Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (783 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
13.82Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
A further help to this mode of interpretation is found in the circumstance that both to the tongue of the man who had an impediment in his speech, and to the eyes of the blind man, Jesus applied spittle.
Saliva has in itself, particularly in the opinion of ancient physicians,* a salutary effect on the eyes: as, however, it in no case acts so rapidly as instantaneously to cure blindness and a defect in the organs of speech, it is conjectured, with respect to both instances, that Jesus used the saliva to moisten some medicament, probably a caustic powder; that the blind man only heard the spitting and saw nothing of the mixture of the medicaments, and that the deaf man, in accordance with the spirit of the age, gave little heed to the natural means, or that the legend did not preserve them. In the narrative of the deaf man the cure is simply stated, but that of the blind man is yet further distinguished, by its representing the restoration of lus sight circumstantially, as gradual.
After Jesus had touched the eyes of the patient as above mentioned, lie asked him if he saw auyht; not at, all, observes Paulus, in the manner of a miracle-worker, who is sure of the result, but precisely in the manner of a physician, who after performing an operation endeavours to ascertain if the patient is benefited. The blind man answers that he sees, but first indistinctly, so that men seem to him like trees. Here apparently the rationalistic commentator may triumphantly ask the orthodox one : if divine power for the working of cures stood at the command of Jesus, why did he not at once cure the blind man perfectly?If the disease presented an obstacle which he was not able to overcome, is it not clear from thence that his power was a finite, ordinarily human power’? Jesus once more puts his hands on the eyes of the blind man, in order to aid the effect of the first operation, and only then is the cure completed.t The complacency of the rationalistic commentators in these narratives of Hark is liable to be disturbed by the frigid observation,that,here
also,the
circumstances which
are requisite
to render the natural explanation possible are not given by the evangelists themselves, but are interpolated by the said commentators. For in both-cures Mark furnishes the saliva only; the efficacious powder is infused by Paulus and Ycnturini: it is they alone who make the introduction of the fingers into the ears first a medical examination and then an operation; and it is they alone who, con-traryto the signification of language, explain the words «7rmOt’ra< raq * Hilly,
II.
X.
xxviii., 7, and other passages in Wetstein. t Taulus. ut
sup. ..„.„ „,,„„ ,vx’.,n-,.ii,.i,,, r,i>s<-liiclitt’, a, S. ijl ft”.210 f.; Kiistcr,Iimuamid, S.
Saliva has in itself, particularly in the opinion of ancient physicians,* a salutary effect on the eyes: as, however, it in no case acts so rapidly as instantaneously to cure blindness and a defect in the organs of speech, it is conjectured, with respect to both instances, that Jesus used the saliva to moisten some medicament, probably a caustic powder; that the blind man only heard the spitting and saw nothing of the mixture of the medicaments, and that the deaf man, in accordance with the spirit of the age, gave little heed to the natural means, or that the legend did not preserve them. In the narrative of the deaf man the cure is simply stated, but that of the blind man is yet further distinguished, by its representing the restoration of lus sight circumstantially, as gradual.
After Jesus had touched the eyes of the patient as above mentioned, lie asked him if he saw auyht; not at, all, observes Paulus, in the manner of a miracle-worker, who is sure of the result, but precisely in the manner of a physician, who after performing an operation endeavours to ascertain if the patient is benefited. The blind man answers that he sees, but first indistinctly, so that men seem to him like trees. Here apparently the rationalistic commentator may triumphantly ask the orthodox one : if divine power for the working of cures stood at the command of Jesus, why did he not at once cure the blind man perfectly?If the disease presented an obstacle which he was not able to overcome, is it not clear from thence that his power was a finite, ordinarily human power’? Jesus once more puts his hands on the eyes of the blind man, in order to aid the effect of the first operation, and only then is the cure completed.t The complacency of the rationalistic commentators in these narratives of Hark is liable to be disturbed by the frigid observation,that,here
also,the
circumstances which
are requisite
to render the natural explanation possible are not given by the evangelists themselves, but are interpolated by the said commentators. For in both-cures Mark furnishes the saliva only; the efficacious powder is infused by Paulus and Ycnturini: it is they alone who make the introduction of the fingers into the ears first a medical examination and then an operation; and it is they alone who, con-traryto the signification of language, explain the words «7rmOt’ra< raq * Hilly,
II.
X.
xxviii., 7, and other passages in Wetstein. t Taulus. ut
sup. ..„.„ „,,„„ ,vx’.,n-,.ii,.i,,, r,i>s<-liiclitt’, a, S. ijl ft”.210 f.; Kiistcr,Iimuamid, S.
MIRACLES OP JESUS-CUKES OF THE BUND.%elpaf i~l Tovg 6
But by these attempts to interpret the evangelical narratives, especially in the last particular,
tlic supranaturalistic theologians, who bring them forward, betake themselves to the same ground as the rationalists, for they are equally open to the charge of introducing into the narratives what is not in the remotest degree intimated by the text. For where, in the procedure of Jesus towards the blind man, is there a trace that his
design in the first instance was to prove and to strengthen the faith of the patient? In that case, instead of the expression, He asked him if he saw aught, which relates only to his external condition, we must rather have read, as in Matt. ix. 28, .Believe ye that I am able to do this fBut what shall we say to the conjecture that a sudden cure might have been injurious! The curative act of a worker of miracles is (according to Olshausen’a own opinion) not to be regarded as the merely negative one of the removal of a disease, but also as the positive one of an impartation of new life and fresh strength to the organ affected, whence the idea ot danger from an instantaneous cure when wrought by miraculous agency, is not to be entertained.
Thus no motive is to be discovered which could induce Jesus to put a restraint on the immediate action of Ins miraculous power, and it must therefore have been restricted, independently of his volition, by the force of the deep-seated malady, llns, however, is entirely opposed to the idea of the gospels, which represent the miraculous power of Jesus as superior to death itself; it cannot therefore have been the meaning of our evangelist. If we take into consideration the peculiar characteristics of Mark as an author, it will appear that his only aim is to give dramatic effect to tne^scene. Every sudden result is difficult to bring before the imagination ;
he who wishes to give to another a vivid idea of a rapid For the former explanation, Hess. Geschichte Jesu. 1. S. 390 f. •far fl.» intn-r UUluiUst’M 1. /i.....- . - - - -
‘THE LIFE OF JESUS.
tlic supranaturalistic theologians, who bring them forward, betake themselves to the same ground as the rationalists, for they are equally open to the charge of introducing into the narratives what is not in the remotest degree intimated by the text. For where, in the procedure of Jesus towards the blind man, is there a trace that his
design in the first instance was to prove and to strengthen the faith of the patient? In that case, instead of the expression, He asked him if he saw aught, which relates only to his external condition, we must rather have read, as in Matt. ix. 28, .Believe ye that I am able to do this fBut what shall we say to the conjecture that a sudden cure might have been injurious! The curative act of a worker of miracles is (according to Olshausen’a own opinion) not to be regarded as the merely negative one of the removal of a disease, but also as the positive one of an impartation of new life and fresh strength to the organ affected, whence the idea ot danger from an instantaneous cure when wrought by miraculous agency, is not to be entertained.
Thus no motive is to be discovered which could induce Jesus to put a restraint on the immediate action of Ins miraculous power, and it must therefore have been restricted, independently of his volition, by the force of the deep-seated malady, llns, however, is entirely opposed to the idea of the gospels, which represent the miraculous power of Jesus as superior to death itself; it cannot therefore have been the meaning of our evangelist. If we take into consideration the peculiar characteristics of Mark as an author, it will appear that his only aim is to give dramatic effect to tne^scene. Every sudden result is difficult to bring before the imagination ;
he who wishes to give to another a vivid idea of a rapid For the former explanation, Hess. Geschichte Jesu. 1. S. 390 f. •far fl.» intn-r UUluiUst’M 1. /i.....- . - - - -
‘THE LIFE OF JESUS.
movement, first goes through it slowly, and a quick result is perfectly conceivable only when the narrator has shown the process in detail. Consequently a writer whose object it is to assist as far as may be the imagination of his reader, will wherever it is possible exhibit the propensity to render the immediate mediate, and when recording a sudden result, still to bring forward the successive steps that led to it.*
So here Mark, or his informant, supposed that he was contributing greatly to the dramatic effect, when he inserted between the blindness of the man and the entire restoration of his sight, the partial cure, or the seeing men as trees, and every reader will say, from his own feeling, that this object is fully achieved. But herein, as others also have remarked,’!’ Mark is so far from ma nifesting an inclination to the natural conception of such miracles, that lie, on the contrary, not seldom labours to aggrandize the miracle, as we have partly seen in the case of the Gadarcne, and shall yet have frequent reason to remark. In a similar manner may also be explained why Mark in these narratives which are peculiar to him (and elsewhere also, as in vi. 13, where he observes that the disciples anointed the sick with, oil), mentions the application of external means and manifestations in miraculous cures.
That these means,
the saliva particularly, were not in the popular opinion of that age naturally efficacious causes of the cure, we may be convinced by the narrative concerning Vespasian quoted above, as also by passages of Jewish and Roman authors, according to which saliva was believed to have a magical potency, especially against diseases of the eyc4 Hence Olshausen perfectly reproduces the conception of that age when he explains the touch, saliva, and the like, to be conductors of the superior power resident in the worker of miracles. We cannot indeed make this opinion ours,
unless with Olshausen we proceed upon the supposition of a parallelism between the miraculous power of Jesus and the agency of animal magnetism : a supposition which, for the explanation of the miracles of Jesus, especially of the one before us, is inadequate and therefore superfluous.Hence we put this means merely to the account of the evangelist. To him also we may then doubtless refer the taking aside of the blind man, the exaggerated description of the astonishment of the people, (v^repTrepia-a&<; i^en^aaov-o aTravrec, vii. 37,) and the strict prohibition to tell any man of the cure. This secrecy gave the affair a mysterious aspect, which, as we may gather from other passages, was pleasing to Mark. We have another trait belonging to the mysterious in the narratives of the cure of the deaf man where Mark says, And looking nj) to heaven he sighed, (vii. 34).What cause was there for sighing at that particular moment ? Was it the misery of the human raee,§ which must have been long known to Jesus from many melancholy examples ? Or shall we evade the difficulty, by explaining the cx T»nWo*tfl ™,k der Mosaisohen Gescluehte, 8,80 f.
t ^ft^T
So here Mark, or his informant, supposed that he was contributing greatly to the dramatic effect, when he inserted between the blindness of the man and the entire restoration of his sight, the partial cure, or the seeing men as trees, and every reader will say, from his own feeling, that this object is fully achieved. But herein, as others also have remarked,’!’ Mark is so far from ma nifesting an inclination to the natural conception of such miracles, that lie, on the contrary, not seldom labours to aggrandize the miracle, as we have partly seen in the case of the Gadarcne, and shall yet have frequent reason to remark. In a similar manner may also be explained why Mark in these narratives which are peculiar to him (and elsewhere also, as in vi. 13, where he observes that the disciples anointed the sick with, oil), mentions the application of external means and manifestations in miraculous cures.
That these means,
the saliva particularly, were not in the popular opinion of that age naturally efficacious causes of the cure, we may be convinced by the narrative concerning Vespasian quoted above, as also by passages of Jewish and Roman authors, according to which saliva was believed to have a magical potency, especially against diseases of the eyc4 Hence Olshausen perfectly reproduces the conception of that age when he explains the touch, saliva, and the like, to be conductors of the superior power resident in the worker of miracles. We cannot indeed make this opinion ours,
unless with Olshausen we proceed upon the supposition of a parallelism between the miraculous power of Jesus and the agency of animal magnetism : a supposition which, for the explanation of the miracles of Jesus, especially of the one before us, is inadequate and therefore superfluous.Hence we put this means merely to the account of the evangelist. To him also we may then doubtless refer the taking aside of the blind man, the exaggerated description of the astonishment of the people, (v^repTrepia-a&<; i^en^aaov-o aTravrec, vii. 37,) and the strict prohibition to tell any man of the cure. This secrecy gave the affair a mysterious aspect, which, as we may gather from other passages, was pleasing to Mark. We have another trait belonging to the mysterious in the narratives of the cure of the deaf man where Mark says, And looking nj) to heaven he sighed, (vii. 34).What cause was there for sighing at that particular moment ? Was it the misery of the human raee,§ which must have been long known to Jesus from many melancholy examples ? Or shall we evade the difficulty, by explaining the cx T»nWo*tfl ™,k der Mosaisohen Gescluehte, 8,80 f.
t ^ft^T
*09
MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES OP THE BLIND.495
pression as implying nothing further than silent prayer or audible speech ? Whoever knows Mark will rather recognise the exaggerating narrator in tire circumstance that he ascribes to Jesus a deep emotion, on an occasion which could not indeed have excited it, but which, being accompanied by it, had a more mysterious appearance. But above all, there appears to me to be an air of mystery in this, that Mark gives the authoritative word with which Jesus opened the ears of the deaf man in its original Syriac form, e
If we have been unable to receive as historical the simple narrative given by all the synoptical writers of* the cure of the blind man at Jericho, we are still less prepared to award this character to the mysterious description, given by Mark alone, of the cure of a blind man at Bethsaida, and we must regard it as a product of the legend, with more or less addition from the evangelical narrator. The same judgment must be pronounced on his narrative of the cure of the deaf man who had an impediment in his speech Ku^bg fioyikd-•taf ‘, for, together with the negative reasons already adduced against its historical credibility, there are not wanting positive causes for its mythical origin, since the prophecy relating to the messianic times, TOTS ura auxpuv aKovaovrcu.--pavrj 6a earai y/lwcraa fioyiXaXuv, the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped, the tongue of the dumb shall sing (Isai xxxv. 5, 6.) was in existence, and according to Matt. xi. 5, was interpreted literally.
If the narratives of Mark which we have just considered, seem at thc^ first glance to be favourable to the natural explanation, the narrative of John, chap. ix. must, one would think, be unfavourable and destructive to it; for here the question is not concerning a blind man, whose malady having originated accidentally, might be easier to remove, but concerning a man born blind. Nevertheless, as the expositors of this class are sharp-sighted, and do not soon lose courage, they are able even here to discover much in their favour. In the first place, they find that the condition of the patient is but vaguely described, however definite the expression blind from his Olft/i rv((,Xbv KK yevETfjs may seem to sound. The stntpmmn- nf ti’moTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
which this expression includes, Paulus, it is true, refrains from overthrowing (though his forbearance 13 unwilling; and in fact incomo\
oo plete):
hence he has the more urgent necessity for attempting to shake the statement as to quality. Tv<^Abf is not to signify total blindness, and as Jesus tells the man to go to the pool of Siloam, not to get himself led thither, he must have still had some glimmering of eye-sight, by means of which he could himself find the way thither. Still more help do the rationalistic commentators find for themselves in the mode of cure adopted by Jesus, lie says before-hand (v. 4) he must work the works of him that sent him while it is day, ewp fytt’pa karlv, for in the night no man can work: a sufficient proof that he had not the idea of curing the blind man by a mere word, which he might just as well have uttered in the night- that, on the contrary, he intended to undertake a medical or surgical operation, for which certainly daylight was required. Farther, the clay, TT^OC, which Jesus made with his spittle, and with which he anointed the eyes of the blind man, is still more favourable to the natural explanation than the expression TTTVOCH; having spit, in a former case, and hence it is a fertile source of questions and conjectures. Whence did John know that Jesus took nothing more than spittle and dust to make his eye-salve ? Was he himself present, or did he understand it merely from the narrative of the cured blind man? The latter could not, witli his then weak glimmering of sight, correctly see what Jesus took: perhaps Jesus while he mixed a salve out of other ingredients accidentally spat upon the ground, and the patient fell into the error of supposing that the spittle made part of the. salve.
Still more: while or before Jesus put something on the eyes, did he not also remove something by extraction or friction, or otherwise effect a change in the state of these organs ? This would be an essential fact which might easily be mistaken by the blind man and the spectators for “a merely accessory circumstance.Lastly, the washing in the pool of Siloam which was prescribed to the patient was perhaps continued many days - was a protracted cure by means of the bath-and the words ffide (3/.B7TWV he came seeing, do not necessarily imply that he came thus after his first bath, but that at a convenient time after the completion of his cure, he came again seeing.*
oo plete):
hence he has the more urgent necessity for attempting to shake the statement as to quality. Tv<^Abf is not to signify total blindness, and as Jesus tells the man to go to the pool of Siloam, not to get himself led thither, he must have still had some glimmering of eye-sight, by means of which he could himself find the way thither. Still more help do the rationalistic commentators find for themselves in the mode of cure adopted by Jesus, lie says before-hand (v. 4) he must work the works of him that sent him while it is day, ewp fytt’pa karlv, for in the night no man can work: a sufficient proof that he had not the idea of curing the blind man by a mere word, which he might just as well have uttered in the night- that, on the contrary, he intended to undertake a medical or surgical operation, for which certainly daylight was required. Farther, the clay, TT^OC, which Jesus made with his spittle, and with which he anointed the eyes of the blind man, is still more favourable to the natural explanation than the expression TTTVOCH; having spit, in a former case, and hence it is a fertile source of questions and conjectures. Whence did John know that Jesus took nothing more than spittle and dust to make his eye-salve ? Was he himself present, or did he understand it merely from the narrative of the cured blind man? The latter could not, witli his then weak glimmering of sight, correctly see what Jesus took: perhaps Jesus while he mixed a salve out of other ingredients accidentally spat upon the ground, and the patient fell into the error of supposing that the spittle made part of the. salve.
Still more: while or before Jesus put something on the eyes, did he not also remove something by extraction or friction, or otherwise effect a change in the state of these organs ? This would be an essential fact which might easily be mistaken by the blind man and the spectators for “a merely accessory circumstance.Lastly, the washing in the pool of Siloam which was prescribed to the patient was perhaps continued many days - was a protracted cure by means of the bath-and the words ffide (3/.B7TWV he came seeing, do not necessarily imply that he came thus after his first bath, but that at a convenient time after the completion of his cure, he came again seeing.*
Other books
Sidewinders by William W. Johnstone
Everyone is Watching by Megan Bradbury
Once We Were Human (The Commander Book 1) by Randall Farmer
The Fire-Eaters by David Almond
Nadia Knows Best by Jill Mansell
Enchanted by Elizabeth Lowell
Undone by R. E. Hunter
Dickens's England by R. E. Pritchard
Top Me Maybe? by Jay Northcote
What Are You Hungry For? by Deepak Chopra