Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (797 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
2.21Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
After pruning away these offshoots of the miraculous which are peculiar to the respective narratives, the main stem is still left, namely, the miracle of Jesus walking on the sea for a considerable distance, with all its attendant improbabilities as above exposed. But the solution of these accessory particulars, as it led us to discover the causes of their unhistorical origin, has facilitated the discovery of such causes for the main narrative, and has thereby rendered possible the solution of this also. We have seen, by an example already adduced, that it was usual with the Hebrews and early Christians, to represent the power of God over nature, a power which the human spirit when united to him was supposed to share, under the image of supremacy over the raging waves of the sea. In the narrative of the Exodus this supremacy is manifested by the sea being driven out of its place at a sign, so that a dry path is opened to the people of God in its bed; in the New Testament narrative previously considered, the sea is not removed out of its place, but only so far laid to rest that Jesus and his disciples can cross it in safety in their ship: in the anecdote before us, the sea still remains in its place as in the second, but there is this point of similarity to the first, that the passage is made on foot, not by ship, yet as a necessary consequence of the other particular, on the surface, of the sea, not in its bed. Still more immediate inducements to develop in such a manner the conception of the power of the miracle-worker over the waves, may be found both in the Old Testament, and in the opinions prevalent in the time of Jesus. Among the miracles of Elisha, it is not only told that he divided the Jordan by a stroke of his mantle, so that he could go through it dry shod (2 Kings ii.
1J\li ^
®
®
-1*-), but also that he caused a piece of iron which had fallen into the water to swim (2 Kings vi. 6.); an ascendancy over the law or’ gravitation which it would be imagined the miracle-worker might uc able to evince in relation to his own body also, and thus to exhibit himself, at it is said of Jehovah Job ix. 8, LXX., mpnrar^v wr tTT Edtirftovg em Oa/Maar/g, -walking upon the sea as upon a pavement. In ti,e t;mc Of jcsus much wag told of miracle-workers who fiould walk on the water. Apart from conceptions exclusively Gre*
BrehuftwiMor. Prnl..il>. r,. RlTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
BrehuftwiMor. Prnl..il>. r,. RlTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
clan,* the Greco-oriental legend feigned that the hyperborean Abaris possessed an arrow, by means of which he could bear himself up in the air, and thus traverse rivers, seas, and abysses,! and popular superstition attributed to many wonder-workers the power of walking on water.J Hence the possibility that with all these elements and inducements existing, a similar legend should be formed concerning Jesus, appears incomparably stronger, than that a real event of this kind should have occurred:-and with this conclusion we may dismiss the subject.
The manifestatioji
and there have not been wanting those who have maintained that at least the anecdote about Peter in the first gospel, is a traditional transformation of the incident in John xxi. 7. into a miracle.!Modern criticism is restrained from extending this conjecture to the anecdote of Jesus walking on the sea, by the fact that the supposed apostolic fourth gospel itself has this feature in the earlier narrative (vi. 16 ft’.).But from our point of view it appears (Uiitc possible, that the history in question either came to the author of this gospel in the one form, and to the author of the appendix in the other; or that it came to the one author of both in a double form, and was inserted by him in separate parts of his narrative.
and there have not been wanting those who have maintained that at least the anecdote about Peter in the first gospel, is a traditional transformation of the incident in John xxi. 7. into a miracle.!Modern criticism is restrained from extending this conjecture to the anecdote of Jesus walking on the sea, by the fact that the supposed apostolic fourth gospel itself has this feature in the earlier narrative (vi. 16 ft’.).But from our point of view it appears (Uiitc possible, that the history in question either came to the author of this gospel in the one form, and to the author of the appendix in the other; or that it came to the one author of both in a double form, and was inserted by him in separate parts of his narrative.
* See the passages in Wetstein, p, 417 f. f Jaml’Ucli, vita Pythagoras,
130; ‘T
‘---
“‘•”.....-..».«
is.S
S.-.lmi’ukcnburirer, iiber den Ursjir, MIRACLES----ANECDOTES RELATING TO THE SEA.Meanwhile, if the t\vo histories are to be compared, we ought not at once to assume that the one, John xxi., is the original, the other, Matt. xiv. paralk, the secondary; we must first ask which of the two bears intrinsic marks of one or the other character. Now certainly if we adhere to the rule that the more miraculous narrative is the later, that in John xxi. appears, in relation to the manner in which Jesus approaches the disciples, and in which Peter reaches Jesus, to be the original. But this rule is connected in the closest manner with another; namely, that the more simple narrative is the earlier, the more complex one the later, as the conglomerate is a later formation than the homogeneous stone; and according to this rule, the conclusion is reversed, and the narrative in John xxi. is the more traditional, for in it the particulars mentioned above are interwoven with the miraculous draught of fishes, while in the earlier narrative they form in themselves an independent whole. It is indeed true, that a greater whole may be broken up into smaller parts; but such fragments have not at all the appearance of the separate narratives of the draught of fishes and the walking on the sea, since these, on the contrary, leave the impression of being each a finished whole. From this interweaving witli the miracle of the draught of fishes,-to which we must add the circumstance that the entire circle of events turns upon the risen Jesus, who is already in himself a miracle,-it is apparent how, contrary to the general rule, the oft-named particulars could lose their miraculous character, since by their combination with other miracles they were reduced to mere accessories, to a sort of natural scaffolding;. If then the narrative ‘
O
130; ‘T
‘---
“‘•”.....-..».«
is.S
S.-.lmi’ukcnburirer, iiber den Ursjir, MIRACLES----ANECDOTES RELATING TO THE SEA.Meanwhile, if the t\vo histories are to be compared, we ought not at once to assume that the one, John xxi., is the original, the other, Matt. xiv. paralk, the secondary; we must first ask which of the two bears intrinsic marks of one or the other character. Now certainly if we adhere to the rule that the more miraculous narrative is the later, that in John xxi. appears, in relation to the manner in which Jesus approaches the disciples, and in which Peter reaches Jesus, to be the original. But this rule is connected in the closest manner with another; namely, that the more simple narrative is the earlier, the more complex one the later, as the conglomerate is a later formation than the homogeneous stone; and according to this rule, the conclusion is reversed, and the narrative in John xxi. is the more traditional, for in it the particulars mentioned above are interwoven with the miraculous draught of fishes, while in the earlier narrative they form in themselves an independent whole. It is indeed true, that a greater whole may be broken up into smaller parts; but such fragments have not at all the appearance of the separate narratives of the draught of fishes and the walking on the sea, since these, on the contrary, leave the impression of being each a finished whole. From this interweaving witli the miracle of the draught of fishes,-to which we must add the circumstance that the entire circle of events turns upon the risen Jesus, who is already in himself a miracle,-it is apparent how, contrary to the general rule, the oft-named particulars could lose their miraculous character, since by their combination with other miracles they were reduced to mere accessories, to a sort of natural scaffolding;. If then the narrative ‘
O
in John xxi. is entirely secondary, its historical value has already been estimated with that of the narratives which furnished its materials.
If, before we proceed further, we take a retrospect of the series of sea-anecdotes hitherto examined, we find, it is true, that the two extreme anecdotes are altogether dissimilar, the one relating mainly to fishing, the other to a storm; nevertheless, on a proper arrangement, each of them appears to be connected with the preceding by a common feature. The narrative of the call of the fishers of men (Matt. iv. 18 ft’, par.) opens the series; that of Peter’s draught of fishes (Luke v. 1 ft’.) has in common with this the saying about tin.’ fishers of men, but the fact of the draught of fishes is peculiar t’:-it; this fact reappears in John xxi., where the circumstances of Jesus standing on the shore in the morning twilight, and the swimming of Peter towards him, arc added ; these two circumstances are in Matt. xiv. 22 ft’, parall. metamorphosed into the act of walking on the sea on the part of Jesus and of Peter, and at the same time a storm, and its cessation on the entrance of Jesus into the ship, are introduced ; lastly, in Matt. viii. 23 ff. parall. we have an anecdote single in its kind, namely, that of the stilling of the storm ty Jesus.
We onrvjTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
the foregoing series, in Matt. xvii. 24 ff.It is true that here again there is a direction of Jesus to Peter to go and fish, to which, although it is not expressly stated, we must suppose that the issue corresponded: but first, it is only one fish which is to be caught, and with an
angle;and secondly,
the main point is, that in its mouth is to be found a piece of gold to serve for the payment of the temple tribute for Jesus and Peter, from the latter of whom this tax had been demanded. This narrative as it is here presented has peculiar difficulties, which Paulus well exhibits, and which Olshausen does not deny.Fntzsche justly remarks, that there are two miraculous particulars presupposed:first, that the fish had a coin in its mouth; secondly, that Jesus had a foreknowledge of this. On the one hand, we must regard the former of these particulars as extravagant, and consequently the latter also; and on the other, the whole miracle appears to have been unnecessary.
Certainly, that metals and other valuables have been found in the bodies of fish is elsewhere narrated,* and is not incredible; but that a fish should have a piece of money in its mouth, and keep it there while it snapped at the bait-this even Dr. Sclinappingerj” found inconceivable.Moreover, the motive of Jesus for performing such a miracle could not be want of money, for even if at that time there was no store in the common fund, still Jesus was in Capernaum, where he had many friends, and where consequently he could have obtained the needful money in a natural way.To exclude this possibility we must with Olshausen confound borrowing with begging, and regard it as inconsistent with the decorum divinum which must have been observed by Jesus.Nor after so many proofs of his miraculous power, could Jesus think this additional miracle necessary to strengthen Peter’s belief in his Messiahship.
angle;and secondly,
the main point is, that in its mouth is to be found a piece of gold to serve for the payment of the temple tribute for Jesus and Peter, from the latter of whom this tax had been demanded. This narrative as it is here presented has peculiar difficulties, which Paulus well exhibits, and which Olshausen does not deny.Fntzsche justly remarks, that there are two miraculous particulars presupposed:first, that the fish had a coin in its mouth; secondly, that Jesus had a foreknowledge of this. On the one hand, we must regard the former of these particulars as extravagant, and consequently the latter also; and on the other, the whole miracle appears to have been unnecessary.
Certainly, that metals and other valuables have been found in the bodies of fish is elsewhere narrated,* and is not incredible; but that a fish should have a piece of money in its mouth, and keep it there while it snapped at the bait-this even Dr. Sclinappingerj” found inconceivable.Moreover, the motive of Jesus for performing such a miracle could not be want of money, for even if at that time there was no store in the common fund, still Jesus was in Capernaum, where he had many friends, and where consequently he could have obtained the needful money in a natural way.To exclude this possibility we must with Olshausen confound borrowing with begging, and regard it as inconsistent with the decorum divinum which must have been observed by Jesus.Nor after so many proofs of his miraculous power, could Jesus think this additional miracle necessary to strengthen Peter’s belief in his Messiahship.
Hence we need not wonder that rationalistic commentators have attempted to free themselves at any cost from a miracle which even Olshausen pronounces to be the most difficult in the evangelical history, and we have only to see how they proceed iu this undertaking. The pith of the natural explanation of the fact lies in the interpretation of the word evpfjffet?, thou shalt find, in the command of Jesus, not of an immediate discovery of a stater in the fish, but of a mediate acquisition of this sum by selling what was caught.£ It must be admitted that the above word may bear this signification also; but if we are to give it this sense instead of the usual one, we must in the particular instance have a clear intimation to this effect in the context. Thus, if it were said in the present passage: Take the first fine fish, carry it to the market, Kanel evp/icret? ararijpa,, and there thou shalt find a stater, this explanation would be in place; as however instead of this, the word ei-pi]au<; is preceded by oi’otfaj TO arofta avrov, when t/Mu hast opened his mouth,-as, therefore, no place of sale, but a place inside the fish, is mentioned, -
“
••------------’- :- w~».f«;.>in inn
} Die h. Schvift das ncuen Bundes, 1, S.
“
••------------’- :- w~».f«;.>in inn
} Die h. Schvift das ncuen Bundes, 1, S.
MIRACLES-ANECDOTES RELATING TO THE SEA.as that on the opening of which the coin is to be obtained,-we can only understand an immediate discovery of the piece of money in this part of the fish.* Besides, to what purpose would the opening of the fish’s mouth be mentioned, unless the desideratum were to be found there ? Paulus sees in this only the injunction to release the fish from the hook without delay, in order to keep it alive, and thus to render it more saleable. The order to open the mouth of the fish might indeed, if it stood alone, be supposed to have the extraction of the hook as its object and consequence; but as it is followed by evpijoeig ararrjpa, thou shalt find a stater, it is plain that this is the immediate end of opening the mouth. The perception that, so long as the opening of the fish’s mouth is spoken of in this passage, it will be inferred that the coin was to be found there, has induced the rationalistic commentators to try whether they could not refer the word aro/j.a, mouth, to another subject than the fish, and no other remained than the fisher, Peter. But as urofia appeared to be connected with the fish by the word avrov, which immediately followed it, Dr. Paulus, moderating or exaggerating the suggestion of a friend, who proposed to read dvOevprjaug, instead of-avrov, evp^aeif-allowed avrov to remain, but took it adverbially, and translated the passage thus: thou hast then only to open thy mouth to offer the fish for sale, and thou wilt on the spot (avTOv) receive a stater as its price. But, it would still be asked, how could a single fish fetch so high a price in Capernaum, where fish were so abundant ? Hence Paulus understands the words, TOV dvafUdvra rcp&rov l^Ovv dpov, take up the fisJi that first cometh. v.p, collectively thus: continue time after time to take the fish that first comes to tliee, until thou hast caught as many as will be worth a stater.
If the series of strained interpretations which are necessary to a natural explanation of this narrative throw us back on that which allows it to contain a miracle; and if this miracle appear to us, according to our former decision, both extravagant and useless, nothing remains but to presume that here also there is a legendary clement. This view has been combined with the admission, that a real but natural fact was probably at the foundation of the legend: namely, that Jesus once ordered Peter to fish until he had caught enough to procure the amount of the temple tribute; whence the legend arose that the fish had the tribute money in its mouth, f But, in our opinion, a more likely source of this anecdote is to be found in the much-used theme of a catching of fish by Peter, on the one side, and on the other, the well-known stories of precious things having been found in the bodies of fish. Peter, as we learn jroiu Matt, iv., Luke v., John xxi., was the fisher in the evangelical |«gend to whom Jesus in various forms, first symbolically, and then htcrally, granted the rich draught of fishes. The value of the * Comp. Storr, in Halt’s Magazin, 2, S. G8 ff.\ Kaiser, bibl. Theol. 1. S. 200THE LIFE OF JESUS.
capture appears here in the shape of a piece of money, which, as similar things are elsewhere said to have been found in the belly of fishes, is by an exaggeration of the marvel said to be found in the mouth of the fish. That it is the stater, required for the temple tribute, might be occasioned by a real declaration of Jesus concerning his relation to that tax; or conversely, the stater which was accidentally named in the legend of the fish angled for by Peter, might bring to recollection the temple tribute, which amounted to that sum for two persons, and the declaration of Jesus relative to this subject.
With this tale conclude the sea anecdotes.
§ 102.THE MIRACULOUS MULTIPLICATION OF THE LOAVES AND FISHES.
As, in the histories last considered, Jesus determined and mitigated the motions of irrational and even of inanimate existences; so, in the narratives which we are about to examine, he exhibits the power of multiplying not only natural objects, but also productions of nature which had been wrought upon by art.
Other books
Crime Rave by Sezin Koehler
Player in Paradise by Rebecca Lewis
The Left Behind Collection: All 12 Books by Tim Lahaye, Jerry B. Jenkins
The Art of Voice Acting: the art and business of performing for voice over by Alburger, James
Stupid Fast by Herbach, Geoff
Never Love an Outlaw: Deadly Pistols MC Romance (Outlaw Love) by Snow, Nicole
All Who Go Do Not Return by Shulem Deen
Hostile Fire by Keith Douglass
Dance the Eagle to Sleep by Marge Piercy