Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (788 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
12.48Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
in the least improbable that in Capernaum at two different periods two centurions should have had each a sick servant, and that again at another time a nobleman should have had a sick son at the same place; that the second centurion (Luke) should have heard the history of the first, have applied in a similar manner to Jesus, and sought to surpass his example of humility, as the first centurion (Matthew), to whom the earlier history of the nobleman (John) was known, wished to surpass the weak faith of the latter; and lastly, that Jesus cured all the three patients in the same manner at a distance. But the incident of a distinguished official person applying to Jesus to cure a dependent or relative, and of Jesus at a distance operating on the latter in such a manner, that about the time in which Jesus pronounced the curative word, the patient at home recovered, is so singular in its kind that a threefold repetition of it may be regarded as impossible, and even the supposition that it occurred twice only, has difficulties; hence it is our task to ascertain whether the three narratives may not be traced to a single root.
Now the narrative of the fourth evangelist which is most generally held to be distinct, has not only an affinity with the synoptical narratives in the outline already given; but in many remarkable details either one or the other of the synoptists agrees more closely with John than with his fellow synoptist. Thus, while in designating the patient as ™tf, Matthew may be held to accord with the via; of John, at least as probably as with the SovXog of Luke; Matthew and John decidedly agree in this, that according to both the functionary at Capernaum applies in his own person to Jesus, and not as in Luke by deputies.On the other hand, the account of John agrees with that of Luke in its description of the state of the patient; in neither is there any mention of the paralysis of which Matthew speaks, but the patient is described as near death, in Luke by the words r/fieAAe rekevrav, in John by r/fie/LAev dTroOvrjaiieiv, in addition to which it is incidentally implied in the latter v. 52 that~the disease was accompanied by a fever, Trvperkf.In the account of the manner in which Jesus effected the cure of the patient, and in which his cure was made known, John stands again on the side of Matthew in opposition to Luke. While namely, the latter has not an express assurance on the part of Jesus that the servant was healed, the two former make him say to the officer, in very similar terms, the one, v-xaye, Kal «f i~iorevaag yev^QyjTO) trot, Go thy
way, and as thou hast believed so shall it be done unto thee, the other, -nopevov, b vlbg aov fg, Go thy way, thy son liveth ; and the conclusion of Matthew also, Kal la.Bi{b -rral^ avrov kv ry wpa e/cetvfl, has at least in its form more resemblance to the statement of John, that by subsequent inquiry the father ascertained it to be iv kneiv^ TTJ wpa, at the same hour in which Jesus had spoken the word that his son had begun tr> nmencl. than to the statement of Luke, that, the messengers when 1- -1U-TV, oTinftlpr MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES AT A DISTANCE.ferred from Matthew again to Luke. In both Luke and John, namely, a kind of embassy is spoken of, which towards the close of the narrative comes out of the house of the officer; in the former it consists of the centurion’s friends, whose errand it is to dissuade Jesus from giving himself unnecessary trouble; in the latter, of servants who rejoicingly meet their master and bring him the news of his son’s recovery. Unquestionably where three narratives are so thoroughly entwined with each other as these, we ought not merely to pronounce two of them identical and allow one to stand for a distinct fact, but must rather either distinguish all, or blend all into one. The latter course was adopted by Semler, after older examples,* and Tholuck has at least declared it possible. But with such expositors the next object is so to explain the divergencies of the three narratives, that no one of the-evangelists may seem to have said any thing false. With respect to the rank of the applicant, they make the pamfaKQt; in John a military officer, for whom the KKarovrap^og of the two others would only be a more specific designation; as regards the main point, however, namely the conduct of the applicant, it is thought that the different narrators may have represented the event in different periods of its progress ; that is, John may have given the earlier circumstance, that Jesus complained of the originally weak faith of the suppliant, the synoptists only the later, that he praised its rapid growth. We have already shown how it has been supposed possible, in a yet easier manner, to adjust the chief difference between the two synoptical accounts relative to the mediate or immediate entreaty. But this effort to explain the contradictions between the three narratives in a favourable manner is altogether O
way, and as thou hast believed so shall it be done unto thee, the other, -nopevov, b vlbg aov fg, Go thy way, thy son liveth ; and the conclusion of Matthew also, Kal la.Bi{b -rral^ avrov kv ry wpa e/cetvfl, has at least in its form more resemblance to the statement of John, that by subsequent inquiry the father ascertained it to be iv kneiv^ TTJ wpa, at the same hour in which Jesus had spoken the word that his son had begun tr> nmencl. than to the statement of Luke, that, the messengers when 1- -1U-TV, oTinftlpr MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES AT A DISTANCE.ferred from Matthew again to Luke. In both Luke and John, namely, a kind of embassy is spoken of, which towards the close of the narrative comes out of the house of the officer; in the former it consists of the centurion’s friends, whose errand it is to dissuade Jesus from giving himself unnecessary trouble; in the latter, of servants who rejoicingly meet their master and bring him the news of his son’s recovery. Unquestionably where three narratives are so thoroughly entwined with each other as these, we ought not merely to pronounce two of them identical and allow one to stand for a distinct fact, but must rather either distinguish all, or blend all into one. The latter course was adopted by Semler, after older examples,* and Tholuck has at least declared it possible. But with such expositors the next object is so to explain the divergencies of the three narratives, that no one of the-evangelists may seem to have said any thing false. With respect to the rank of the applicant, they make the pamfaKQt; in John a military officer, for whom the KKarovrap^og of the two others would only be a more specific designation; as regards the main point, however, namely the conduct of the applicant, it is thought that the different narrators may have represented the event in different periods of its progress ; that is, John may have given the earlier circumstance, that Jesus complained of the originally weak faith of the suppliant, the synoptists only the later, that he praised its rapid growth. We have already shown how it has been supposed possible, in a yet easier manner, to adjust the chief difference between the two synoptical accounts relative to the mediate or immediate entreaty. But this effort to explain the contradictions between the three narratives in a favourable manner is altogether O
vain. There still subsist these difficulties : the synoptists thought of the applicant as a centurion, the fourth evangelist as a courtier; the former as strong, the latter as weak in faith ; John and Matthew imagined that he applied in his own person to Jesus; Luke, that out of modesty he sent deputies, f Which then represents the fact in the right way, which in the wrong ? If we take first the two synoptists by themselves, expositors with one voice declare that Luke gives the more correct account. 1’irst of all, it is thought improbable that the patient should have been as Matthew says, a paralytic, since in the case of a disease so seldom fatal the modest centurion would scarcely have met Jesus to implore his aid immediately on his entrance into the city:J as if a very painful disease such as is described by Matthew did not render desirable the quickest help, and as if there were any want of modesty in asking Jesus before he reached home to utter a healing word. Rather, the contrary relation between Matthew and Luke seems probable from the observation, that the miracle, and conse-THE LIFE OF JESUS.
quently also the disease of the person cured miraculously, is never diminished in tradition but always exaggerated; hence the tormented paralytic would more probably be heightened into one ready to die, fieAAwv -reXevrav, than the latter reduced to a mere sufferer. But especially the double message in Luke is, according to Schleier-macher, a feature very unlikely to have been invented. How if, on the contrary, it very plainly manifested itself to be an invention? While in Matthew the centurion, on the offer of Jesus to accompany him, seeks to prevent him by the objection: .Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof, in Luke he adds by the mouth of his messenger, wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee, by which we plainly discover the conclusion on which the second embassy was founded. If the man declared himself unworthy that Jesus should come to him, he cannot, it was thought, have held himself worthy to come to Jesus; an exaggeration of his humility by which the narrative of Luke again betrays its secondary character.The first embassy seems to have originated in the desire to introduce a previous recommendation of the centurion as a motive for the promptitude with which Jesus offered to enter the house of a Gentile. The Jewish elders after having informed Jesus of the case of disease, add, that he was worthy for whom he should do this, for he loveth our nation and has built us a synagogue: a recommendation the tenor of which is not unlike what Luke (Acts x. 22) makes the messengers of Cornelius say to Peter to induce him to return with them, namely, that the centurion was a just man, and one that feareth God, and in good report among all the nation of the Jews. That the double embassy cannot have been original, appears the most clearly from the fact, that by it the narrative of Luke loses all coherence. In Matthew all hangs well together: the centurion first describes to Jesus the state of the sufferer, and either leaves it to Jesus to decide what he shall next do, or before he prefers his request Jesus anticipates him by the offer to go to his house, which the centurion declines in the manner stated.Compare with this his strange conduct in Luke: he first sends to Jesus by the Jewish elders the request that he will come and heal his servant, but when Jesus is actually coming, repents that he has occasioned him to do so, and asks only for a miraculous word from Jesus. The supposition that the first request, proceeded solely from the elders and not from the centurion* runs counter to the express words of the evangelist, who by the expressions: dn&-<7Tsi/le-npeafivTepovg-tpwrwv avrbv, he sent-the elders-beseeching him, represents the prayer as corning from the centurion himselt; and that the latter by the word eWuv meant only that Jesus should come into the neighbourhood of his house, but when he saw that Jesus intended actually to enter his house, declined this as too great a favour,-is too absurd a demeanour to attribute to a man who otherwise appears sensible, and of whom for this reason so capri-
•” . .v
OO1 f MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES AT A DISTANCE.cious a change of mind as is implied in the text of Luke, was still less to be expected. The whole difficulty would have been avoided, if Luke had put into the mouth of the first messengers, as Matthew in that of the centurion, only the entreaty, direct or indirect, for a cure in general; and then after Jesus had offered to go to the house where the patient lay, had attributed to the same messengers the modest rejection of this offer. But on the one hand, he thought it requisite to furnish a motive for the resolution of Jesus to go into the Gentile’s house; on the other, tradition presented him with a deprecation of this personal trouble on the part of Jesus: he was unable to attribute the prayer and the deprecation to the same persons, and he was therefore obliged to contrive a second embassy. Hereby, Irowever, the contradiction was only apparently avoided, since both embassies are sent by the centurion. Perhaps also the centurion who was unwilling that Jesus should take the trouble to enter his house, reminded Luke of the messenger who warned Jairus not to trouble the master to enter his house, likewise after an entreaty that he would come into the house; and as the messenger says to Jairus, according to him and Mark, pi] OKVAAS TOV 6i6daKa-hov, trouble not the master (Luke viii. 49.), so here he puts into the mouth of the second envoys, the words, Kvpie p) OKVA^OV, .Lord, trouble not thyself, although such an order has a reason only in the case of Jairus, in whose house the state of things had been changed since the first summons by the death of his daughter, and none at all in that of the centurion whose servant still remained in the same state.
•” . .v
OO1 f MIRACLES OF JESUS-CURES AT A DISTANCE.cious a change of mind as is implied in the text of Luke, was still less to be expected. The whole difficulty would have been avoided, if Luke had put into the mouth of the first messengers, as Matthew in that of the centurion, only the entreaty, direct or indirect, for a cure in general; and then after Jesus had offered to go to the house where the patient lay, had attributed to the same messengers the modest rejection of this offer. But on the one hand, he thought it requisite to furnish a motive for the resolution of Jesus to go into the Gentile’s house; on the other, tradition presented him with a deprecation of this personal trouble on the part of Jesus: he was unable to attribute the prayer and the deprecation to the same persons, and he was therefore obliged to contrive a second embassy. Hereby, Irowever, the contradiction was only apparently avoided, since both embassies are sent by the centurion. Perhaps also the centurion who was unwilling that Jesus should take the trouble to enter his house, reminded Luke of the messenger who warned Jairus not to trouble the master to enter his house, likewise after an entreaty that he would come into the house; and as the messenger says to Jairus, according to him and Mark, pi] OKVAAS TOV 6i6daKa-hov, trouble not the master (Luke viii. 49.), so here he puts into the mouth of the second envoys, the words, Kvpie p) OKVA^OV, .Lord, trouble not thyself, although such an order has a reason only in the case of Jairus, in whose house the state of things had been changed since the first summons by the death of his daughter, and none at all in that of the centurion whose servant still remained in the same state.
Modern expositors are deterred from the identification of all the three narratives, by the fear that it may present John in the light of a narrator who has not apprehended the scene with sufficient accuracy, and has even mistaken its main drift.* Were they nevertheless to venture on a union, they would as far as possible vindicate to the fourth gospel the most original account of the facts; a position of which we shall forthwith test the security, by an examination o± the iristrinsic character of the narratives. That the suppliant is according to the fourth evangelist a fiaaikiKog, while according to the two others he is an iicarovrap^of, is an indifferent particular from winch we can draw no conclusion on either side; and it may appear to be the same with the divergency as to the relation of the diseased person to the one who entreats his cure. If however, it be asked with reference to the last point, from which of the three designations the other two could most easily have arisen ? it can scarcely be supposed that the vlbg of John became in a descending line, first the doubtful term rate, and then (JovAoc ; and even the reverse ascending order is here less probable than the intermediate alternative, that °«t of the ambiguous 7ra7c (= isa) there branched off in one direction the sense of servant, as in Luke; in the other, of son, as in John. We have already remarked, that the description of the pa-THE LIFE OF JESUS.
tient’s state in John, as well as in Luke, is an enhancement on that in Matthew, and consequently of later origin. As regards the difference in the locality, from the point of view now generally taken in the comparative criticism of the gospels, the decision would doubtless be, that in the tradition from which the synoptical writers drew, the place from which Jesus performed the miracles was confounded with that in which the sick person lay, the less noted Cana being absorbed in the celebrated Capernaum : whereas John, being an eyewitness, retained the more correct details.But the relation between the evangelists appear to stand thus only when John is assumed to have been an eye-witness; if the critic seeks, as he is bound to do, to base his decision solely on the instrinsic character of the narratives, he will arrive at a totally different result.Here is a narrative of a cure performed at a distance, in which the miracle appears the greater, the wider the distance between the curer and the cured. Would oral tradition in propagating this narrative, have the tendency to diminish that, distance, and consequently the miracle, so that in the account of John, who makes Jesus perform the cure at a place from which the nobleman does not reach his son until the following day, we should have the original narrative, in that of the synoptists on the contrary, who represent Jesus as being in the same town with the sick servant, the one modified by tradition’? Only the converse of this supposition can be held accordant with the nature of the legend, and here asrain the narrative of John maniO
‘
o fests itself to be a traditional one. Again, the preciseness with which the hour of the patient’s recovery is ascertained in the fourth gospel has a highly fictitious appearance. The simple expression of Matthew, usually found at the conclusion of histories of cures : /ie was healed in the self-same- hour, is dilated into an inquiry on the part of the father as to the hour in which the son began to amend, an answer from the servants that yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him, and lastly the result, that in the very hour in which Jesus had said, Thy son liveth, the recovery took place.This is a solicitous accuracy, a tediousuess of calculation, that seems to bespeak the anxiety of the narrator to establish the miracle, rather than to show the real course of the event. In representing the j3
‘
o fests itself to be a traditional one. Again, the preciseness with which the hour of the patient’s recovery is ascertained in the fourth gospel has a highly fictitious appearance. The simple expression of Matthew, usually found at the conclusion of histories of cures : /ie was healed in the self-same- hour, is dilated into an inquiry on the part of the father as to the hour in which the son began to amend, an answer from the servants that yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him, and lastly the result, that in the very hour in which Jesus had said, Thy son liveth, the recovery took place.This is a solicitous accuracy, a tediousuess of calculation, that seems to bespeak the anxiety of the narrator to establish the miracle, rather than to show the real course of the event. In representing the j3
Other books
City of Glory by Beverly Swerling
Everything Kids' Astronomy Book by Kathi Wagner
The Dream Widow by Stephen Colegrove
The Lost Flying Boat by Alan Silltoe
The Shining Stallion by Terri Farley
Water of Death by Paul Johnston
Lobsters by Lucy Ivison
Magic Reindeer: A Christmas Wish by Sue Bentley
The Third Reich by Roberto Bolaño
Through the Grinder by Cleo Coyle