Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (791 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
13.73Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
MIRACLES----RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.of resuscitation by Jesus, he must apparently have had this in his mind.*
But apart from the false interpretation of the words of Jesus, this view7 of the subject has many difficulties. That in many diseases conditions may present themselves which have a deceptive resemblance to death, or that in the indifferent state of medical science among the Jews of that age especially, a swoon might easily be mistaken for death, is not to be denied. But how was Jesus to know that there was such a merely apparent death in this particular case? However minutely the father detailed to him the course of the disease, nay, even if Jesus were acquainted beforehand with the particular circumstances of the girl’s illness (as the natural explanation supposes): we must still ask, how- could he build so much on this information as, without having seen the girl, and in contradiction to the assurance of the eye-witnesses, decidedly to declare that she was not dead, according to the rationalistic interpretation of his words ? This would have been rashness and folly to boot, unless Jesus had obtained certain knowledge of the true state of the case in a supernatural way :f to admit which, however, is to abandon the naturalistic point of view. To return to the explanation of Paulus; between the expressions, kupdr-qoe TIJC xapog avrr^, lie took her l>y t/ie hand, and i}yf:pOi] rb Kopdaior, the maid arose, expressions which are closely enough connected in Matthew, and are still more inseparably linked by the words evdi^s and -apa-^pfju-a in the other two gospels, he inserts a course of medical treatment, and Venturini can even specify the different restoratives which were applied-! Against such arbitrary suppositions, Olshauscn justly maintains that in the opinion of the evangelical narrator the life-giving word of Jesus, (and we might acid, the touch of his hand, furnished with divine power,) was the means of restoring the girl to life.
In the case of resuscitation narrated by Luke alone (vii. 11 ff.) the natural explanation has not such a handle as was presented by the declaration of Jesus in the narrative just considered. Nevertheless, the rationalistic commentators take courage, and rest their hopes mainly on the circumstance that Jesus speaks to the young man lying in the coffin (v. 14). Now, say they, no one would speak to a dead person, but only to such an one as is ascertained or guessed to be capable of hearing.§ But this rule would prove that all the dead whom Christ will raise at the last day are only apparently dead, as otherwise they could not hear his voice, which it is expressly said they wdl do (John v. 28; comp. 1 Thess. iv. 16); it would there-ore prove too much. Certainly one who is spoken to must be supposed to hear, and in a certain sense to be living; but in the present instance this holds only in so far as the voice of him who quickens c dead can penetrate even to the ears from which life has departed.
i r * C°’!1)X Do Wette fxeg. Hanclb. 1, 1, S. 95 ; Weisse, die ev. Geschichte, 1, S. 503. h “‘‘. ‘‘ander. L-J. S. 842. 1 Natiirlir.hf r,,.s(.hu.),tr. •>. S 919 H P«,,l,,« «™~
r MIRACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.534
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
We must indeed admit tlie possibility that with the bad custom which prevailed among tlie Jews of burying their dead a few hours after their decease, a merely apparent corpse might easily be carried to the grave ;* but all by which it is attempted to show that this possibility was here a reality, is a tissue of fictions. In order to explain how Jesus, even without any intention to perform a miracle, came to join the funeral procession, and how the conjecture could occur to him that the individual about to be buried was not really dead, it is first imagined that the two processions, that of the funeral and that of the companions of Jesus, met precisely under the gate of the city, and as they impeded each other, halted for a while:- directly in opposition to the text, which makes the bearers first stand still when Jesus touches the bier.Affected by the peculiar circumstances of the case, which he had learned during tiie pause in his progress, Jesus, it is said, approached the mother, and not with any reference to a resurrection which lie intended to effect, but merely as a consolatory address, said to her, Weep not.^ But what an empty, presuming comforter would he be, who, when a mother was about to consign her only son to the grave, should forbid her even the relief of tears, without offering to her either real help by recalling the departed one, or ideal, by suggesting grounds for consolation’Now the latter Jesus does not attempt: hence unless we would allow him to appear altogether heartless, he must be supposed to have resolved on the former, and for this he in fact makes every preparation, designedly touching the bier, and causing the bearers to stand still. Here, before the reanimating word of Jesus, the natural explanation inserts the circumstance that Jesus observed some sign of life in the youth, and on this, either immediately or after a previous application of medicaments,! spoke the words, which helped completely to awake him. But setting aside the fact that those intervening measures are only interpolated into the text, and that the strong words: veaviaKe, ffot Aeyw, LjipGi]Tt,. Youny man, I say unto t/tee arise ! resemble rather the authoritative command of a miracle worker than the attempt of a physician to restore animation; how, if Jesus were conscious that the youth was alive when he met him, and was not first recalled to life by himself, could he with a good conscience receive the praise which, according to the narrative, the multitude lavished on him as a great prophet on account of this deed?According to Paulus, he was himself uncertain how he ought to regard the result; but if he were not convinced that he ought to ascribe the result to himself, it was his duty to disclaim all praise on account of it; and if he omitted to do this, his conduct places him in an equivocal light, in which he by no means appears in the other evangelical histories, so far as they are fairly interpreted. Thus here also we must acknowledge that the evangelist intends to narrate to us a miraculous « T>o,,in.
„.,„„ Handb. ut sup. S. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1. 2, S. 47.
„.,„„ Handb. ut sup. S. 723. Comp. De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1. 2, S. 47.
resuscitation of the dead, and that according to him, Jesus also regarded his deed as a miracle.*
In the third history of a resurrection, which is peculiar to John (chap, xi.), the resuscitated individual is neither just dead nor being carried to his grave, but has been already buried several days. Here one Avould have thought there was little hope of effecting a natural explanation; but the arduousness of the task has only stimulated the ingenuity and industry of the rationalists in developing their conception of this narrative. We shall also see that together with the rigorously consequent mode of interpretation of the rationalists,-which, maintaining the historical integrity of the evangelical narrative throughout, assumes the responsibility of explaining every part naturally, there has appeared another system, which distinguishes certain features of the narrative as additions after the event, and is thus an advance towards the mythical explanation.
The rationalistic expositors set out here from the same premises as in the former narrative, namely, that it is in itself possible for a man who has lain in a tomb four days to come to life again, and that this possibility is strengthened in the present instance by the known custom of the Jews; propositions which we shall not abstractedly controvert. From this they proceed to a supposition which we perhaps ought not to let pass so easily, f namely, that from the messenger whom the sisters had sent with the news of their brother’s illness, Jesus had obtained accurate information of the circumstances of the disease; and the answer which he gave to the messenger, This sickness is not unto death, (v. 4,) is said to express, merely as an inference which he had drawn from the report of the messenger, his conviction that the disease was not fatal. Such a view of his friend’s condition would certainly accord the best with his conduct in remaining two days in Perasa after the reception of the message (v. 6); since, according to that supposition, he could not regard his presence in Bethany as a matter of urgent necessity. But how comes it that after the lapse of these two days, he not only resolves to journey thither (v. 8), but also has quite a different opinion of the state of Lazarus, nay, certain knowledge of his death, which he first obscurely (v. 10) and then plainly (v. 14) announces to his disciples? Here the thread of the natural explanation is lost, and the break is only rendered more conspicuous by the fiction of a second messenger,! after the lapse of two days, bringing word to Jesus that Lazarus had expired in the interim. For the author of the gospel at least cannot have known of a second messenger, otherwise he must have mentioned him, since the omission to do so gives another aspect to the whole narrative, obliging us to infer that Jesus had obtained information of the death of Lazarus in a supernatural manner.
* Comp. Schleiermacher, ut sup. S. 103 f. f Paulus, Comm. 4, S. 535 ff.; L. J. J- B. S. 55 ff. I In the translation of the text in his Leben Jesu, 2. B. S. 46, Paulus appears to suppose, besides the message mentioned in the gospel, Ihreit subsequent messages.THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Jesus, when lie had resolved to go to Bethany, said to the disciples, J^azarus sleepeth, but I go that I may awake him out of sleep (KeKoijirjrai-kgvxvlou-v. 11); this the naturalists explain by the supposition that Jesus must in the same way have gathered from the statements’ of the messengers who announced the death of La-zams, that the latter was only in a state of lethargy. But we can as little here as in a former case impute to Jesus the foolish presumption of giving, “before he had even seen the alleged corpse, the positive assurance that he yet lived.* From this point of view, it is also a difficulty that Jesus says to his disciples (v. 15) f am glad for your sake A that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe (Iva 7r«7Tev(T7;Tf).
Paulus explains these words to imply that Jesus feared lest the death, had it happened in his presence, might have shaken their faith in him ; “but, as Galilert has remarked, Ttia-evu cannot mean merely the negative:
not to lose faith, which would rather have been expressed by a phrase such as: Iva p) t/c/UtTn? ?; iricrrt? i’n&v, that your fait ft fail -not (see Luke xxii. 32.);
and moreover we nowhere find that the idea which the disciples formed of Jesus as the Messiah was incompatible with the death of a man, or, more correctly, of a friend, in his presence.
Paulus explains these words to imply that Jesus feared lest the death, had it happened in his presence, might have shaken their faith in him ; “but, as Galilert has remarked, Ttia-evu cannot mean merely the negative:
not to lose faith, which would rather have been expressed by a phrase such as: Iva p) t/c/UtTn? ?; iricrrt? i’n&v, that your fait ft fail -not (see Luke xxii. 32.);
and moreover we nowhere find that the idea which the disciples formed of Jesus as the Messiah was incompatible with the death of a man, or, more correctly, of a friend, in his presence.
From the arrival of Jesus in Bethany the evangelical narrative is somewhat more favourable to’the natural explanation. It is true that Martha’s address to Jesus (v. 21 f.), Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died, but I know that even now, whatsoever-thou wilt ask of God, he will (jive it thee, dAAd not vvv olda, on, oaa av air-fay ~bv OKOV, fiuaet aoi b 0ebf, appears evidently to express the hope that Jesus may be able even to recall the dead one to life. However, on the assurance of Jesus which follows, Thy brother «li’ill r>*e aytiii, dvaari’ioerai b adeAfyoi; aov, she answers de-spondingly, Yes, at the last day. This is certainly a help to the natural explanation, for it seems retrospectively to give to the above declaration of Martha (v. 22) the general sense, that even now, although he has not preserved the life of her brother, she believes Jesus to be him to whom God grants all that he desires, that is, the favourite of the Deity, the Messiah. But the expression which Martha there uses is not -lo-evu but oida, and the turn of phrase: I know that this will happen if thou only wiliest it to be so, is a common but indirect form of petition, and is here the more unmis-takcablc, because the object of the entreaty is clearly indicated by the foregoing antithesis. Martha evidently means, Thou hast not indeed prevented the death of our brother, but even now it is not too late, for at thy prayer God will restore him to thee and us. Martha’s change of mind, from the hope which is but indirectly expressed in her iirst reply (v. 24) to its extinction in the second, cannot be held very surprising in a woman who here and elsewhere * Corny. C. Ch. Halt, etwas
zur YiTthcidigung des Wunders dor Wiederlwlcbung ‘!..« T.ninnis. in Sii.-kinds Magazin, lltcsStuck, S. 93 ff.f Journal fiir
auserleseno MIRACLES----RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.manifests a very hasty disposition, and it is in the present case sufficiently explained by the form of the foregoing assurance of Jesus (v. 23). Martha had expected that Jesus would reply to her indirect prayer by a decided promise of its fulfilment, and when he answers quite generally and with an expression which it was usual to apply to the resurrection at the last clay (dvaa-rijaerai), she gives a half-impatient, half-desponding reply.* But that general declaration of Jesus, as well as the yet more indefinite one (v. 25 £), I am the resurrection and the life, is thought favourable to the rationalistic view: Jesus, it is said, was yet far from the expectation of an extraordinary result, hence he consoles Martha merely with the general hope that he, the Messiah, would procure for those who believed in him a future resurrection and a life of blessedness. As however Jesus had before (v. 11) spoken confidently to his disciples of awak-ino- Lazarus, he must then have altered his opinion in the interim--a change for which no cause is apparent. Further, when (v. 40) Jesus is about to awake Lazarus, he says to Martha, Said I not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe thou shouldst see the glory of God? evidently alluding to v. 23, in which therefore lie must have meant to predict the resurrection which he was going to effect. That he does not declare this distinctly, and that he again, veils the scarcely uttered promise, in relation to the brother (v. 25) in general promises for the believing, is the effect of design, the object of which is to try the faith of Martha, and extend her sphere of thought.f When Mary at length comes out of the house with her companions, her weeping moves Jesus himself to tears. To this circumstance the natural interpretation appeals with unusual confidence, asking whether if he were already certain of his friend’s resurrection, he would not have approached his grave with the most fervent joy, since lie was conscious of being able to call him again living from the grave in the next moment ? In this view the words hepptprjoa-o (v. 33) and epftpipu^ievog (v. 38) are understood of a forcible repression of the sorrow caused by the death of his friend, which subsequently found vent in tears (eddKpvaev). But both by its etymology, according to which it signifies fremere in aliquem or in se, and by the analogy of its use in the New Testament, where it appears only in the sense of increpare-aliquem (Matt. ix. 30; Mark i. 43; xiv. O.), ep.j3pi^.aa6ai is determined to imply an emotion of anger, not cf sorrow; where it is united, not with the dative of another person, but with rw itvevpcm and ev iavTu, it must be understood of a silent, suppressed displeasure. This sense would be very appropriate in v. 38, where it occurs the second time; for in the foregoing observation of the Jews, Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? there lies an intimation that they were scandalized, the prior conduct of Jesus perplexing them as to his present demeanour, and vice * Flatt. nt sun1
f . r»Q \V,THE LIFE OF JESUS.
zur YiTthcidigung des Wunders dor Wiederlwlcbung ‘!..« T.ninnis. in Sii.-kinds Magazin, lltcsStuck, S. 93 ff.f Journal fiir
auserleseno MIRACLES----RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.manifests a very hasty disposition, and it is in the present case sufficiently explained by the form of the foregoing assurance of Jesus (v. 23). Martha had expected that Jesus would reply to her indirect prayer by a decided promise of its fulfilment, and when he answers quite generally and with an expression which it was usual to apply to the resurrection at the last clay (dvaa-rijaerai), she gives a half-impatient, half-desponding reply.* But that general declaration of Jesus, as well as the yet more indefinite one (v. 25 £), I am the resurrection and the life, is thought favourable to the rationalistic view: Jesus, it is said, was yet far from the expectation of an extraordinary result, hence he consoles Martha merely with the general hope that he, the Messiah, would procure for those who believed in him a future resurrection and a life of blessedness. As however Jesus had before (v. 11) spoken confidently to his disciples of awak-ino- Lazarus, he must then have altered his opinion in the interim--a change for which no cause is apparent. Further, when (v. 40) Jesus is about to awake Lazarus, he says to Martha, Said I not unto thee that if thou wouldst believe thou shouldst see the glory of God? evidently alluding to v. 23, in which therefore lie must have meant to predict the resurrection which he was going to effect. That he does not declare this distinctly, and that he again, veils the scarcely uttered promise, in relation to the brother (v. 25) in general promises for the believing, is the effect of design, the object of which is to try the faith of Martha, and extend her sphere of thought.f When Mary at length comes out of the house with her companions, her weeping moves Jesus himself to tears. To this circumstance the natural interpretation appeals with unusual confidence, asking whether if he were already certain of his friend’s resurrection, he would not have approached his grave with the most fervent joy, since lie was conscious of being able to call him again living from the grave in the next moment ? In this view the words hepptprjoa-o (v. 33) and epftpipu^ievog (v. 38) are understood of a forcible repression of the sorrow caused by the death of his friend, which subsequently found vent in tears (eddKpvaev). But both by its etymology, according to which it signifies fremere in aliquem or in se, and by the analogy of its use in the New Testament, where it appears only in the sense of increpare-aliquem (Matt. ix. 30; Mark i. 43; xiv. O.), ep.j3pi^.aa6ai is determined to imply an emotion of anger, not cf sorrow; where it is united, not with the dative of another person, but with rw itvevpcm and ev iavTu, it must be understood of a silent, suppressed displeasure. This sense would be very appropriate in v. 38, where it occurs the second time; for in the foregoing observation of the Jews, Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? there lies an intimation that they were scandalized, the prior conduct of Jesus perplexing them as to his present demeanour, and vice * Flatt. nt sun1
f . r»Q \V,THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Other books
Seeing Red by Sidney Halston
The Intruder by Hakan Ostlundh
Siege of Heaven by Tom Harper
Gertrude and Claudius by John Updike
The Burning Horizon by Erin Hunter
Star Brigade: Odysseys - An Anthology by C.C. Ekeke
When Bruce Met Cyn by Lori Foster
The Cole Trilogy: The Physician, Shaman, and Matters of Choice by Gordon, Noah
Love Finds You in Poetry, Texas by Janice Hanna