscience to admit tliat tlie conduct of Jesus was justifiable in this case, is tlie less credible, since, according to a rabbinical authority,** the Jews appear to have been so far from taking umbrage at tlie market in tlie court of tlie Gentiles (and this is all we are to understand by tlie word (epw),-)-)- tliat the absence of it seemed to them like a melancholy desolation of the temple. According to this, it is not surprising tliat Origcn casts a doubt on the historical value of this narrative, by the expression, dye Kai avrfj -yeyevrf-ai, (jf it really happened}, and at most admits that the evangelist, in order to present an idea allegorically, K
 
But in order to contest the reality of this history, in dcilancc of the agreement of all tlie four evangelists, tlie negative grounds hitherto adduced must be seconded by satisfactory positive ones, from whence it might be seen how the primitive Christian legend could be led to tlie invention of such a scene, apart from any historical foundation. But tliese appear to be wanting. For our only positive data in relation to tills occurrence arc tlie passages cited by the synoptists from Tsaiali and Jeremiah, prohibiting tliat the temple
* Comm. in Joli. Tom. 10,16, p. 321 f. ed. Lominatzsell. -f Lucke, in loo. \ Lucke, S. 413.§ Hi. anil Tholuck, in loc.]| Olshausen, ), S. 785.^ Comment. 4, S. 10-1:.
** IIieros.’Joli. tolih. f. Ixi. 3, ap. Liglitioot, p. 411.ft Lucke, Comment. 1, S. 410.
 
++ T’t -illll rllllll). also Wool
 
EVENTS IN THE PL^LIC LIFE OF JESUS.
 
should be made a den of robbers; and the passage from Malachi iii.
1-3, according to which it was expected that in the messianic times Jehovah would suddenly come to his temple, that no one would stand before his appearing, and that lie would undertake a purification of the people and tlie worship. Certainly tliese passages seem to have some bearing on the irresistible reforming activity of Jesus in tlie temple, as described by our evangelists; but there is so little indication tliat they liad reference in particular to the market in the outer court of the temple, tliat it seems necessary to suppose an actual opposition on tlie part of Jesus to this abuse, in order to account for the fulfilment of the above prophecies by him being represented under the form of an expulsion of buyers and sellers.
 
§ 89. NAREATIVES OF THE ANOINTIXG OF JESL’S BY A WOMAN.