Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (775 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
10.76Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
we must search elsewhere,
§ 90.
OF MARY AND MARTHA.
IN tlie Gospel of John (viil. 1--11), tlic Pharisees and scribes bring a woman taken in adultery to Jesus, tliat they may obtain his opinion as to tlie procedure to be observed against her; whereupon Jesus, by appealing to tlie consciences of the accusers, liberates tlie woman, and dismisses her witli an admonition. The genulnenes of this passage lias been strongly contested, nay, its spuriousness might be regarded as demonstrated, were is not that even tlie most thorough investigations of the subject* indirectly betray a design, which Paulus openly avows, of warding off the dangerous surmises as to tlie origin of the fourth gospel, which are occasioned by the supposition that this passage, encumbered as it is with improbabilities, is a genuine portion of tliat gospel. For in tlic first place, tlie scribes say to Jesus : closes in. the law commanded us that such should be stoned: now in no part of the Pentateuch is this punishment prescribed for adultery, but simply death, tlie mode of inflicting it being left undetermined (Lev. xx. 10; Deut. xxii. 22); nor was stoning for adultery a later intsitution of the Talmud, for according to the canon: omne mortis suppl’icium, in scriptura absolute, positum, esse strangulationem^ tlie punishment appointed for this offence in tlie Talmud is strangulation.}
Further, it is difficult to discover wdiat there was to ensnare Jesus in the question proposed to him; §
Further, it is difficult to discover wdiat there was to ensnare Jesus in the question proposed to him; §
llie scribes quoted to him the commandment of the law, as if they would warn him, rattier than tempt liirn, for they could not. expect tliat lie would decide otherwise than agreeably to tlie law. Again, the decision of Jesus is open to tlie stricture, tliat if only he who is conscious of perfect purity were authorized to judge and punish, all social order would be at an end. The circumstance of Jesus writing on the ground has a legendary and mystical air, for even if it be
* Ap. Wetstein, Paulus, Lucke, in loc.
\ Mainmonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.
\ Mainmonides on Sanhedr. 7, 1.
t Mischna, tr. c. 10.^
For a thorough discussion of this and the following points,
For a thorough discussion of this and the following points,
448 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
not correctly explained by the gloss of Jerome: eorum videlicet, qui accusabant, et omnium mortalium peccafa, it yet seems to imply something more mysterious tlian a mere manifestation of contempt for the accusers. Lastly, it is scarcely conceivable tliat every one of those men. who dragged the woman before. Jesus, zealous for the law, and adverse to his cause as they are supposed to be, should have liad so tender a conscience, as on tlie appeal of Jesus to retire without prosecuting their design, and leave tlic woman behind them uninjured ; tins rather appears to belong merely to the legendary or poetical embellishment of the scene. Yet however improbable it may appear, from these observations, that tlie occurrence happened precisely as it is here narrated, tills, as Brctschneidcr justly maintains,* proves nothing against tlie genuineness of tlie passage, since it is arguing in a circle to assume the apostolic composition of the fourth gospel, and tlie consequent impossibility that a narrative containing contradictions sliould form a portion of it, prior to an examination of its several parts. Nevertheless, on tlie oilier hand, the absence of tlie passage in the oldest authorities is so suspicious, that a decision on the subject cannot be hazarded.
In any case, the narrative of an interview between Jesus and a woman of tlie above character must be very ancient, since, according to Euscbius, it was found in the gospel of the Hebrews, and in the writings of Papias.f It was long thought tliat tlie woman mentioned in the Hebrew gospel and by Papias was identical witli the adulteress in John; but against this it has been justly observed, that one wlio liad tlie reproach of many sins, must be distinct from her who was detected in the one act of adultery. ^. I wonder, however, that no one lias, to my knowledge, thought, in connexion witli tlie passage of Eusebius, of the woman in Luke of whom Jesus says that her many sins, d/zap-iai. TTO/IABI, are forgiven. It is true tliat the word SiaQ^Odai]^ does not fully agree witli this idea, for Luke does not speak of actual expressions of tlie Pharisee in disparagement of the woman, but merely of the unfavourable thoughts wliicli lie liad concerning her; and in this respect the passage in Euscbius would agree better witli tlie narrative of John, wliicli lias an express denunciation, a 6ia!3d^./(.siv.
Thus we are led on external grounds, by tlie doubt whether an ancient notice refer to tlie one or the other of tlie two narratives, to a perception of their amnity,§ which is besides evident from internal reasons. In both we have a woman, a sinner, before Jesus; in both, this woman is regarded with an evil eye by Pharisaic sanctimoniousness, but is taken into protection by Jesus, and dismissed with a friendly rropsvov, go. These were precisely the features, the origin of which we could not understand in tlie narrative of Luke, viewed
* Probab. p. 72 ff.
•i- Euseb. II. E. iii. 39 : iitTc9eirai 6e (o IIam’af) /cat uU/zv laropiav ir-pi yvvcunuf; isl »roA/la(C u.fiapr’i.a.if Stafff-iJSeiiJiif ETTI rov K.vpiov, f/v TO ica^)’ ‘Eppaiovf; svayye’Atov mptt’xci, t Lucke, 2, S. 2)7. Paulus, Comm. 4, 8. 410.{i Elsewhere also the two were con
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
as a mere variation of the history of the anointing given by tlie oilier evangelists. Now, wliat is more natural tlian to suppose tliat they were transferred into Luke’s liistory of tlic anointing, from that of the forgiven sinner ? If the Christian legend possessed, on the one side, a woman wlio had anointed Jesus, wlio was on tills account reproached, but was defended by Jesus; and on the other side, a woman who was accused before him of many sins, but whom lie pardoned; how easily, aided by tlic idea of an anointing of tlie feet.
of Jesus, which bears tlie interpretation of an act of penitence, might the two histories flow together-tlie anointing woman become also a sinner, and tlie sinner also an anointer ? Then, tliat tlie scene of the pardon was an entertainment, was a feature also drawn from the liistory of the anointing: tlie entertainer must be a Pharisee, because the accusation of tlic woman ought to proceed from a Pharisaic party, and because, as we liave seen, Luke lias a predilection for .
Pharisaic entertainments. Lastly, tlie discourse of Jesus may have been borrowed, partly from tlie original narrative of tlic woman wlio was a sinner, partly from analogous occasions. If tlicso conjectures be correct, tlie narratives arc preserved unmixcd, on the one hand, by the two first evangelists ; on the other, by the fourtli, or whoever was tlie author of the passage on tlie adulteress; ibr if tlie latter contains much tliat is legendary, it is at least free from any admixture of the history of the anointing.
Having thus accounted for one modification of the narrative concerning the anointing woman, namely, her degradation into a sinner, by the influence of another and somewhat similar anecdote, which was current in tlie first age of Christianity, we mav proceed to consider experimentally, whether a like external influence may not have helped to produce the opposite modification of tlie unknown into Mary of Bethany: a modification which, for the rest, wo have already seen to be easy of explanation.
Sucli an influence could only proceed from tlie sole notice of Mary (with tlie exception of her appearance at tlie resurrection of Lazarus) which lias been preserved to us, and wliicli is rendered memorable by tlie declaration of Jesus, One thing is needful., anil Mary iiath chosen, &c. (Luke x. 38 if.). We have, in fact, here as well as there, Martha occupied in serving (Jolin xii. 2, nal fj WpOa Snywvsi; Luke x. 40, f] Sis MdpOa •TCptwroTO Trepi •noXA.ffv 6iaK.oviav\; here, Mary sitting at tlie feet of Jesus, there, anointing his feet; here, blamed by her sister, there by Judas, for her useless conduct, and in botli cases, defended by Jesus. It is surely unavoidable to say; if once tlie narrative of tlie anointing of Jesus by a woman were current together with that of Mary and Martha, it was very natural, from tlie numerous points of resemblance between them, tliat they sliould be blended in tlie legend, or by some individual, into one story; that tlie unknown woman who anointed tlic feet of Jesus, who was blamed by tlie spectators, and vindicated by Jesus, sliould be clianged into
Sucli an influence could only proceed from tlie sole notice of Mary (with tlie exception of her appearance at tlie resurrection of Lazarus) which lias been preserved to us, and wliicli is rendered memorable by tlie declaration of Jesus, One thing is needful., anil Mary iiath chosen, &c. (Luke x. 38 if.). We have, in fact, here as well as there, Martha occupied in serving (Jolin xii. 2, nal fj WpOa Snywvsi; Luke x. 40, f] Sis MdpOa •TCptwroTO Trepi •noXA.ffv 6iaK.oviav\; here, Mary sitting at tlie feet of Jesus, there, anointing his feet; here, blamed by her sister, there by Judas, for her useless conduct, and in botli cases, defended by Jesus. It is surely unavoidable to say; if once tlie narrative of tlie anointing of Jesus by a woman were current together with that of Mary and Martha, it was very natural, from tlie numerous points of resemblance between them, tliat they sliould be blended in tlie legend, or by some individual, into one story; that tlie unknown woman who anointed tlic feet of Jesus, who was blamed by tlie spectators, and vindicated by Jesus, sliould be clianged into
Marv wlinrn traflitinn linrl (Irmir+pil in n smiiLnr sitnirtinn • flip. +;isk
450 THE LIFE OF JESU8.
of serving at the meal with which the anointing was connected attributed to Mary’s sister, Martha; and finally, her brother Lazarus made a partaker of the meal:-so that here the narrative of Luke on tlic one side, and that of tlie two synoptists on the other, appear to be pure anecdotes, tliat of John a mixed one.
Further, in Luke’s narrative of the visit of Jesus to the two sisters, there is no mention of Lazarus, with whom, however, according to Jolin (xi. and xii.), Mary and Martha appear to have dwelt; nay, Luke speaks precisely as if the presence or existence of this brother, whom indeed neitlier lie nor eitlier of the other synoptists anywhere notices, were entirely unknown to him. For had he known anything of Lazarus, or had he thought of him as present, lie could not have said: -A certain woman, named Martha, received him into her house; he must at least have named her brother also, especially as, according to Jolin, the latter was an intimate friend of Jesui. This silence is remarkable, and commentatora have not succeeded in finding a better explanation of it tlian that given in the natural liistory of tlic prophet of Nazareth, where tlie shortly subsequent deatli of Lazarus is made available for tlic supposition that lie was, about the time of that visit of Jesus, on a journey for tlie benefit of his health.* Not less striking is another point relative to the locality of this scene. According to John, Mary and Martlia dwelt in Bethany, a small town in tlie immediate vicinity of Jerusalem; whereas Luke, when speaking of the visit of Jesus to these sisters, only mentions a certain town, Kuy.rfv nva, which is thought, however, to be easily reconciled with the statement of John, by tlic observation, tliat Luke assigns the visit to tlie journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, and to one travelling thither’ out of Galilee, Bethany would lie in tlie way.
But it would lie quite at the end of this way, so tliat the visit of Jesus must fall at tlie close of his journey, wliereas Luke places it soon after tlie departure out of Galilee, and separates it from the entrance into Jerusalem by a multitude of incidents filling eight entire chapters. Thus much then is clear: the author or editor of the third Gospel was ignorant that that visit was paid in Bethany, or tliat Mary and Martlia dwelt there, and it is only that evangelist who represents Mary as tlie anointing woman, who also names Bethany as the home of Mary:
But it would lie quite at the end of this way, so tliat the visit of Jesus must fall at tlie close of his journey, wliereas Luke places it soon after tlie departure out of Galilee, and separates it from the entrance into Jerusalem by a multitude of incidents filling eight entire chapters. Thus much then is clear: the author or editor of the third Gospel was ignorant that that visit was paid in Bethany, or tliat Mary and Martlia dwelt there, and it is only that evangelist who represents Mary as tlie anointing woman, who also names Bethany as the home of Mary:
tlie same place where, according to the two first synoptists, the anointing occurred. If Mary were once made identical with tlie anointing woman, and if the anointing were known to have happened in Bethany, it would naturally follow that this town would be represented as Mary’s home. Hence it is probable tliat tlie anointing woman owes lier name to the current narrative of tlie visit of Jesua to Martha and Mary, and that Mary owes licr home to the narrative of the meal at Betliany.
We sliould tlius have .1 group of five histories, among which the narrative given by tlie two first synoptists of the anointing of
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JE3U8.
Jesus by a woman, would form tlie centre, that in John of t lie adulteress, and that m Luke of Mary and Martha, tlic extremes, while the anointing by tlie sinner in Luke, and tliat by Mary in John, would fill tlie intermediate places.
It is true tliat all the five narratives might with some plausibility be regarded as varied editions of one historical incident; but from tlie essential dissimilarity between tlie three to which I have assigned the middle and extreme places, I am rattier of opinion tliat these are eacli founded on a special incident, but that the two intermediate narratives are secondary formations which owe tlieir existence to the intermixture of tlic primary ones by tradition.
It is true tliat all the five narratives might with some plausibility be regarded as varied editions of one historical incident; but from tlie essential dissimilarity between tlie three to which I have assigned the middle and extreme places, I am rattier of opinion tliat these are eacli founded on a special incident, but that the two intermediate narratives are secondary formations which owe tlieir existence to the intermixture of tlic primary ones by tradition.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
SUnd-rf Book Number .WMJBM^ ..^..H^ss^aUloM^ Number:,4-1071 W
MIRACLES OP JESUS.
This edition is printed on a liisili-qualitv.
acid-free paper tluil meets specification reuuiremcnts for fine book paper referred § 91.JESUS CONSIDEKED AS A \VOEKEE OF MIRACLES.
THAT the, Jewish people in the time,of Jesus expected miracles from the Messiah is in itself
natural,
since
the
Messiah was
a second Moses and the greatest of the prophets, and to Moses and the prophets the national legend attributed miracles of all kinds: by laterJewish writings it is rendered probable ;*
by our gospels, certain. When Jesus on one occasion had (without natural means) cured a blind and dumb demoniac, the people were hereby led to ask:
Is not this the son of David? (Matt. xii. 23,) a proof that a miraculous power of healing was regarded as an attribute of the Messiah. John the Baptist,
on hearing of the works of
Jesus, (;-P7«), sent to him with the inquiry, Art thou he that should come, (<-’p,W£l’°?) ? Jesus,
in proof of the affirmative,
merely appealed again to his miracles (Matt. xi. 2 ff. parall). At the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated by Jesus in Jerusalem, many of the people believed on him, saying, in justification of their faith, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these ivhich this man hath done (John vii. 31)?
natural,
since
the
Messiah was
a second Moses and the greatest of the prophets, and to Moses and the prophets the national legend attributed miracles of all kinds: by laterJewish writings it is rendered probable ;*
by our gospels, certain. When Jesus on one occasion had (without natural means) cured a blind and dumb demoniac, the people were hereby led to ask:
Is not this the son of David? (Matt. xii. 23,) a proof that a miraculous power of healing was regarded as an attribute of the Messiah. John the Baptist,
on hearing of the works of
Jesus, (;-P7«), sent to him with the inquiry, Art thou he that should come, (<-’p,W£l’°?) ? Jesus,
in proof of the affirmative,
merely appealed again to his miracles (Matt. xi. 2 ff. parall). At the Feast of Tabernacles, which was celebrated by Jesus in Jerusalem, many of the people believed on him, saying, in justification of their faith, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these ivhich this man hath done (John vii. 31)?
But not only was it predetermined in the popular expectation that the Messiah should work miracles in general,-the particular kinds of miracles which he was to perform were fixed, also in * See tlie passages quoted, Introil. g 14, notes !), 10, to which may be added 4 Esdr. xiii. 50, (Faliric. Cod. pseudepigr. V. T. ii. p. 280,) and Sohar Exod. fol. iii. col. 12, (Schottgen, boras, ii. p. 541, also in liertholilt’s Christol. \ 33, note 1.)THE IJFE OP JESUS.
accordance with Old Testament types and declarations.
Moses dispensed meat and drink to the people in a supernatural manner (Exod. xvi. 17):
the same was expected, as the rabbins explicitly say, from the Messiah. At the prayer of Elisha, eyes were in one case closed, in another, opened supernaturally (2 Kings Yi.):the Messiah also was to open the eyes of the “blind. By this prophet and his
master, even the
dead had been, raised (1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv.) : hence to the Messiah also power over death could not be wanting.* Among the prophecies, Isai. xxxv. 5, 6 (comp. xlii. 7) was especially influential in forming this portion of the messianic idea. It is here said of the messianic times:Then, shall the eyes of the Hind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing. These words, it is true, stand in Isaiah in a figurative connexion, but they were early understood literally, as is evident from the
circumstance that Jesus
describes his miracles to the messengers of John (Matt. xi. 5) with an obvious allusion to this prophetic passage.
Moses dispensed meat and drink to the people in a supernatural manner (Exod. xvi. 17):
the same was expected, as the rabbins explicitly say, from the Messiah. At the prayer of Elisha, eyes were in one case closed, in another, opened supernaturally (2 Kings Yi.):the Messiah also was to open the eyes of the “blind. By this prophet and his
master, even the
dead had been, raised (1 Kings xvii.; 2 Kings iv.) : hence to the Messiah also power over death could not be wanting.* Among the prophecies, Isai. xxxv. 5, 6 (comp. xlii. 7) was especially influential in forming this portion of the messianic idea. It is here said of the messianic times:Then, shall the eyes of the Hind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the dumb shall sing. These words, it is true, stand in Isaiah in a figurative connexion, but they were early understood literally, as is evident from the
circumstance that Jesus
describes his miracles to the messengers of John (Matt. xi. 5) with an obvious allusion to this prophetic passage.
Jesus, in so far as he had given himself out and was believed to be the Messiah, or even merely a prophet, had to meet this expectation when, according to several passages already considered (Matt.
xii.
38; xvi. 1. parall.), his Pharisaic enemies required a sign from him ; when,
after the violent expulsion, of the traders and money-changers from the Temple, the Jews desired from him a sign that
should legitimate
such an assumption of
authority (John ii. 18); and when the people in the synagogue of Capernaum, on his requiring faith in himself as the sent of God, made it a condition of this faith that he should show them a sign (John vi. 30). According to the Gospels, Jesus more than satisfied this demand made by his cotcmporaries on the Messiah. Not only does a considerable part of the evangelical narratives consist of descriptions of his miracles; not only did his disciples after his death especially call to their own remembrance and to that of the Jews the dvvdfieic (miracles) ar/asla (signs’) and -ripa-a (wonders) wrought by him (Acts ii. 22 ; comp. Luke xxiv. 19): but the people also were, even during his life, so well satisfied with this aspect of his character that many believed on linn in consequence (John ii. 23; comp. vi. 2), contrasted him with the Baptist who gave no sign (John x. 41), and even believed that he would not be surpassed in this respect by the future Messiah (John vii. 31). The above demands of a sign do not appear to prove that Jesus had performed no miracles, especially as several of them occur immediately after important miracles, e. g., after the cure of a demoniac, Matt. xii. 38 ; and after the feeding of the live thousand, John vi. 30. This position indeed creates a difficulty, for how the Jews could deny to these two acts the character of proper signs it is not easy to understand; the power of expelling demons, in particular, being rated very highly (Luke x. 17). The sign deMIKACtES OP JESUS.rnanded on these two occasions must therefore be more precisely defined according to Luke xi. 16 (comp. Matt. xvi. 1; Mark viii. 11), as a sign from heaven, or^eiov tf ovpavov, and we must understand it to be the specifically messianic siyn of the Son of Man in heaven, OTjuelov rov viov rov di’Oowrrov iv rw ovpavu (Matt. xxiv. 30). It however it be preferred to sever the connexion between these demands of a sign and the foregoing miracles, it is possible that Jesus may have wrought numerous miracles, and yet that some hostile Pharisees, who had not happened to be eye-witnesses of any of them, may still have desired to see one for themselves.
xii.
38; xvi. 1. parall.), his Pharisaic enemies required a sign from him ; when,
after the violent expulsion, of the traders and money-changers from the Temple, the Jews desired from him a sign that
should legitimate
such an assumption of
authority (John ii. 18); and when the people in the synagogue of Capernaum, on his requiring faith in himself as the sent of God, made it a condition of this faith that he should show them a sign (John vi. 30). According to the Gospels, Jesus more than satisfied this demand made by his cotcmporaries on the Messiah. Not only does a considerable part of the evangelical narratives consist of descriptions of his miracles; not only did his disciples after his death especially call to their own remembrance and to that of the Jews the dvvdfieic (miracles) ar/asla (signs’) and -ripa-a (wonders) wrought by him (Acts ii. 22 ; comp. Luke xxiv. 19): but the people also were, even during his life, so well satisfied with this aspect of his character that many believed on linn in consequence (John ii. 23; comp. vi. 2), contrasted him with the Baptist who gave no sign (John x. 41), and even believed that he would not be surpassed in this respect by the future Messiah (John vii. 31). The above demands of a sign do not appear to prove that Jesus had performed no miracles, especially as several of them occur immediately after important miracles, e. g., after the cure of a demoniac, Matt. xii. 38 ; and after the feeding of the live thousand, John vi. 30. This position indeed creates a difficulty, for how the Jews could deny to these two acts the character of proper signs it is not easy to understand; the power of expelling demons, in particular, being rated very highly (Luke x. 17). The sign deMIKACtES OP JESUS.rnanded on these two occasions must therefore be more precisely defined according to Luke xi. 16 (comp. Matt. xvi. 1; Mark viii. 11), as a sign from heaven, or^eiov tf ovpavov, and we must understand it to be the specifically messianic siyn of the Son of Man in heaven, OTjuelov rov viov rov di’Oowrrov iv rw ovpavu (Matt. xxiv. 30). It however it be preferred to sever the connexion between these demands of a sign and the foregoing miracles, it is possible that Jesus may have wrought numerous miracles, and yet that some hostile Pharisees, who had not happened to be eye-witnesses of any of them, may still have desired to see one for themselves.
That Jesus censures the seeking for miracles (John iv. 48) and refuses to comply with any one of the demands for a sign, does not in itself prove that lie might not have voluntarily worked miracles in other cases, when they appeared to him to be more seasonable. When in relation to the demand of the Pharisees, Mark viii. 12, he declares that there shall be no sign given to this generation, ry yevep ravrrj, or Matt. xii. 39 f.; xvi. 4;
Luke xi. 29 f., that there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet, it would appear that by this generation yevea, which in Matthew and Luke he characterizes as evil and adulterates, he could only mean the Pharisaic part of his cotemporaries who were hostile to him, and that he intended to declare, that to these should be granted either no sign at all, or merely the sign of Jonas, that is, as he interprets it in Matthew, the miracle of his resurrection, or as modern expositors think, the impressive manifestation of his person and teaching. But if we take the words ov 6oOi}aeT
on the one hand, things must have chanced singularly if among the many miracles wrought by Jesus in the greatest publicity, not one fell under the observation of Pharisees (moreover Matt. xii. 24 f. parall. contradicts this, for there Pharisees are plainly supposed to be present at the cure of the blind and dumb demoniac): on the other hand, if signs personally witnessed are here intended, the enemies of Jesus certainly did not see his resurrection, or his person atter he was risen. Hence the above declaration cannot well mean merely that his enemies should be excluded from an actual sight of his miracles. There is yet another expedient, namely, to suppose that the expression oil SaOfpsrai avr’rj refers to a sign which should conduce to the good of the subject of which it is predicated: but all the miracles of Jesus happened equally with his original mission and his resurrection at once for the benefit of that subject and the contrary, namely, in their object for its benefit, in their result not so. jNothing therefore remains but to understand the yevea of the Co-temporaries of Jesus generally, and the StdoaOai to refer to observation generally, mediate or immediate:
so that thus Jesus would appear to have here repudiated the working of miracles in general. This is not very consistent with the numerous narratives of miracles in the Grosnp.labut it- ->™™.A* 4’,,iu, ,,,;+u +i,~ f.,^ *i-* :- -n,~THE LIFE
OF JESUS.
Luke xi. 29 f., that there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet, it would appear that by this generation yevea, which in Matthew and Luke he characterizes as evil and adulterates, he could only mean the Pharisaic part of his cotemporaries who were hostile to him, and that he intended to declare, that to these should be granted either no sign at all, or merely the sign of Jonas, that is, as he interprets it in Matthew, the miracle of his resurrection, or as modern expositors think, the impressive manifestation of his person and teaching. But if we take the words ov 6oOi}aeT
on the one hand, things must have chanced singularly if among the many miracles wrought by Jesus in the greatest publicity, not one fell under the observation of Pharisees (moreover Matt. xii. 24 f. parall. contradicts this, for there Pharisees are plainly supposed to be present at the cure of the blind and dumb demoniac): on the other hand, if signs personally witnessed are here intended, the enemies of Jesus certainly did not see his resurrection, or his person atter he was risen. Hence the above declaration cannot well mean merely that his enemies should be excluded from an actual sight of his miracles. There is yet another expedient, namely, to suppose that the expression oil SaOfpsrai avr’rj refers to a sign which should conduce to the good of the subject of which it is predicated: but all the miracles of Jesus happened equally with his original mission and his resurrection at once for the benefit of that subject and the contrary, namely, in their object for its benefit, in their result not so. jNothing therefore remains but to understand the yevea of the Co-temporaries of Jesus generally, and the StdoaOai to refer to observation generally, mediate or immediate:
so that thus Jesus would appear to have here repudiated the working of miracles in general. This is not very consistent with the numerous narratives of miracles in the Grosnp.labut it- ->™™.A* 4’,,iu, ,,,;+u +i,~ f.,^ *i-* :- -n,~THE LIFE
OF JESUS.
preaching and epistles of the apostles, a couple of general notices exceptcd (Acts ii. 22; x. 38 f.), the miracles of Jesus appear to be unknown, and everything is built on his resurrection: on which the remark may be ventured that it could neither have been so unexpected nor could it have formed so definite an epoch, if Jesus had previously raised more than one dead person, and had wrought the most transcendent miracles of all kinds. This then is the question: Ought we, on account of the evangelical narratives of miracles, to explain away that expression of Jesus, or doubt is authenticity; or ought we not, rather, on the strength of that declaration, and the silence of the apostolic writings, to become distrustful of the numerous histories of miracles in the Gospels ?
This can only be decided by a close examination of these narratives, among which, for a reason that will be obvious hereafter, we give the precedence to the expulsions of demons.
§ 92.
THE DEMOJIIACS, CONSIDERED GENERALLY.
THE DEMOJIIACS, CONSIDERED GENERALLY.
AViHLE in the fourth gospel, the expressions tfcwfidwov e%etv to have a demon, and daipovi^onsvoc;, being a demoniac, appear nowhere except in the accusations of the Jews against Jesus, and as parallels to fiaiveoOai, to be mad (via. 48 f.; x. 20 f.; comp. Mark iii. 22, 30 ; Matt. xi. 18): the synoptists may be said to represent demoniacs as the most frequent objects of the curative powers of Jesus. When they describe the commencement of his ministry in Galilee, they give the demoniacs daiftowfo/ievouc* a prominent place among the sufferers whom Jesus healed (Matt. iv. 24; Mark i. 34), and in all their summary notices of the ministry of Jesus in certain districts, demoniacs play a chief part (Matt. viii. 16 f. ; Mark i. 39; iii. 11 f.; Luke vi. 18). The power to cast out devils is before any thing else imparted by Jesus to his disciples (Matt. x. 1, 8; Mark iii. 15; vi. 7 ; Luke ix. 1), who to their great joy succeed in using it according to their wishes (Luke x. 17, 20; Mark vi. 13).
Besides these summary notices, however, several cures of demoniacs are narrated to us in detail, so that we can form a tolerably accurate idea of their peculiar condition. In the one whose cure in the synagogue at Capernaum is given by the evangelists as the first of this kind (Mark i. 23 ff.; Luke iv. 33 ft’.), we find, on the one hand, a disturbance of the self-consciousness, causing the possessed individuals to speak in the person of the demon, which appears also in other demoniacs, as for example, the Gadarenes (Matt. viii. 29 f. parall.); on the other hand, spasms and convulsions with savage cries. This spasmodic state has, in the demoniac who is also called a lunatic (Matt. xvii. 14 fT. parall.), reached the stage of manifest epilepsy; for sudden falls, often in dangerous places, cries, gnashing * That the G&i]viy Matthew are only a particular >-- -*• .i.-----:.,......,1,,,^ ,m!»iodt/ finm.jLrwl to be governed by the changes of the moon, MIEACLES OF JESUS-DEMONIACS.of the teeth, and foaming, are known symptoms of that malady. The other aspect of the demoniacal state, namely, the disturbance of the self-consciousness, amounts in the demoniac of Gadara, by whose lips a demon, or rather a plurality of these evil spirits, speaks as a subject, to misanthropic madness, with attacks of maniacal fury against himself and others, f Moreover, not only the insane and epileptic, but the dumb (Matt. ix. 32; Auke xi. 14; Matt. xii. 22, the dumb demoniac is also Hind) ancFthose suffering from a gouty contraction of the body (Luke xiii. 11 ff.), are by the evangelists designated more or less precisely as demoniacs.
The idea of these sufferers presupposed in the gospels and shared by their authors, is that a wicked, unclean spirit (daipoviov, nvevjia dtcdOapror’) or several, have taken possession of them (hence their condition is described by the expressions daifioviov, K%EIV, dcupovi-£ea6ai, to have a demon, to be a demoniac), speak through their organs, (thus Matt. viii. 31, 01 daijj,ov£(; irapeKa^ovv avrov Aeycwrec,) and put their limbs in motion at pleasure, (thus Mark ix. 20, ~o -rrvevpa landpa^ev av~bv^ until, forcibly expelled by a cure, they depart from the patient (t-ff/MAAsiv, ^ep^eadai).According to the representation of the evangelists, Jesus also held this view of the matter.It is true that when, as a means of liberating the possessed, lie addresses the demons within them (as in Mark ix. 25; Matt. viii. 32; Luke iv. 35), we might with PaulusJ regard this as a mode of entering into the fixed idea of these more or less insane persons, it being the part of a psychical physician, if he would produce any effect, to accommodate himself to this idea, however strongly he may in reality be convinced of its groundlessness.But this is not all; Jesus, even in his private conversations with his disciples, not only says nothing calculated to undermine the notion of demoniacal possession, but rather speaks repeatedly on a supposition of its truth; as e. g. in Matt. x. 8, where he gives the commission, Oast out devils; in Luke x. 18 ff.; and especially in Matt. xvii. 21, parall., where lie says, This kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.Again, in a purely theoretical discourse, perhaps also in the more intimate circle of his disciples, Jesus gives a description quite accordant with the idea of his cotemporarics of the departure of the unclean spirit, his wandering in the wilderness, and his return with a reinforcement (Matt. xii. 43 ft.). With these facts before us, the attempt made by generally unprejudiced inquirers, such as Wiuer,§ to show that Jesus did not share the popular opinion on demonical possession, but merely accommodated his language to their understanding, appears to us a mere adjustment of his ideas by our own.A closer examination of the last-mentioned passage will suffice to remove every thought of a mere accommodation on the part of Jesus. It is true that commentators have sought to evade all that is conclusive in this passage, by * Compare the passages of ancient physicians, ap. Winer, bibl. Realworterbueh. 1.THE LIFE’ OF JESUS.
Other books
Far Horizon by Tony Park
Flight to Coorah Creek by Janet Gover
Raw Desire by Kate Pearce
The French for Always by Fiona Valpy
To Catch A Cupid: Thomas (MacKenzie Family) by Hart, Liliana
Red Light Special by Risqué
Sucker Punch by Ray Banks
Forbidden Fruit by Lee, Anna
The Illustrated Gormenghast Trilogy by Mervyn Peake
Child of God by Cormac McCarthy