Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (798 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
12.28Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
That Jesus miraculously multiplied prepared articles of food, feeding a great multitude of men with a few loaves and fishes, is narrated to us with singular unanimity by all the evangelists (Matt, xiv. 13 ff.; Mark vi. 30 ff.; Luke ix. 10 ff.; John vi. 1 ff.). And if we believe the two first, Jesus did not do this merely once; for in. Matt. xv. 32 ff.; Mark viii. 1 ff. we read of a second multiplication of loaves and fishes, the circumstances of which are substantially the same as those of the former. It happens somewhat later; the place is rather differently described, and the length of time during which the multitude stayed with Jesus is differently stated; moreover, and this is a point of greater importance, the proportion between the stock of food and the number of men is different, for, on the first occasion, five thousand men are satisfied with five loaves and two fishes, and, on the second,, four thousand with seven loaves and a few fishes;
on the first twelve baskets arc filled with the fragments,
on the second only seven.Notwithstanding this, not only is the substance of the two histories exactly the same-the satisfying of a multitude of people with disproportionately small means of nourishment; but also the description ot the scene in the one, entirely corresponds in its principal features to that in the other.In both instances, the locality is a solitary region in the vicinity of the Galilean sea;
Jesus is led to perform the miracle because the people have lingered too long with him; he manifests a wish to feed the people from his own stores, which the disciples..regard as impossible;
the stock of food at his disposal consists
of loaves and fishes ;
Jesus makes the people sit down, -
-
•’ -
-ll...~t-irrll MIRACLES-FEEDIXG THE MULTITUDE.the medium of the disciples; they are completely satisfied, and yet a disproportionately great quantity of fragments is afterwards collected in baskets ; lastly, in the one case as in the other, Jesus after thus feeding the multitude, crosses the sea.
on the first twelve baskets arc filled with the fragments,
on the second only seven.Notwithstanding this, not only is the substance of the two histories exactly the same-the satisfying of a multitude of people with disproportionately small means of nourishment; but also the description ot the scene in the one, entirely corresponds in its principal features to that in the other.In both instances, the locality is a solitary region in the vicinity of the Galilean sea;
Jesus is led to perform the miracle because the people have lingered too long with him; he manifests a wish to feed the people from his own stores, which the disciples..regard as impossible;
the stock of food at his disposal consists
of loaves and fishes ;
Jesus makes the people sit down, -
-
•’ -
-ll...~t-irrll MIRACLES-FEEDIXG THE MULTITUDE.the medium of the disciples; they are completely satisfied, and yet a disproportionately great quantity of fragments is afterwards collected in baskets ; lastly, in the one case as in the other, Jesus after thus feeding the multitude, crosses the sea.
This repetition of the same event creates many difficulties.. The chief of these is suggested by the question : Is it conceivable that the disciples, after they had themselves witnessed how Jesus was able to feed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision, should nevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind, have totally forgotten the first, and have asked, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude ? To render such an obliviousness on the part of the disciples probable, we are reminded that they had, in just as incomprehensible a manner, forgotten the declarations of Jesus concerning his approaching sufferings and death, when these events occurred ;* but it is equally a pending question, whether after such plain predictions from Jesus, his death could in fact have been so unexpected to the disciples. It has been supposed that a longer interval had elapsed between the two miracles, and that during this there had occurred a number of similar cases, in which Jesus did not think fit to afford miraculous assistance:! but, on the one hand, these are pure fictions; on the other, it would remain just as inconceivable as ever, that the striking similarity of the circumstances preceding the second feeding of the multitude to those preceding the first, should not have reminded even one of the disciples of that former event. Paulus therefore is right in maintaining, that had Jesus once already fed the multitude by a miracle, the disciples, on the second occasion, when he expressed his determination not to send the people away fasting, would confidently have called upon him for a repetition of the former miracle.
In any case (hen, if Jesus on two separate occasions fed a multitude with disproportionately small provision, we must suppose, as some critics have done, that many features in the narrative of the one incident were transferred to the other, and thus the two, originally unlike, became in the course of oral tradition more and more similar ; the incredulous question of the disciples especially having been uttered only on the first occasion, and not on the second.^ It may seem to speak in favour of such an assimilation, that the fourth evangelist, though in his numerical statement he is in accordance with the first narrative of Matthew and Mark, yet has, in common with the second, the circumstances that the scene opens with an addressTHE LIFE OP JESUS.
MIKACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.of Jesus and not of the disciples, and that the people come to Jesus on a mountain. But if the fundamental features be allowed to remain,-the wilderness, the feeding of the people, the collection of the fragments,-it is still, even without that question of the disciples, sufficiently improbable that the scene should have been repeated in so entirely similar a manner.
If, on the contrary, these general features be renounced in relation to one of the histories, it is no longer apparent, how the veracity of the evangelical narratives as to the manner in which the second multiplication of loaves and fishes took place can be questioned on all points, and yet their statement as to \\\&fact of its occurrence be maintained as trustworthy, especially as this statement is confined to Matthew and his imitator Mark. Hence later critics have, with more* or lessf decision, expressed the opinion, that here one and the same fact has been doubled, through a mistake of the first evangelist, who was followed by the second.
They suppose that several narratives of the miraculous feeding of the multitude were current which presented divergencies from each other, especially in relation to numbers, and that the author of the first gospel, to whom every additional history of a miracle was a welcome prize, and who was therefore little qualified for the critical reduction of two different narratives of this kind into one, introduced both into his collection. This fully explains how on the second occasion the disciples could again express themselves so incredulously ; namely, because in the tradition whence the author of the first gospel obtained the second history of a miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes, it was the first and only one, and the evangelist did not obliterate this feature because, apparently, he incorporated the two narratives into his writing just as he read or heard them.
Among other proofs that this was the case, may be mentioned the constancy with which he and Mark, who copied him, not only in the account of the events, but also in the subsequent allusion to them (Matt. xvi. 9 f.; Mark viii. 19 f.), call the baskets in the first feeding, KO^LVOI, in the second a-rTvpidsg. It is indeed correctly maintained, that the apostle Matthew could not possibly take one event for two, and narrate a new history which never happened :§ but this proposition does not involve the reality of the second miraculous feeding of the multitude, unless the apostolic origin of the first gospel be at once presupposed, whereas this yet remains to be proved. Paulus further objects, that the duplication of the history in question could be of no advantage whatever to the design of the evangelist; and Olshausen, developing this idea more fully, observes that the legend would not have left the second narrative as simple and bare as the first. But this argument, that a narrative cannot be fictitious, because if it were so it would have been more Comp.
If, on the contrary, these general features be renounced in relation to one of the histories, it is no longer apparent, how the veracity of the evangelical narratives as to the manner in which the second multiplication of loaves and fishes took place can be questioned on all points, and yet their statement as to \\\&fact of its occurrence be maintained as trustworthy, especially as this statement is confined to Matthew and his imitator Mark. Hence later critics have, with more* or lessf decision, expressed the opinion, that here one and the same fact has been doubled, through a mistake of the first evangelist, who was followed by the second.
They suppose that several narratives of the miraculous feeding of the multitude were current which presented divergencies from each other, especially in relation to numbers, and that the author of the first gospel, to whom every additional history of a miracle was a welcome prize, and who was therefore little qualified for the critical reduction of two different narratives of this kind into one, introduced both into his collection. This fully explains how on the second occasion the disciples could again express themselves so incredulously ; namely, because in the tradition whence the author of the first gospel obtained the second history of a miraculous multiplication of loaves and fishes, it was the first and only one, and the evangelist did not obliterate this feature because, apparently, he incorporated the two narratives into his writing just as he read or heard them.
Among other proofs that this was the case, may be mentioned the constancy with which he and Mark, who copied him, not only in the account of the events, but also in the subsequent allusion to them (Matt. xvi. 9 f.; Mark viii. 19 f.), call the baskets in the first feeding, KO^LVOI, in the second a-rTvpidsg. It is indeed correctly maintained, that the apostle Matthew could not possibly take one event for two, and narrate a new history which never happened :§ but this proposition does not involve the reality of the second miraculous feeding of the multitude, unless the apostolic origin of the first gospel be at once presupposed, whereas this yet remains to be proved. Paulus further objects, that the duplication of the history in question could be of no advantage whatever to the design of the evangelist; and Olshausen, developing this idea more fully, observes that the legend would not have left the second narrative as simple and bare as the first. But this argument, that a narrative cannot be fictitious, because if it were so it would have been more Comp.
* Thiesz, krit.
Commentar. 1, S. 168 ff.; Schulz, fiber das Abendmahl, S. 311. i. Fritzsctiej in Matth. p. 523. “j* Schleiermacher, iiber den Lukas, S. 145 ; Sieffert, • -
--
-
• *•
•
‘ TT ^-,1
ci
o-r.i,v A „„,+r’nmn •
Commentar. 1, S. 168 ff.; Schulz, fiber das Abendmahl, S. 311. i. Fritzsctiej in Matth. p. 523. “j* Schleiermacher, iiber den Lukas, S. 145 ; Sieffert, • -
--
-
• *•
•
‘ TT ^-,1
ci
o-r.i,v A „„,+r’nmn •
elaborately adorned, may very properly be at once dismissed, since its limits being altogether undefined, it might be repeated under all circumstances, and in the end would prove fable itself not sufficiently fabulous. But,in this
case
particularly,it
is totally baseless, because it presupposes the narrative of the first feeding of the multitude to be historically accurate:
now, if we have already in this a legendary production,
the other edition of it, namely the second history of a miraculous feeding, needs not to be distinguished by special traditionary features. But not only is the second narrative not embellished as regards the miraculous, when compared with the first;it even
diminishes
the miracle,for.while increasing the quantity of provision,it reduces
the number of those whom it satisfied: and this retrogression in the marvellous is thought the surest proof that the second feeding of the multitude really occurred; for, it is said, he who chose to invent an additional miracle of this kind, would
have made it surpass the first,
and instead of five thousand men
would have given,not four,
but ten thousand.* This argument, also, rests on the unfounded assumption that the first narrative is of course the historical one; though Olshausen himself has the idea that the second might with probability be regarded as the historical basis, and the first as the legendary copy, and then the fictitious would have the required relation to the true- that of exaggeration. But when in opposition to this, he observes, how improbable it is that an unscrupulous narrator would place the authentic fact, being the less imposing, last, and eclipse it beforehand by the false one,-that such a writer would rather seek to outdo the truth, and therefore place his fiction last, as the more brilliant,-he again shows that he does not comprehend the mythical view of the biblical narratives, in the degree necessary for forming a judgment on the subject. For there is no question here of an unscrupulous narrator, who would designedly surpass
the true history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and least of all is Matthew pronounced to be such a narrator:on the contrary, it is held that with perfect honesty, one account gave five thousand, another four, and that, with
equal honesty, the first
evangelist copied from both; and for the very reason that he went to work innocently and undesignedly, it was of no importance to him which ot the two histories stood first and which last, the more important or the less striking one;
but he allowed himself to be determined on this point by accidental circumstances, such as that he found the one connected with incidents which appeared to him the earlier, the other with such as he supposed to be the later. A similar instance of duplication occurs in the Pentateuch in relation to the histories of the feeding of the Israelites with quails, and of the production of water out of the rock, the former of which is narrated both in Exod. xvi. and Numb, xi., the latter in Exod. xvii. and again in Numb. xx., in each instance with an alteration in time, place, and otherTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
case
particularly,it
is totally baseless, because it presupposes the narrative of the first feeding of the multitude to be historically accurate:
now, if we have already in this a legendary production,
the other edition of it, namely the second history of a miraculous feeding, needs not to be distinguished by special traditionary features. But not only is the second narrative not embellished as regards the miraculous, when compared with the first;it even
diminishes
the miracle,for.while increasing the quantity of provision,it reduces
the number of those whom it satisfied: and this retrogression in the marvellous is thought the surest proof that the second feeding of the multitude really occurred; for, it is said, he who chose to invent an additional miracle of this kind, would
have made it surpass the first,
and instead of five thousand men
would have given,not four,
but ten thousand.* This argument, also, rests on the unfounded assumption that the first narrative is of course the historical one; though Olshausen himself has the idea that the second might with probability be regarded as the historical basis, and the first as the legendary copy, and then the fictitious would have the required relation to the true- that of exaggeration. But when in opposition to this, he observes, how improbable it is that an unscrupulous narrator would place the authentic fact, being the less imposing, last, and eclipse it beforehand by the false one,-that such a writer would rather seek to outdo the truth, and therefore place his fiction last, as the more brilliant,-he again shows that he does not comprehend the mythical view of the biblical narratives, in the degree necessary for forming a judgment on the subject. For there is no question here of an unscrupulous narrator, who would designedly surpass
the true history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes, and least of all is Matthew pronounced to be such a narrator:on the contrary, it is held that with perfect honesty, one account gave five thousand, another four, and that, with
equal honesty, the first
evangelist copied from both; and for the very reason that he went to work innocently and undesignedly, it was of no importance to him which ot the two histories stood first and which last, the more important or the less striking one;
but he allowed himself to be determined on this point by accidental circumstances, such as that he found the one connected with incidents which appeared to him the earlier, the other with such as he supposed to be the later. A similar instance of duplication occurs in the Pentateuch in relation to the histories of the feeding of the Israelites with quails, and of the production of water out of the rock, the former of which is narrated both in Exod. xvi. and Numb, xi., the latter in Exod. xvii. and again in Numb. xx., in each instance with an alteration in time, place, and otherTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
circumstances.* Meamvliile, all this yields us only the negative result that the double narratives of the first gospels cannot have been founded on two separate events. To determine which of the two is historical, or whether cither of them deserves that epithet, must be, the object of a special inquiry.
To evade the pre-eminently magical appearance which this miracle presents, Olshausen gives it a relation to the moral state of the participants, and supposes that the miraculous feeding of the multitude was effected through the intermediation of their spiritual hunger. But this is ambiguous language, which, on the first attempt to determine its meaning, vanishes into nothing. For in cures, for example, the intermediation here appealed to consists in the opening of the patient’s mind to the influence of Jesus by faith, so that when faith is wanting, the requisite fulcrum for the miraculous power of Jesus is also wanting: here therefore the intermediation is real. Now if the same kind of intermediation took place in the case before us, so that on those among the multitude who were unbelieving the ‘ O O
satisfying power of Jesus had no influence, then must the satisfaction of hunger here, (as, in the above cases, the cure,) be regarded as something effected by Jesus directly in the body of the hungry persons, without any antecedent augmentation of the external means of nourishment. But such a conception of the matter, as Paulus justly remarks, and as even Olshauscn intimates, is precluded by the statement of the evangelists, that real food was distributed amona; the OJ
O
O
multitude; that each enjoyed as much as he wanted; and that at the end the residue was greater than the original store. It is thus O
O
O
plainly implied that there was an external and objective increase of the provisions, as a preliminary to the feeding of the multitude. Now, this cannot be conceived as effected by means of the faith of the people in a real manner, in the sense that that faith co-operated in producing the multicipation of the loaves. The intermediation which Olshausen here supposes, can therefore have been only a teleological one, that is, we are to understand by it, that Jesus undertook to multiply the loaves and fishes for the sake of producing a certain moral condition in the multitude. But an intermediation of this kind affords me not the slightest help in forming a conception of the event; for the question is not u’/i.y, but how it happened. Thus all which Olshauscn believes himself to have done towards rendering this miracle more intelligible, rests on the ambiguity of the expression, intermediation ; and the inconceivableness of an immediate influence of the will of Jesus on irrational nature, remains chargeable upon this history as upon those last examined.
Other books
In the Company of Witches by Joey W. Hill
Beyond Vica by T. C. Booth
Owned for Christmas by Willa Edwards
Moody Food by Ray Robertson
Bride of the Beast by Sue-Ellen Welfonder
Constance: Bride of Florida (American Mail-Order Bride 27) by Patricia Pacjac Carroll
Phoenix (Kindle Single) by Palahniuk, Chuck
The Girl With the Golden Eyes by Honore de Balzac, Charlotte Mandell
Small Town Trouble by Jean Erhardt
The Imposter by Suzanne Woods Fisher