Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (794 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
3.22Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
portant deeds of Jesus, dependent on the researches of amateurs and collectors of anecdotes, who went about gleaning, like Papias, at a later period ; secondly, (and these two objections arc essentially connected,) there lies at its foundation the erroneous idea that such histories were fixed, like inert bodies once fallen to the ground, in the places to which they belonged, guarded there as lifeless treasures, and only exhibited to those who took the trouble to resort to the spot: instead of which, they were rather like the light-winged inhabitants of the air, flying far ..away from the place which gave them birth, roaming everywhere, and not seldom losing all association with their original locality. We see the same thing happen daily ; innumerable histories, both true and false, arc represented as having occurred at the most widely different places. Such a narrative, once formed, is itself the substance, the alleged locality, the accident: by no means can the locality be the substance, to which the narrative is united as the accident, as it would follow from Schleiermacher’s supposition. Since then it cannot well be conceived that an incident of this kind, if it really happened, could remain foreign to the general tradition, and hence unknown to the author of the first gospel: the fact of this author’s ignorance of the incident gives rise to a suspicion that it did not really happen.
But this ground of doubt falls with incomparably greater weight, on the narrative of the resurrection of Lazarus in the fourth gospel. If the authors or collectors of the three first gospels knew of this, they could not, for more than one reason, avoid introducing it into their writings. For, first, of all the resuscitations effected by Jesus, nay, of all his miracles, this resurrection of Lazarus,
if not the most wonderful, is yet the OTIC in which the marvellous presents itself the most obviously and strikingly, and which therefore, if its historical reality can be established, is a pre-eminently strong proof of the extraordinary endowments of Jesus as a divine messenger ;* whence the evangelists, although they had related one or two other instances of the kind, could not think it superfluous to add this also.
But,
secondly, the resurrection of
Lazarus had, according to the representation of John, a direct influence in the development of the fate of Jesus; for we learn from xi, 47 ff., that the increased resort to Jesus, and the credit which this event procured him, led to that consultation of the Sanhedrim in which the sanguinary counsel of Caiaphas was given and approved. Thus the event had a double importance-pragmatical as well as dogmatical ; consequently, the synoptical writers could not have failed to narrate it, had it been within their knowledge. Nevertheless, theologians have found out all sorts of reasons why those evangelists, even had the fact been known to them, should refrain from its narration.
Some have been of opinion that at the time of the composition of the three first gospels, the history was still in every MIRACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.549
if not the most wonderful, is yet the OTIC in which the marvellous presents itself the most obviously and strikingly, and which therefore, if its historical reality can be established, is a pre-eminently strong proof of the extraordinary endowments of Jesus as a divine messenger ;* whence the evangelists, although they had related one or two other instances of the kind, could not think it superfluous to add this also.
But,
secondly, the resurrection of
Lazarus had, according to the representation of John, a direct influence in the development of the fate of Jesus; for we learn from xi, 47 ff., that the increased resort to Jesus, and the credit which this event procured him, led to that consultation of the Sanhedrim in which the sanguinary counsel of Caiaphas was given and approved. Thus the event had a double importance-pragmatical as well as dogmatical ; consequently, the synoptical writers could not have failed to narrate it, had it been within their knowledge. Nevertheless, theologians have found out all sorts of reasons why those evangelists, even had the fact been known to them, should refrain from its narration.
Some have been of opinion that at the time of the composition of the three first gospels, the history was still in every MIRACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.549
mouth, so that to make a written record of it was superfluous ;* others,on the contrary,have conjecturedthatit
was
thought desirable to guard against its further publication, lest danger should accrue to Lazarus and his family, the former of whom, according to John xii. 10., was persecuted by the Jewish hierarchy on account of the miracle which had
been performed in him; a caution for which there was no necessity at the later period at which John wrote his gospel, f It is plain that these two reasons nullify each other, and neither of them is in itself worthy of a serious refutation: yet as similar modes of evading a difficulty are still more frequently resorted to than might be supposed, we ought not to think some animadversion on them altogether thrown away.
The proposition, that the resurrection of Lazarus was not recorded by the synoptists because it was generally known in their circle, proves too much; since on this rule, precisely the most important events in the life of Jesus, his baptism, death, and resurrection, must have remained unwritten. Moreover, writings, which, like our gospels, originate in a religious community, do not serve merely to make known the unknown; it is their office also to preserve what is already known. In opposition to the other explanation, it has been remarked by others, that the publication of this history among those who were not natives of Palestine, as was the case with those for whom Mark and Luke wrote, could have done no injury to Lazarus; and even the author of the first gospel, admitting that he wrote in and for Palestine, could hardly have withheld a fact in which the glory of Christ was so peculiarly manifested, merely out of consideration to Lazarus, who, supposing the more improbable case that he was yet living at the time of the composition of the first gospel, ought not, Christian as he doubtless was, to refuse to suffer for the name of Christ; and the same observation would apply to his family. The most dangerous time for Lazarus according to John xii. 10, was thatimmediately after
his
resurrection,
and a narrativewhich appeared so long after, could scarcely have heightened or renewed this danger; besides, in the neighbourhood of Bethany arid Jerusalem whence danger was threatened to Lazarus, the event must have been so well-known and remembered that nothing was to be risked by its publication.!
was
thought desirable to guard against its further publication, lest danger should accrue to Lazarus and his family, the former of whom, according to John xii. 10., was persecuted by the Jewish hierarchy on account of the miracle which had
been performed in him; a caution for which there was no necessity at the later period at which John wrote his gospel, f It is plain that these two reasons nullify each other, and neither of them is in itself worthy of a serious refutation: yet as similar modes of evading a difficulty are still more frequently resorted to than might be supposed, we ought not to think some animadversion on them altogether thrown away.
The proposition, that the resurrection of Lazarus was not recorded by the synoptists because it was generally known in their circle, proves too much; since on this rule, precisely the most important events in the life of Jesus, his baptism, death, and resurrection, must have remained unwritten. Moreover, writings, which, like our gospels, originate in a religious community, do not serve merely to make known the unknown; it is their office also to preserve what is already known. In opposition to the other explanation, it has been remarked by others, that the publication of this history among those who were not natives of Palestine, as was the case with those for whom Mark and Luke wrote, could have done no injury to Lazarus; and even the author of the first gospel, admitting that he wrote in and for Palestine, could hardly have withheld a fact in which the glory of Christ was so peculiarly manifested, merely out of consideration to Lazarus, who, supposing the more improbable case that he was yet living at the time of the composition of the first gospel, ought not, Christian as he doubtless was, to refuse to suffer for the name of Christ; and the same observation would apply to his family. The most dangerous time for Lazarus according to John xii. 10, was thatimmediately after
his
resurrection,
and a narrativewhich appeared so long after, could scarcely have heightened or renewed this danger; besides, in the neighbourhood of Bethany arid Jerusalem whence danger was threatened to Lazarus, the event must have been so well-known and remembered that nothing was to be risked by its publication.!
It appears then that the resurrection of Lazarus, since it is not narrated by the synoptist, cannot have been known to them ; and the question arises, how was this ignorance possible ? llase gives * Whitl.v ePrive it liy trulv I
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
the mysterious answer, that the reason of this omission lies hid in the common relations under which the synoptists in general were silent concerning all the earlier incidents in Judeea; but this leaves it uncertain, at least so far as the expressions go, whether we ought to decide to the disadvantage of the fourth gospel or of its predecessors. The latest criticism of the gospel of Matthew has cleared up the ambiguity in Ilase’s answer after its usual manner, determining the nature of those common relations which he vaguely adduces, thus:
Every one of the synoptists, by his ignorance af a history which an apostle must have known, betrays himself to be no apostle.* But this renunciation of the apostolic origin of the first gospel, does not by any means enable us to explain the ignorance of its author and his compeers of the resurrection of Lazarus. For besides the remarkable character of the event, its occurrence in the very heart of Judrca, the great attention excited by it, and its having been witnessed by the apostles,-all these considerations render it incomprehensible that it should not have entered into the general tradition, and from thence into the synoptical gospels.It is argued that these gospels are founded on Galilean legends, i. e. oral narratives and written notices by the Galilean friends and companions of Jesus; that these were not present at the resurrection of Lazarus, arid therefore did not include it in their memoirs ; and that the authors of the first gospels, strictly confining themselves to the Galilean sources of information, likewise passed over the event.tBut there was not such a wall of partition between Galilee and Judcca, that the fame of an event like the resurrection of Lazarus could help sounding over from the one to the other.
Even if it did not happen during a feast time, when (John iv. 45.) many Galileans might be eye-witnesses, yet the disciples, who were for the greater part Galileans, were present (v. 16), and must, so soon as they returned into Galilee after the resurrection of Jesiis, have spread abroad the history throughout this province, or rather, before this, the Galileans who kept the last passover attended by Jesus, must have learned the event, the report of which was so rife in the city. Hence even Lucke finds this explanation, of Gabler’s unsatisfactory; and on his own side attempts to solve the enigma by the observation, that the original evangelical tradition, which the synoptist followed, did not represent the history of the passion mainly in a pragmatical light, and therefore gave no heed to this event as the secret motive of the murderous resolve against Jesus, and that only John, who was initiated into the secret history of the Sanhedrim, was in a condition to supply this explanatory fact.J This view of the case would certainly appear to neutralize one reason why the synoptists must have noticed the event in question, namely, that drawn from its pragmatical importance; but when it is added, that as a miracle regarded in itself, apart from its more particular circumstances, it might easily be lost among the .!-„.«» r.Kor Am Ursnr. S. 10.f Gabler, ut sup. 8. 240 f.;also N»MIRACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.rest of those narratives from which we have in the three first gospels a partly accidental selection,-we must reply, that the synoptical selection of miracles appears to be an accidental one only when that is at once assumed which ought first to be proved: namely that the miracles in the fourth gospel are historical; and unless the selection be casual to a degree inconsistent with the slightest intelligence in the compilers, such a miracle cannot have been overlooked.*
Every one of the synoptists, by his ignorance af a history which an apostle must have known, betrays himself to be no apostle.* But this renunciation of the apostolic origin of the first gospel, does not by any means enable us to explain the ignorance of its author and his compeers of the resurrection of Lazarus. For besides the remarkable character of the event, its occurrence in the very heart of Judrca, the great attention excited by it, and its having been witnessed by the apostles,-all these considerations render it incomprehensible that it should not have entered into the general tradition, and from thence into the synoptical gospels.It is argued that these gospels are founded on Galilean legends, i. e. oral narratives and written notices by the Galilean friends and companions of Jesus; that these were not present at the resurrection of Lazarus, arid therefore did not include it in their memoirs ; and that the authors of the first gospels, strictly confining themselves to the Galilean sources of information, likewise passed over the event.tBut there was not such a wall of partition between Galilee and Judcca, that the fame of an event like the resurrection of Lazarus could help sounding over from the one to the other.
Even if it did not happen during a feast time, when (John iv. 45.) many Galileans might be eye-witnesses, yet the disciples, who were for the greater part Galileans, were present (v. 16), and must, so soon as they returned into Galilee after the resurrection of Jesiis, have spread abroad the history throughout this province, or rather, before this, the Galileans who kept the last passover attended by Jesus, must have learned the event, the report of which was so rife in the city. Hence even Lucke finds this explanation, of Gabler’s unsatisfactory; and on his own side attempts to solve the enigma by the observation, that the original evangelical tradition, which the synoptist followed, did not represent the history of the passion mainly in a pragmatical light, and therefore gave no heed to this event as the secret motive of the murderous resolve against Jesus, and that only John, who was initiated into the secret history of the Sanhedrim, was in a condition to supply this explanatory fact.J This view of the case would certainly appear to neutralize one reason why the synoptists must have noticed the event in question, namely, that drawn from its pragmatical importance; but when it is added, that as a miracle regarded in itself, apart from its more particular circumstances, it might easily be lost among the .!-„.«» r.Kor Am Ursnr. S. 10.f Gabler, ut sup. 8. 240 f.;also N»MIRACLES-RESUSCITATIONS OF THE DEAD.rest of those narratives from which we have in the three first gospels a partly accidental selection,-we must reply, that the synoptical selection of miracles appears to be an accidental one only when that is at once assumed which ought first to be proved: namely that the miracles in the fourth gospel are historical; and unless the selection be casual to a degree inconsistent with the slightest intelligence in the compilers, such a miracle cannot have been overlooked.*
It lias doubtless been these and similar considerations, which have led the latest writers on the controversy concerning the first gospel, to complain of the one-sidedness with which the above question is always answered to the disadvantage of the synoptists, especially Matthew, as if it were forgotten that an answer dangerous to the fourth gospel lies just as near at hand.f For our own part, we are not so greatly alarmed by the fulminations of Liicke, as to be deterred from the expression of our opinion on the subject. This theologian, even in his latest editions, reproaches those who, from the silence of the synoptical writers, conclude that this narrative is a fiction and the go,=pel of John not authentic, with an unparalleled lack of discernment, and a total want of insight into the mutual relations of our gospels (that is, into those relations viewed according to the professional conviction of theologians, which is unshaken even by the often well-directed attacks of the author of the Probabilia). We, nevertheless, distinctly declare that we regard the history of the resurrection of Lazarus, not only as in the highest degree improbable in itself, but also destitute of external evidence; and this whole chapter, in connexion with those previously examined, as an indication of the unauthcnticity of the fourth gospel.
If it is thus proved that all the three evangelical histories of resuscitations are rendered more or less doubtful by negative reasons: all that is now wanting to us is positive proof, that the tradition of Jesus having; raised the dead might easily be formed without hisOOJ
toncal foundation. According to rabbinical, f as well as New Testa* Comp. De Wette, exeg. Hautlb. 1, 3, S. 139. In Schleiermacher’s Lectures on the Life of Jesus, (if I may be permitted to refer to a work not yet printed,) the silence in question is explained in the following manner. The synoptical evangelists in general were ignorant of the relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany, because perhaps the apostles did not wish an intimate personal connexion of this kind to pass into the general tradition, from which those evangelists drew; and ignorance of the relations of Jesus with the family in general, of course included ignorance of this particular fact connected with then or eve have presented much to edify us ter”“l’-e-’ Tta’n. ‘n **? m”ch °l.this desc»Pti°i>, and from the narrative which the latim.
But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve ? Are we to infer secret, even, with Venturini, tender ties ? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus The intimations which John and Luke afford us on ter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection ot^ Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism ‘‘One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany ; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered, the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.
But what motive could the apostles have for such reserve ? Are we to infer secret, even, with Venturini, tender ties ? Must not such a private relation in the case of Jesus The intimations which John and Luke afford us on ter gives of the visit of Jesus to Martha and Mary, we see also that the apostles, in furnishing their accounts, were by no means averse to allow something of these relations to appear so far as they could retain a general interest. Now in this light, the resurrection ot^ Lazarus, as a pre-eminent miracle, was incomparably more valuable than that visit with its single aphorism ‘‘One thing is needful,” and involved less of the private relations of Jesus with the family of Bethany ; the supposed effort to keep these secret, could not therefore have hindered, the promulgation of the resurrection of Lazarus.
t Kern, ilber den L’rsnr. dcs KV.TTKT
M«ntiT,-,i>;n,.
7o,-f0 .!,,.;<•»to-no o
HATHE LIFE OF JESUS.
M«ntiT,-,i>;n,.
7o,-f0 .!,,.;<•»to-no o
HATHE LIFE OF JESUS.
ment passages (e. g. John v. 28 f.; vi. 40, 44; 1 Cor. xv; 1 Thess. iv. 16), the resuscitation of the dead was expected of the Messiah at his coming. Now the impovaia, the appearance of the Messiah Jesus on earth, was in the view of the early church broken by his death into two parts ; the first comprised his preparatory appearance, which began with his human birth, and ended with the resurrection and ascension ; the second was to commence with his future advent on the clouds of heaven, in order to open the aluv ^eAAwv, the age to come. As the first appearance of Jesus had wanted the glory and majesty expected in the Messiah, the great demonstrations of messianic power, and in particular the general resurrection of the dead, were assigned to his second, and as yet future appearance on earth. Nevertheless, as an immediate pledge of what was to be anticipated, even in the first advent some fore-splendours of the second must have heen visible in single instances;Jesus must, even in his first advent, by awaking some of the dead, have guaranteed his authority one day to awake all the dead; he must, when questioned as to his messiah-ship, have been able to adduce among other criteria the fact that the dead were raised up by him (Matt. xi. 5.), and he must have imparted the same power to his disciples (Matt. xi. 8, comp. Acts ix. 40;
xx. 10.); but especially as a close prefiguration of the hour in ivhich all tliat are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth (John v. 28 f.), he must have cried with a loud voice, Come forth! to one who had lain in the grave four days (John xi. 17, 43). For the origination of detailed narratives of single resuscitations, there lay, besides, the most appropriate types in the Old Testament. The prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings xvii. 17 if.; 2 Kings iv. 18 ff.) had awaked the dead, and to these instances Jewish writings appealed as a type of the messianic time.*
The object of the resuscitation was with both these prophets a child, but a boy, while in the narrative common to the synoptists we have a girl; the two prophets revived him while he lay on the bed, as Jesus does the daughter of Jairus; both entered alone into the chamber of death, as Jesus excludes all save a few confidential friends; only, as it is fitting, the Messiah needs not the laborious manipulations by which the prophets attained their object. Elijah in particular raised the son of a widow, as Jesus did at Nain; he met the widow of Zarephath at the gate (but before the death of her son) as Jesus met the widow of Nain, under the gate of the city (after the death of her son); lastly, it is in both instances told in the same words how the
miracle-worker restored the son to the mother.t Even one already laid in his grave, like Lazarus, was restored to life by the prophet Elisha; with this difference, however, that the prophet himself had been long dead, and the contact of his bones reanimated a corpse, which was accidently thrown upon them (2 Kings xiii. 21). There is yet another point of similarity between the reMIRACLES-ANECDOTES RELATING TO THE SEA.suscitations of the dead in the Old Testament and that of Lazarus; it is that Jesus, while in his former resuscitation he utters the authoritative word without any preliminary, in that of Lazarus offers a prayer to God, as Elisha, and more particularly Elijah, are said to have clone. While Paulus extends to these narratives in the Old Testament, the natural explanation which he has applied to those in the New, theologians of more enlarged views have long ago remarked, that the resurrections in the New Testament are nothing more than mytln, which had their origin in the tendency of the early Christian church, to make her Messiah agree with the type of the prophets, and with the messianic ideal.*
xx. 10.); but especially as a close prefiguration of the hour in ivhich all tliat are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth (John v. 28 f.), he must have cried with a loud voice, Come forth! to one who had lain in the grave four days (John xi. 17, 43). For the origination of detailed narratives of single resuscitations, there lay, besides, the most appropriate types in the Old Testament. The prophets Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings xvii. 17 if.; 2 Kings iv. 18 ff.) had awaked the dead, and to these instances Jewish writings appealed as a type of the messianic time.*
The object of the resuscitation was with both these prophets a child, but a boy, while in the narrative common to the synoptists we have a girl; the two prophets revived him while he lay on the bed, as Jesus does the daughter of Jairus; both entered alone into the chamber of death, as Jesus excludes all save a few confidential friends; only, as it is fitting, the Messiah needs not the laborious manipulations by which the prophets attained their object. Elijah in particular raised the son of a widow, as Jesus did at Nain; he met the widow of Zarephath at the gate (but before the death of her son) as Jesus met the widow of Nain, under the gate of the city (after the death of her son); lastly, it is in both instances told in the same words how the
miracle-worker restored the son to the mother.t Even one already laid in his grave, like Lazarus, was restored to life by the prophet Elisha; with this difference, however, that the prophet himself had been long dead, and the contact of his bones reanimated a corpse, which was accidently thrown upon them (2 Kings xiii. 21). There is yet another point of similarity between the reMIRACLES-ANECDOTES RELATING TO THE SEA.suscitations of the dead in the Old Testament and that of Lazarus; it is that Jesus, while in his former resuscitation he utters the authoritative word without any preliminary, in that of Lazarus offers a prayer to God, as Elisha, and more particularly Elijah, are said to have clone. While Paulus extends to these narratives in the Old Testament, the natural explanation which he has applied to those in the New, theologians of more enlarged views have long ago remarked, that the resurrections in the New Testament are nothing more than mytln, which had their origin in the tendency of the early Christian church, to make her Messiah agree with the type of the prophets, and with the messianic ideal.*
Other books
Owned by the Vikings by Isabel Dare
Ozark Trilogy 1: Twelve Fair Kingdoms by Suzette Haden Elgin
Solemn Duty (1997) by Scott, Leonard B
No Angel by Jay Dobyns
THE CLEARING by Boland, Shalini
Aircrew: The Story of the Men Who Flew the Bombers by Bruce Lewis
Beyond Tears: Living After Losing a Child by Ellen Mitchell
Woman of Three Worlds by Jeanne Williams
Mennonite in a Little Black Dress (Memoir) (2010) by Janzen, Rhoda
Bad Girls Good Women by Rosie Thomas