Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (784 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
5.4Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
But, to begin at the beginning, the meaning here given to %tspa and w| is too shallow even for Venturini,t and especially clashes with the context (v. 5), which throughout demands an interpretation of the words with reference to the speedy departure of Jesus4 As to the conjecture that the clay was made of medicinal ingredients ot some kind or other, it is the more groundless, since it cannot be said here, as in the former case, that only so much is stated as the patient could learn by his hearing or by a slight glimmering of light, for. on this occasion, Jesus undertook the cure, not in private, but ^»
MIKACLES OF JESUS-CUKES OF THE BLIND.in the presence of his disciples. Concerning the farther supposition of previous surgical operations, by which the a-nointing and washing, alone mentioned hi the text, are reduced to mere accessories, noth-in<>- more is to be said, than that by this example we may see how completely the spirit of natural explanation despises all retraints, not scrupling to pervert the clearest words of the text in support of its arbitrary combinations. Further, when, from the circumstance that Jesus ordered the blind man to go to the pool of Siloam, it is inferred that he must have had a share of light, we may remark, in opposition to this, that Jesus merely told the patient whither he should go (vTrdyeiv)- hoio he was to go, whether alone or with a guide, he left to his own discretion. Lastly, when the closely connected words he went his way, therefore, and washed and came seeing, dnfjWsv ovv KUI evi-ipa-o nal TjXQe flkenuv (v. 7; comp. v. 11) are stretched out into a process of cure lasting several weeks, it is just as if the words, veni, vidi, vici were translated thus : After my arrival I reconnoitred for several days, fought battles at suitable intervals, and finally remained conqueror.
Thus here also the natural explanation will not serve us, and we have still before us the narrative of a man born blind, miraculously cured by Jesus. That the doubts already expressed as to the reality of the cures of the blind, apply with increased force to the case of a man born blind, is self-evident. And they are aided in this instance by certain special critical reasons. Not one of the three first evangelists mentions this cure. Now, if in the formation of the apostolic tradition, and in the selection which it made from among the miracles of Jesus, any kind of reason was exercised, it must have taken the shape of the two following rules: first, to choose the greater miracles before those apparently less important; and secondly, those with which edifying discourses were connected, before those which were not thus distinguished. In the first respect, it is plain that the cure of a man blind from his birth, as the incomparably more difficult miracle, was by all means to be chosen rather than that of a man in whom blindness had supervened, and it is not to be conceived why, if Jesus really gave sight to a man born blind, nothing of this should have entered into the evangelical tradition, and from thence into the synoptical gospels. It is true that with this consideration of the magnitude of the miracles, a regard to the edifying nature of the discourses connected with them might not seldom come into collision, so that a less striking, but from the conversations which it caused, a more instructive miracle, might be preferred to one more striking, but presenting loss of the latter kind of interest. Jiut the cure of the blind man in John is accompanied by very remarkable conversations, first, of Jesus with the disciples, then, of tne cured man with the magistrates, and lastly of Jesus with the tTl ,”lan’ suc’1 as tuerc is no trace °f m tlie synoptical cures of ,. “*lnd; conversations in which, if not the entire course of theTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
rably suited to tlie purpose of the three first evangelists. These writers therefore, could not have failed to introduce the euro of the man bom “blind into their histories, instead of their less remarkable and less edifying cures of the blind, if the former had made a part of the evangelical tradition whence thev drew. It might possibly o»/
ofi-t «/
ofi-t «/
have remained unknown to the general Christian tradition, if it had taken place at a time and under circumstances which did not favour its promulgation-if it had been effected in a remote corner of the country, without further witnesses. But Jesus performed this miracle in Jerusalem, in the circle of his disciples ; it made a great sensation in the city, and was highly offensive to the magistracy, hence the affair must have been known if it had really occurred; and as we do not find it in the common evangelical tradition, the suspicion arises that it perhaps never did occur.
But
it will be
said, the writer who attests
it is the apostle John. This, however, is too improbable, not only on account of the incredible nature of the contents of the narrative, which could thus
hardly have proceeded from an
eye-witness, but
also from another reason. The narrator
interprets
the name of the pool, Siloam, by the Greek direaTatyeros (v. 7); a false explanation, for one who is sent, is called iW’3, whereas ftVj according to the most probable interpretation signifies a waterfall.* The evangelist, however, chose the above interpretation, because he sought for some significant relation between the name of the pool, and the sending thither of the blind man, and thus seems to have imagined that the pool had by a special providence received the name of /Sent, because at a future time the Messiah, as a manifestation of his glory, was to send thither a blind man.t Now, we grant that an apostle might give a grammatically incorrect explanation, in so far as he is not held to be inspired, and that even a native of Palestine might mistake the etymology of Hebrew words, as the Old Testament itself shows;
nevertheless, such a play upon words looks more lik&jiie laboured attempt of a writer remote from the event, than of an eyewitness. The eye-witness would have had
enough of important matters in the miracle which he had beheld, and the conversation to which lie had listened; only a remote narrator could fall into the triviality of trying to extort a significant meaning from the smallest •/
vO
O »iIT
it will be
said, the writer who attests
it is the apostle John. This, however, is too improbable, not only on account of the incredible nature of the contents of the narrative, which could thus
hardly have proceeded from an
eye-witness, but
also from another reason. The narrator
interprets
the name of the pool, Siloam, by the Greek direaTatyeros (v. 7); a false explanation, for one who is sent, is called iW’3, whereas ftVj according to the most probable interpretation signifies a waterfall.* The evangelist, however, chose the above interpretation, because he sought for some significant relation between the name of the pool, and the sending thither of the blind man, and thus seems to have imagined that the pool had by a special providence received the name of /Sent, because at a future time the Messiah, as a manifestation of his glory, was to send thither a blind man.t Now, we grant that an apostle might give a grammatically incorrect explanation, in so far as he is not held to be inspired, and that even a native of Palestine might mistake the etymology of Hebrew words, as the Old Testament itself shows;
nevertheless, such a play upon words looks more lik&jiie laboured attempt of a writer remote from the event, than of an eyewitness. The eye-witness would have had
enough of important matters in the miracle which he had beheld, and the conversation to which lie had listened; only a remote narrator could fall into the triviality of trying to extort a significant meaning from the smallest •/
vO
O »iIT
accessory circumstance. Tholuck and Lticke are highly revolted by this allegory, which, as the latter expresses himself, approaches to absolute folly, hence they arc unwilling to admit that it proceeded from John, and regard it as a gloss. As, however, all critical authorities, except one of minor importance, present this particular, such a position is sheer arbitrariness, and the only choice left us is either, with Olshausen, to edify ourselves by this interpretation as an apostolic one,J or, with the author of the 1’roU.bilia, to number * Vid. Paulus and Lilcke, in loc. f Thus Euthymius and Faulus, in loc. J B. Conun.
**’- *•- **.......t+4rtlir of th(> snirit pvoceedMIEACLES OF JESUS-CURES OF PARALYTICS.it among the indications that the fourth gospel had not an apostolic origin.*
The reasons ...which might prevent the author of the fourth gospel, or the tradition whence he drew, from resting contended with the cures of the blind narrated by the synoptical writers, and thus induce the one or the other to frame the history before us, are already pointed out by the foregoing remarks. The observation has been already made by others, that the fourth evangelist has fewer miracles than the synoptical writers, but that this deficiency in number is compensated by a superiority in magnitude.! Thus while the other evangelists have -simple paralytics cured by Jesus, the fourth gospel has one who had been lame thirty-eight years; while, in the former, Jesus resuscitates persons who had just expired, in the latter, he calls back to life one who had lain in the grave four days, in whom therefore it might be presumed that decomposition had begun; and so here, instead of a cure of simple blindness, we have that of a man born blind,-a heightening of the ‘
‘
OO
‘
OO
miracle altogether suited to the apologetic and dogmatic tendency of this gospel. In what way the author, or the particular tradition which he followed, might be led to depict the various details of the narrative, is easily seen. ‘ The act of spitting, irrveiv, was common in magical cures of the eyes; clay, 7n?Abc, was a ready substitute for an eyc-salvc, and elsewhere occurs in magical proceedings ;£ the command to wash in the pool of Siloam may have been an imitation of Elislia’s order, that the leper Naaman should bathe seven times in the river Jordan. The conversations connected with the cure partly proceed from the tendency of the gospel of John already remarked by Storr, namely, to attest and to render as authentic as possible both the cure of the man, and the fact of his having been bom blind, whence the repeated examination of the cured man, and even of his parents; partly they turn upon the symbolical meaning of the expressions, Uind and seeing, day and night,-a meaning which it is true is not foreign to the synoptical writers, but which specifically belongs to the circle of images in favour with John.
§ 96.
CUEES OF PARALYTICS-DID JESUS REGARD DISEASES AS •PUNISHMENTS ?
CUEES OF PARALYTICS-DID JESUS REGARD DISEASES AS •PUNISHMENTS ?
AN important feature in the history of the cure of the man born thud has been passed over, because it can only be properly estimated in connexion with a corresponding one in the synoptical narratives of the cure of a paralytic (Matt. ix. 1 ff.; Mark ii. 1 ff.; -Luke v. 17 ff.), which we have in the next place to consider. Here •Jesus first declares to the sick man: diptuvrai aoial d^iapriai. aov, thy sins are forgiven t/iee, and then as a proof that he had au* S. 93. t Koster, Immanu<9, S. 79; Bretschneider, Probab. S. 122. J Wctstein,THE LIFE OF JESUS.
thority to forgive sins, he cures him. It is impossible not tc perceive in this a reference to the Jewish opinion, that any evil befalling an individual, and especially disease, was a punishment of his sins ; an opinion which, presented in its main elements in the Old Testament, (Lev. xxvi. 14 ff.; Deut. xxviii. 15 ff.; 2 Chron. xxi. 15. 18 f.) was expressed in the most definite manner by the later Jews.* Had we possessed that synoptical narrative only, we must have believed that Jesus shared the opinion of his cotemporary fellow-countrymen on this subject, since he proves his authority to forgive sins (as the cause of disease) by an example of his power to cure disease (the consequence of sin). But, it is said, there are other passages where Jesus directly contradicts this Jewish opinion; whence it follows, that what he then says to the paralytic was a mere accommodation to the ideas of the sick man, intended to promote his cure.f The principalpassage commonly adduced in support of this position, is the introduction to the history of the man born blind, which was last considered (John ix. 1-3.). Here the disciples, seeing on the road the man whom they knew to have been blind from his birth, put to Jesus the question, whether his blindness was the consequence of his own sins, or of those of his parents? The case was a peculiarly difficult one on the Jewish theory of retribution. With respect to diseases which attach themselves to a man in his course through life, an observer Avho has once taken a certain
bias,
may easily
discover or
assume
some peculiar delinquencies on the part of this man as their cause. With respect to inborn diseases, on the contrary, though the old Hebraic opinion (Exod. xx. 5;
Deut. v. 9;2 Sam. iii. 29.), it is true, presented the explanation that by these the sins of the fathers were visited on their posterity:
yet as, for human regulation, the Mosaic law itself ordained that each should suffer for his own sins alone (Deut. xxiv. 1.6;
2 Kings xiv. 6);and as also, in relation to the penal justice of the Divine Being, the prophets predicted a similar dispensation (Jer. xxxi. 30;
Ezek. xviii. 19 f.);
rabbinical acumen resorted to the expedient of supposing, that men so afflicted might probably have sinned in their mothers womb,J and this was doubtless the notion which the disciples had in view in their question v. 2. Jesus says, in answer, that neither for his own sin nor for that of his parents, did this man come into the world blind; but in order that by the cure which he, as the Messiah, would effect in him, he might be an instrument in manifestingthe
miraculous power of
God. This
is
generally understood
as
if Jesus
repudiated the whole opinion, that disease and other evils were essentially punishments * Nedarim f. xli. 1. (Scliottgen, I, p. 03.): JDirit It. Chijafi’.Abba: mtllns aegrotus a morbo s«o sanatur, donee ?”/>.si
omnia peccata remissa
fti/tt.7
llase, L. J. $ 73.
bias,
may easily
discover or
assume
some peculiar delinquencies on the part of this man as their cause. With respect to inborn diseases, on the contrary, though the old Hebraic opinion (Exod. xx. 5;
Deut. v. 9;2 Sam. iii. 29.), it is true, presented the explanation that by these the sins of the fathers were visited on their posterity:
yet as, for human regulation, the Mosaic law itself ordained that each should suffer for his own sins alone (Deut. xxiv. 1.6;
2 Kings xiv. 6);and as also, in relation to the penal justice of the Divine Being, the prophets predicted a similar dispensation (Jer. xxxi. 30;
Ezek. xviii. 19 f.);
rabbinical acumen resorted to the expedient of supposing, that men so afflicted might probably have sinned in their mothers womb,J and this was doubtless the notion which the disciples had in view in their question v. 2. Jesus says, in answer, that neither for his own sin nor for that of his parents, did this man come into the world blind; but in order that by the cure which he, as the Messiah, would effect in him, he might be an instrument in manifestingthe
miraculous power of
God. This
is
generally understood
as
if Jesus
repudiated the whole opinion, that disease and other evils were essentially punishments * Nedarim f. xli. 1. (Scliottgen, I, p. 03.): JDirit It. Chijafi’.Abba: mtllns aegrotus a morbo s«o sanatur, donee ?”/>.si
omnia peccata remissa
fti/tt.7
llase, L. J. $ 73.
Fritzsehe, in Matth. p. 335. J Smihedr. f. xci. 2, and Beresdutli Itabba f. xxxviii. 1.
(Lightfoot p. 1050.) : Antoninus iiiterroyacit Itabbi (Judinn): a tjnonam tempoiv
inctpit ......’•-’ •’-• ‘• •”-•’•”•<> mi “ fpmnni-c, format ioni* cius (in ulero’), an fi hwjwt MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES OF PARALYTICS.of sin. But the words of Jesus are expressly limited to the case before him; -lie simply says, that this particular misfortune had i^s foundation, not in»the guilt of the individual, but in higher providential designs. The supposition that his expressions had a more general sense, and included a repudiation of the entire Jewish opinion, could only be warranted by other more decided declarations from him to that effect. As, on the contrary, according to the above observations, a narrative is found in the synoptical gospels which, simply interpreted, implies the concurrence of Jesus in the prevalent opinion, the question arises: which is easier, to regard the expression of Jesus in the synoptical narratives as an accommodation, or that in John as having relation solely to the case immediately before him 1-a question which will be decided in favour of the latter alternative by every one who, on the one hand, knows the difficulties attending the hypothesis of accommodation as applied to the expressions of Jesus in the gospels, and on the other, is clear-sighted enough to perceive, that in the passage in question in the fourth gospel, there is not the slightest intimation that the declaration of Jesus had a more general meaning.
inctpit ......’•-’ •’-• ‘• •”-•’•”•<> mi “ fpmnni-c, format ioni* cius (in ulero’), an fi hwjwt MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES OF PARALYTICS.of sin. But the words of Jesus are expressly limited to the case before him; -lie simply says, that this particular misfortune had i^s foundation, not in»the guilt of the individual, but in higher providential designs. The supposition that his expressions had a more general sense, and included a repudiation of the entire Jewish opinion, could only be warranted by other more decided declarations from him to that effect. As, on the contrary, according to the above observations, a narrative is found in the synoptical gospels which, simply interpreted, implies the concurrence of Jesus in the prevalent opinion, the question arises: which is easier, to regard the expression of Jesus in the synoptical narratives as an accommodation, or that in John as having relation solely to the case immediately before him 1-a question which will be decided in favour of the latter alternative by every one who, on the one hand, knows the difficulties attending the hypothesis of accommodation as applied to the expressions of Jesus in the gospels, and on the other, is clear-sighted enough to perceive, that in the passage in question in the fourth gospel, there is not the slightest intimation that the declaration of Jesus had a more general meaning.
Other books
Wicked Gentlemen by Ginn Hale
Tall, Dark and Lethal by Dana Marton
Asylum City by Liad Shoham
Vicious by Debra Webb
Doctor in Love by Richard Gordon
Smoke & Metal (New York Crime Kings Book 3) by Skyla Madi
Cast in Blood (Morgan Blackstone Vampires Book 1) by Michelle Rabe
They Say Love Is Blind by Pepper Pace
The Inquisitor by Peter Clement
Maceration by Brian Briscoe