Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (781 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.34Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Here, in the first place, the supposition that the leper was precisely at the crisis of healing is foreign to the text, which in theTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
two first evangelists speaks merely of leprosy, while the TrAj/p?;? AeTrpa? of the third can mean nothing else than the Old Testament expression s^oss”1’^,(Exod.iv.
6;Num.xii.10;2Kings v. 27.), which, according to the connexion in every instance, signifies the worst stage of leprosy. That the word KaOapifav in the Hebraic and Hellenistic use of
the Greeklanguage, might also mean merely to pronounce clean is not to be denied, only it must retain the signification throughout the passage.
Butthat
after having narrated that Jesus had said, He thou clean, KuBapiodrjTi, Matthew should have added ita} evOeus inadaplaOrj K. r. X. in the sense that thus the sick man was actually pronounced clean by Jesus, is, from the absurd tautology such an interpretation would introduce, so inconceivable, that we must here, and consequently throughout the narrative, understand the word K.aQapl&a~ai of actual cleansing. It is sufficient to remind the reader of the expressions AeTrpoi naQa-pifrv-ai, the lepers are cleansed, (Matt. xi. 5,) and AeTT-poif nada-pi&re cleanse the lepers (Matt. x. 8.), where neither can the latter word signify merely to pronounce clean, nor can it have another meaning than in the narrative before us. But the point in which the natural interpretation the most plainly betrays its weakness, is the disjunction of 0eAo>, I will, from KaOapiadnrt,, be thou clean. Who can persuade himself that these words, united as they are in all the three narratives, were separated by a considerable pause- that 0eAw was spoken during or more properly before the manipulation, xaOapio6r]Ti after, when all the evangelists represent the two words as having been uttered by Jesus without separation, whilst he touched the leper? Surely, if the alleged-sense had been the original one, at least one of the evangelists, instead of the words, fi^a-o av-ov b ‘Irjaovi; Aryw StAw, KaOapiaOrj-ri, Jesus touched him, saying, I will, be thou clean, would have substituted the more accurate expression 6 ‘I. diiEKpiva-o6&M, nal di/jafiswf avrov el~e-jca6apiad3]ri.. Jesus answered, I will;
and having touched him, said: be thou clean. But if KadapiaOvn was spoken in one breath with .0tAw, so that Jesus announces the cleansing simply as a result of his will without any intermediate examination, the former word cannot possibly signify a mere declaration of cleanness, to which a previous examination would be requisite, and it must signify an actual making clean. It follows, therefore, that the word aTTread/u in this connexion is not to be understood of an exploratory manipulation, but, as in all other narrativ.es of the same class, of a curative touch.
6;Num.xii.10;2Kings v. 27.), which, according to the connexion in every instance, signifies the worst stage of leprosy. That the word KaOapifav in the Hebraic and Hellenistic use of
the Greeklanguage, might also mean merely to pronounce clean is not to be denied, only it must retain the signification throughout the passage.
Butthat
after having narrated that Jesus had said, He thou clean, KuBapiodrjTi, Matthew should have added ita} evOeus inadaplaOrj K. r. X. in the sense that thus the sick man was actually pronounced clean by Jesus, is, from the absurd tautology such an interpretation would introduce, so inconceivable, that we must here, and consequently throughout the narrative, understand the word K.aQapl&a~ai of actual cleansing. It is sufficient to remind the reader of the expressions AeTrpoi naQa-pifrv-ai, the lepers are cleansed, (Matt. xi. 5,) and AeTT-poif nada-pi&re cleanse the lepers (Matt. x. 8.), where neither can the latter word signify merely to pronounce clean, nor can it have another meaning than in the narrative before us. But the point in which the natural interpretation the most plainly betrays its weakness, is the disjunction of 0eAo>, I will, from KaOapiadnrt,, be thou clean. Who can persuade himself that these words, united as they are in all the three narratives, were separated by a considerable pause- that 0eAw was spoken during or more properly before the manipulation, xaOapio6r]Ti after, when all the evangelists represent the two words as having been uttered by Jesus without separation, whilst he touched the leper? Surely, if the alleged-sense had been the original one, at least one of the evangelists, instead of the words, fi^a-o av-ov b ‘Irjaovi; Aryw StAw, KaOapiaOrj-ri, Jesus touched him, saying, I will, be thou clean, would have substituted the more accurate expression 6 ‘I. diiEKpiva-o6&M, nal di/jafiswf avrov el~e-jca6apiad3]ri.. Jesus answered, I will;
and having touched him, said: be thou clean. But if KadapiaOvn was spoken in one breath with .0tAw, so that Jesus announces the cleansing simply as a result of his will without any intermediate examination, the former word cannot possibly signify a mere declaration of cleanness, to which a previous examination would be requisite, and it must signify an actual making clean. It follows, therefore, that the word aTTread/u in this connexion is not to be understood of an exploratory manipulation, but, as in all other narrativ.es of the same class, of a curative touch.
In support of his natural explanation of this incident, Paulus appeals to the rule, that invariably the ordinary and regular is to be presupposed in a narrative where the contrary is not expressly indicated.* But this rule shares the ambiguity which is characteristic of the entire system of natural interpretation, since it leaves undecided what is ordinary and regular in. our estimation, and what MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES OF LEPEHS.was so in the ideas of the author whose writings are to be explained. Certainly, if I have a Gibbon before me, I must in his narratives presuppose only natural causes and occurrences when he Joes not expressly convey the contrary, because to a writer of his cultivation, the supernatural is at the utmost only conceivable as a rare exception. But the case is altered when I take up an Herodotus, in whose mode of thought the intervention of higher powers is by no means unusual and out of rule; and when I am considering a collection of anecdotes which are the product of Jewish soil, and the object of which is to represent an individual as a prophet of the highest rank-as a man in the most intimate connexion with the Deity, to meet with the supernatural is so completely a thing of course, that the rule of the rationalists must here be reversed, and we must say: where, in such narratives, importance is attached to results which, regarded as natural, would have no importance whatever,-there, supernatural causes must be expressly excluded, if we are not to presuppose it the opinion of the narrator that such causes were in action. Moreover, in the history before us, the extraordinary character of the incident is sufficiently indicated by the statement, that the leprosy left the patient immediately on the word of Jesus. Paulus, it is true, contrives, as we have already observed, to interpret this statement as implying a gradual, natural healing, on the ground that svOeu^, the word by which the evangelists determine the time of the cure, signifies, according to the different connexions in which it may occur, in one case im.mediately, in another merely soon, and unobstructedly. Granting this, are we to understand the words eiiBsuq efe/3aAev avrbv, which follow in close connexion in Mark (v. 43), as signifying that soon and without hindrance Jesus sent the cleansed leper away ? Or is the word to be taken in a different sense in two consecutive verses ?
We conclude, then, that in the intention of the evangelical writers the instantaneous disappearance of the leprosy in consequence of the word and touch of Jesus, is the fact on which their narratives turn. Now to represent the possibility of this to one’s self is quite another task than to imagine the instantaneous release of a man under the grasp of a fixed idea, or a permanently invigorating impression on a nervous patient. Leprosy, from the thorough derangement of the animal fluids of which it is the symptom, is the most obstinate and malignant of cutaneous diseases;. and that a skin corroded by this malady should by a word and touch instantly become pure and healthy, is, from its involving the immediate effectuation of what would require a long course of treatment, so inconceivable,* that every one who is free from certain prejudices (as the critic ought^always to be) must involuntarily be reminded by it of the realm of fable. And in the fabulous region of oriental and more particularly of Jewish legend, the sudden appearance and disappearance of leprosy presents itself the first thing. When JehovahTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
endowed Hoses, as a preparation for his mission into Egypt, with the power of working all kinds of signs, amongst other tokens of this gift lie commanded him to put his hand into his bosom, and when he drew it out again, it was covered with leprosy; again he was commanded to put it into his bosom, and on drawing it out a second time it was once more clean (Exod. iv. 6, 7.).Subsequently, on account of an attempt
at rebellion against Moses, his
sister Miriam was suddenly stricken with leprosy, but on the intercession of Moses was soon healed (Num. xii. 10 fF.). Above all, among the miracles of the
prophet Elisha the cure of a leper plays an important part, and to this event Jesus himself refers (Luke iv. 27.). The Syrian General Naaman, who suffered from leprosy, applied to the Israelitish prophet for his aid ;
the latter sent to him the direction to wash seven times in the river Jordan, and on Naaman’s observance of this prescription the leprosy actually disappeared, but was subsequently transferred by the prophet to his deceitful servant Gehazi (2 Kings v.). I know not what we ought to need beyond these
Old Testament narratives to account for the origin of the evangelical
anecdotes. What the first Goel was empowered to do in the fulfilment of Jehovah’s commission, the second Goel must also be able to perform, and the greatest of prophets must not fall short of the achievements of any one prophet. If then, the cure of leprosy was without doubt included in the Jewish idea of the Messiah;the Christians, who believed the Messiah to have really appeared in the person of Jesus, had a yet more decided inducement to glorify his history by such traits, taken from the mosaic and prophetic legend ; with the single difference that, in accordance with the mild spirit of the New Covenant (Luke ix. 55 f.) they dropped the punitive side of the old miracles.
at rebellion against Moses, his
sister Miriam was suddenly stricken with leprosy, but on the intercession of Moses was soon healed (Num. xii. 10 fF.). Above all, among the miracles of the
prophet Elisha the cure of a leper plays an important part, and to this event Jesus himself refers (Luke iv. 27.). The Syrian General Naaman, who suffered from leprosy, applied to the Israelitish prophet for his aid ;
the latter sent to him the direction to wash seven times in the river Jordan, and on Naaman’s observance of this prescription the leprosy actually disappeared, but was subsequently transferred by the prophet to his deceitful servant Gehazi (2 Kings v.). I know not what we ought to need beyond these
Old Testament narratives to account for the origin of the evangelical
anecdotes. What the first Goel was empowered to do in the fulfilment of Jehovah’s commission, the second Goel must also be able to perform, and the greatest of prophets must not fall short of the achievements of any one prophet. If then, the cure of leprosy was without doubt included in the Jewish idea of the Messiah;the Christians, who believed the Messiah to have really appeared in the person of Jesus, had a yet more decided inducement to glorify his history by such traits, taken from the mosaic and prophetic legend ; with the single difference that, in accordance with the mild spirit of the New Covenant (Luke ix. 55 f.) they dropped the punitive side of the old miracles.
Somewhat more plausible is the appeal of the rationalists to the absence of an express statement, that a miraculous cure of the leprosy is intended in the narrative of the ten lepers, given by Luke alone (xvii. 12 ff.). Here neither do the lepers expressly desire to be cured, their words being only, Have mercy on us,’ nor does Jesus utter a command directly referring to such a result, for he merely enjoins them to show themselves to the priests: and the rationalists avail themselves of this indirectness in his reply, as a help to their supposition, that Jesus, after ascertaining the state of the patients, encouraged them to subject themselves to the examination ot the priests, which resulted in their being pronounced clean, and the Samaritan returning to thank Jesus for his encouraging advice.* But mere advice docs not call forth so ardent a demonstration of gratitude as is here decribcd by the \vords l-neaev t-~i Trpoffw-oi’, he fell down on his face; still less could Jesus desire that because his advice had had a favourable issue, all the ten should have returned, and returned to glorify God-for what? that he had enabled Jesus to a-ivc them such good advice ? No : a more real service is here prcMIUACLES OF JESUS-CURES OF LEPERS.supposed; and this the narrative itself implies, both in attributing the return of the Samaritan to his discovery that lie was healed lldav on IdOif), and in makin<^Jesus indicate the reason why thanks were to be expected from alf^Ty the words : ov%l ol 6&K,a eKaOapia-Orjaav •
Were there not ten cleansed?Both these expressions can only bv an extremely forced interpretation be made to imply, that because the lepers saw the correctness of the judgment of Jesus in pronouncing them clean, one of them actually returned to thank him, and the others ought to have returned.
But that which is most decisive against the natural explanation is this sentence: And as they went the>/ were cleansed, «‘ ™ vndyeiv avrovc; iicaOapiaOrjaav. If the narrator intended, according to the above interpretation, merely, to say: the lepers having gone to the priest, and showed themselves to him, were pronounced clean ; he must at least have said: iropev-dfvTeg kKaQapiaOnaav, having made the journey, they were cleansed, whereas the deliberate choice of the expression ev TW vrrdyeiv (while in the act of going], incontestably shows that a healing effected during the journey is intended. Thus here also we have a miraculous cure of leprosy, which is burdened with the same difficulties as the former anecdote; the origin of which is, however, as easily explained. But in this narrative there is a peculiarity which distinguishes it from the former. Here there is no simple cure, nay, the cure does not properly form the main object of the narrative:
this lies rather in the different conduct of the cured, and the question of Jesus, were there not ten cleansed, &c., (v. 17.) forms the point of the whole, which thus closes altogether morally, and seems to have been narrated for the sake of the instruction conveyed.* That the one who appears as a model of thankfulness happens to be a Samaritan, cannot pass without remark in the narrative of the evangelist who alone has the parable of the Good Samaritan. As there two Jews, a priest and a Lcvite, show themselves pitiless, while a Samaritan, on the contrary, proves cxemplarily compassionate: so here, nine unthankful Jews stand contrasted with one thankful Samaritan. May it not be then (in so far as the sudden cure of these lepers cannot be historical) that we have here, as well as there, a parable pronounced by Jesus, in which he intended to represent gratitude, as m the other case compassion, in the example of a Samaritan ? It would then be with the present narrative as some have maintained it to be with the history of the temptation.But in relation to this we hayc both shown, and given the reason, that Jesus never made himself immediately figure in a parable, and this he must have done if e “<‘‘“ S1V™ a narrative of ten lepers once healed by him. If then we are not inclined to relinquish the idea that something originally parabolie is the germ of our present narrative, we must represent ‘lie case to ourselves thus : from the legends of cures performed by Jesus on lepers, on the one hand; and’on the other, from parables 111 which Jesus (as in that of the commssionntp Snms,,-;t,,r,\ v,™,,™^THE LIFE OP JESUS.
Were there not ten cleansed?Both these expressions can only bv an extremely forced interpretation be made to imply, that because the lepers saw the correctness of the judgment of Jesus in pronouncing them clean, one of them actually returned to thank him, and the others ought to have returned.
But that which is most decisive against the natural explanation is this sentence: And as they went the>/ were cleansed, «‘ ™ vndyeiv avrovc; iicaOapiaOrjaav. If the narrator intended, according to the above interpretation, merely, to say: the lepers having gone to the priest, and showed themselves to him, were pronounced clean ; he must at least have said: iropev-dfvTeg kKaQapiaOnaav, having made the journey, they were cleansed, whereas the deliberate choice of the expression ev TW vrrdyeiv (while in the act of going], incontestably shows that a healing effected during the journey is intended. Thus here also we have a miraculous cure of leprosy, which is burdened with the same difficulties as the former anecdote; the origin of which is, however, as easily explained. But in this narrative there is a peculiarity which distinguishes it from the former. Here there is no simple cure, nay, the cure does not properly form the main object of the narrative:
this lies rather in the different conduct of the cured, and the question of Jesus, were there not ten cleansed, &c., (v. 17.) forms the point of the whole, which thus closes altogether morally, and seems to have been narrated for the sake of the instruction conveyed.* That the one who appears as a model of thankfulness happens to be a Samaritan, cannot pass without remark in the narrative of the evangelist who alone has the parable of the Good Samaritan. As there two Jews, a priest and a Lcvite, show themselves pitiless, while a Samaritan, on the contrary, proves cxemplarily compassionate: so here, nine unthankful Jews stand contrasted with one thankful Samaritan. May it not be then (in so far as the sudden cure of these lepers cannot be historical) that we have here, as well as there, a parable pronounced by Jesus, in which he intended to represent gratitude, as m the other case compassion, in the example of a Samaritan ? It would then be with the present narrative as some have maintained it to be with the history of the temptation.But in relation to this we hayc both shown, and given the reason, that Jesus never made himself immediately figure in a parable, and this he must have done if e “<‘‘“ S1V™ a narrative of ten lepers once healed by him. If then we are not inclined to relinquish the idea that something originally parabolie is the germ of our present narrative, we must represent ‘lie case to ourselves thus : from the legends of cures performed by Jesus on lepers, on the one hand; and’on the other, from parables 111 which Jesus (as in that of the commssionntp Snms,,-;t,,r,\ v,™,,™^THE LIFE OP JESUS.
individuals of this hated race as models of various virtues, the Christian legend wove this narrative, which is therefore partly an account of a miracle and partly a parable.
§ 95.
CUKES OF THE BLIND.
CUKES OF THE BLIND.
ONE of the first places among the sufferers cured by Jesus is filled (also agreeably to the nature of the climate)* by the blind, of whose cure again we read not only in the general descriptions which are given by the evangelists (Matt. xv. oO f.; Luke vii. 21.), and by Jesus himself (Matt. xi. 5.), of his messianic works, but also in some detailed narratives of particular cases.We have indeed inore. of these cures than of the kind last noticed, doubtless because blindness, as a malady affecting the most delicate and complicated of organs, admitted a greater diversity of treatment.One of these cures of the blind is common to all the synoptical Avriters; the others (with the exception of the blind and dumb demoniac in Matthew, whom we need not here reconsider) are respectively peculiar to the first, second, and fourth evangelists.
The narrative common to all the three synoptical writers is that of a cure of blindness wrought by Jesus at Jericho, on his last journey to Jerusalem (Matt. xx. 2i). parall.): but there are important differences both as to the object of the cure, Matthew having two blind men, the two other evangelists only one; and also as to its locality, Luke making it take place on the entrance of Jesus into Jericho, Matthew and Mark on his departure out of Jericho.Moreover the touching of the eyes, by which, according to the first evangelist, Jesus effected the cure, is not mentioned by the two other narrators. Of these differences the latter may be explained by the observation, that though Mark and Luke are silent as to the touching, they do not therefore deny it: the first, relative to the number cured, presents a heavier difficulty. To remove this it has been said by those who give the prior authority to Matthew, that one of the two blind men was possibly more remarkable than the other, on which account he alone was retained in the first tradition; but Matthew, as an eye-witness, afterwards supplied the second blind man. On this supposition Luke and Mark do not contradict Matthew, for they nowhere deny that another besides their single blind man was healed; neither does Matthew contradict them, for where there are two, there is also one.j But when the simple narrator speaks of one individual in whom something extraordinary has happened, and even, like Mark, mentions his name, it is plain that he tacitly contradicts the statement that it happened in two individuals-to contradict it expressly there was no occasion. Let us turn then to the other side and, taking the singular number of Mark and Luke as the orie-inal one, conjecture that the informant of Matthew (the latter MIRACLES OP JESUS-CURES OF THE BLIND.beino- scarcely on this hypothesis an eye-witness) probably mistook the blind man’s guide foijjtsecond blind man.* Hereby a decided contradiction is admitted, while to account for it an extremely improbable cause is superfluously invented. The third difference relates to the place; Matthew and Mark have iKiropevopevav dnb, as they departed from, Luke, kv ™ eyyigeiv «‘$• ‘lept^w, as they came nigh to Jericho. If there be any whom the words themselves fail to convince that this difference is irreconcileable, let them read the forced attempts to render these passages consistent with each other which have been made by commentators from Grotius down to Paulus.
Other books
The Lost Gods by Brickley, Horace
100 Unfortunate Days by Crowe, Penelope
Playboy Doctor by Kimberly Llewellyn
Year Zero by Jeff Long
The Strain, the Fall, the Night Eternal by Guillermo Del Toro
Shameless (The Contemporary Collection) by Blake, Jennifer
A Tiger's Tale (A Call of the Wilde Mystery) by Laura Morrigan
Fault Line by Barry Eisler
The Black Spider by Jeremias Gotthelf
The Long Way Home by Dickson, Daniel