Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (799 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
13.4Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
But there is another difficulty which is peculiar to the narrative before us. We have here not merely, as hitherto, a modification or a direction of natural objects, but a multiplication of them, and that to an enormous extent. Nothing, it is true, is more familiar to our observation than the growth and multiplication of natural objects, as MIKACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.presented to us in the parable of the sower, and the grain of mustard seed, for example. But, first, these phenomena do not take place without the co-operation of other natural agents, as earth, water, air, so that here, also, according to the well known principle of physics, there is not properly speaking an augmentation of the substance, but only a change in the accidents ; secondly, these processes of growth and multiplication are carried forward so as to pass through their various stages in corresponding intervals of time. Here, on the contrary, in the multiplication of the loaves and fishes by Jesus, neither the one rule nor the other is observed: the bread in the hand of Jesus is no longer, like the stalk on which the corn grew, in communication with the maternal earth, nor is the multiplication gradual, but sudden.
But herein, it is said, consists the miracle, which in relation to the last point especially, may be called the acceleration of a natural process. That which conies to pass in the space of three quarters of a year, from seed-time to harvest, was here effected in the minutes which were required for the distribution of the food ; for natural developments are capable of acceleration, and to how great an extent we cannot determine.* It would, indeed, have been an acceleration of a natural process, if in the hand of Jesus a grain of corn had borne fruit a hundredfold, and brought it to maturity, and if he had shaken the multiplied grain out of his hands as they were filled again and again, that the people might grind, knead, and bake it, or eat it raw from the husk in
the wilderness where they were ;-or if he had taken a living fish, suddenly called forth the eggs from its body, and converted them into full-grown fish, which then the disciples or the people might have boiled or roasted, this, we should say, would have been an acceleration of a natural process.But it is not corn that he takes into his hand, but bread ; and the fish also, as they are distributed in pieces, must have been prepared in some way, perhaps, as in Luke xxiv. 42, comp. John xxi. 9, broiled or salted. Here then, on both sides, the production of nature is no longer simple and living, but dead and modified by art: so that to introduce a natural process of the above kind, Jesus must, in the first place, by his miraculous power have metamorphosed the bread into corn again, the roasted fish into raw and living ones ; then instantaneously have effected the described multiplication :
and lastly, have restored the whole from the natural to the artificial state. Thus the miracle would be composed, 1st, of a revivification, which would exceed in miraculousness all other instances in the gospels ;
?ndly, of an extremely accelerated natural process; and 3rdly, of an artificial process, effected invisibly, and likewise extremely accelerated, since all the tedious proceedings of the miller and baker on the one hand, and 01 the. cook on the other, must have been accomplished in a moment by the word of Jesus. How then can Olshauscn deceive himself and the believing reader, by the agreeably sounding expression, ac*Tims HI,,!,,,,.<,„.,:~ i--<•*- ™.....!« -------THE LIFE OF JESUS.
the wilderness where they were ;-or if he had taken a living fish, suddenly called forth the eggs from its body, and converted them into full-grown fish, which then the disciples or the people might have boiled or roasted, this, we should say, would have been an acceleration of a natural process.But it is not corn that he takes into his hand, but bread ; and the fish also, as they are distributed in pieces, must have been prepared in some way, perhaps, as in Luke xxiv. 42, comp. John xxi. 9, broiled or salted. Here then, on both sides, the production of nature is no longer simple and living, but dead and modified by art: so that to introduce a natural process of the above kind, Jesus must, in the first place, by his miraculous power have metamorphosed the bread into corn again, the roasted fish into raw and living ones ; then instantaneously have effected the described multiplication :
and lastly, have restored the whole from the natural to the artificial state. Thus the miracle would be composed, 1st, of a revivification, which would exceed in miraculousness all other instances in the gospels ;
?ndly, of an extremely accelerated natural process; and 3rdly, of an artificial process, effected invisibly, and likewise extremely accelerated, since all the tedious proceedings of the miller and baker on the one hand, and 01 the. cook on the other, must have been accomplished in a moment by the word of Jesus. How then can Olshauscn deceive himself and the believing reader, by the agreeably sounding expression, ac*Tims HI,,!,,,,.<,„.,:~ i--<•*- ™.....!« -------THE LIFE OF JESUS.
MIBACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.celerated natural process, when this nevertheless can designate only a third part of the fact of which we are speaking ?*
But how are we to represent such a miracle to ourselves, and in what stage of the event must it be placed ?In relation to the latter point, three opinions are possible, corresponding to the number of the groups that act in our narrative; for the multiplication may have taken place cither in the hands of Jesus, or in those of the disciples who dispensed the food, or in those of the people who received it. The last idea appears, on the one hand, puerile even to extravagance, if we are to imagine Jesus and the apostles distributing, with great carefulness, that there might be enough for all, little crumbs which in the hands of the recipients swelled into considerable pieces:
on the other hand, it would have been scarcely a possible task, to get a particle, however small, for every individual in a multitude of five thousand men, out of five loaves, which according to Hebrew custom, and particularly as they were carried by a boy, cannot have been very large ; and still less out of two fishes. Of the two other opinions I think, with Olshausen, the one most suitable is that which supposes that the food was augmented under the creative hands of Jesus, and that he time after time dispensed new quantities to the disciples. We may then endeavour to represent the matter to ourselves in two ways : first we may. suppose that as fast as one loaf or fish was gone, a new one came out of the hands of Jesus, or secondly, that the single loaves and fishes grew, so that as one piece was broken off, its loss was repaired, until on a calculation the turn came for the next loaf or fish.The first conception appears to be opposed to the text, which as it speaks of fragments en. ruv TTKVTS apruv, of the Jive loaves (John vi. 13.), can hardly be held to presuppose an increase of this number; thus there remains only the second, by the poetical description of which Lavater has done but a poor service to the orthodox view.f For this miracle belongs to the class which can only appear in any degree credible so long as they can be retained in the obscurity of an indefinite conception :J no sooner does the light shine on them, so that they can be examined in all their parts, than they dissolve like the unsubstantial creations of the mist. Loaves, which in the hands of the distributors expand like wetted sponges,-broiled fish, in which the severed parts arc replaced instantaneously, as in the living crab gradually,-plainly belong to quite another domain than that of reality.
on the other hand, it would have been scarcely a possible task, to get a particle, however small, for every individual in a multitude of five thousand men, out of five loaves, which according to Hebrew custom, and particularly as they were carried by a boy, cannot have been very large ; and still less out of two fishes. Of the two other opinions I think, with Olshausen, the one most suitable is that which supposes that the food was augmented under the creative hands of Jesus, and that he time after time dispensed new quantities to the disciples. We may then endeavour to represent the matter to ourselves in two ways : first we may. suppose that as fast as one loaf or fish was gone, a new one came out of the hands of Jesus, or secondly, that the single loaves and fishes grew, so that as one piece was broken off, its loss was repaired, until on a calculation the turn came for the next loaf or fish.The first conception appears to be opposed to the text, which as it speaks of fragments en. ruv TTKVTS apruv, of the Jive loaves (John vi. 13.), can hardly be held to presuppose an increase of this number; thus there remains only the second, by the poetical description of which Lavater has done but a poor service to the orthodox view.f For this miracle belongs to the class which can only appear in any degree credible so long as they can be retained in the obscurity of an indefinite conception :J no sooner does the light shine on them, so that they can be examined in all their parts, than they dissolve like the unsubstantial creations of the mist. Loaves, which in the hands of the distributors expand like wetted sponges,-broiled fish, in which the severed parts arc replaced instantaneously, as in the living crab gradually,-plainly belong to quite another domain than that of reality.
What gratitude then do we not owe 1o the rationalistic interpretation, if it be true that it can free us, in the easiest manner, from the burden of so unheard-of a miracle ? If we are to believe Dr. Pau-lus,§ the evangelists had no idea that they were narrating anything * This lamentable observation of mine, according to Olshausen, has its source in something worse than intellectual incapacity, namely, in my total disbelief in a living God ; otherwise assuredly it would not have appeared so great a difficulty to me that tb.3 Divine causality should have superseded human operations (S. 47U, der 3ten Auttage). i Jesus Messias, 2. B. No. 14, 15 and ‘-’0. J For this reason Neander (S. 377) passes P
miraculous, and the miracle was first conveyed into their accounts by expositors. What they narrate is, according to him, only thus much: that Jesus caused his small store of provisions to be distributed, and that in consequence of this the entire multitude obtained enough to eat. Here, in any case, we want a middle term, which would distinctly inform us, how it was possible that, although Jesus had so little food to offer, the whole multitude obtained enough to eat. A very natural middle term however is to be gathered, according to Paulus, out of the historical combination of the circumstances. As, on a comparison with John vi. 4, the multitude appear to have consisted for the greater part of a caravan on its way to the feast, they cannot have been quite destitule of provisions, and probably a few indigent persons only had exhausted their stores. In order then to induce the better provided to share their food with those who were in want, Jesus arranged that they should have a meal, and himself set the example of imparting what he and his disciples could spare from their own little store; this example was imitated, and thus the distribution of bread by Jesus having led to a general distribution, the whole multitude were satisfied. It is true that this natural middle term must be first mentally interpolated into the text; as, however, the supernatural middle term which is generally received is just as little stated expressly, and both alike depend upon inference, the reader can hardly do otherwise than decide for the natural one. Such is the reasoning of Dr. Paulus : but the alleged identity in the relation of the two middle terms to the text docs not in fact exist. For while the natural explanation requires us to suppose a new distributing subject, (the better provided among the multitude,) and a new distributed object, (their provisions,) together with the act of distributing these provisions: the su pranatural explanation contents itself with the subject actually present in the text, (Jesus and his disciples,) with the single object there given, (their little store.) and the described distribution of this; and only requires us to supply from our imagination the means by which this store could be made sufficient to satisfy the hunger of the multitude, namely its miraculous augmentation under the hands of Jesus (or of his disciples). How can it be yet maintained that neither ot the two middle terms is any more suggested by the text than the other? That the miraculous multiplication of the loaves and fishes is not expressly mentioned, is explained by the consideration that tlie event itsclt is one of which no clear conception can be formed, and therefore it is best conveyed by the result alono. But how will the ^ natural theologian account for nothing being said of the distribution, called forth by the example of Jesus, on the part of those among the multitude who had provisions ? It is altogether arbitrary to insert^ that distribution between the sentences, He gave them to the diaciples, and the disciples to the multitude (Matt. xiv. 19), and, t/uy did all eat and were filled (v. 20); while the words, KOITHE LIFE OP JESUS.
them all (Mark vi. 41,) plainly indicate that only the two fishes- and consequently only the live loaves-were the object of distribution for all.*But the natural explanation falls into especial embarrassment when it corncs to the baskets which, after all were satisfied, Jesus caused to be filled with the fragments that remained. The fourth evangelist says: avvr/yayov ovv, nal eytfuaav dude/ia K.O-v KpiOivuv, a £~epiaaevas TO?? fiEppuKoaiv, therefore they gathered them together, and fitted twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and, above unto them thai had eaten (vi. 13). This seems clearly enough to imply that out of those identical five loaves, after live thousand men had been satisfied by them, there still remained fragments enough to fill twelve baskets,-more, that is, than the amount of the original store. Here, therefore, the natural expositor is put to the most extravagant contrivances in order to evade the miracle. It is true, when the synoptists simply say that the remnants of the meal were collected, and twelve baskets filled with them, it might be thought from the point of view of the natural explanation, that Jesus out of regard to the gift of God, caused the fragments which the crowd had left from their own provisions to be collected by his disciples. But as, on the one hand, the fact that the people allowed the remains of the repast to lie, and did not appropriate them, seems to indicate that they treated the nourishment presented to them as the property of another; so, on the other hand, Jesus, when, without any preliminary, he directs his disciples to gather them up, appears to regard them as his own property. Hence Paulus understands the words ripav K, r. A of the synoptists, not of a collection first made after the meal, of that which remained when the people had been satisfied, but of the overplus of the little store belonging to Jesus and the disciples, which- the latter, after reserving what was necessary for Jesus and themselves, carried round as an introduction and inducement to the general repast. But how, when the words Ifyayov «al ix,opTdaOr]tiav ndv~e<;, they did all eat and were filled, are immediately followed by nal fjpav, and they took iip, can the latter member of the verse refer to the time prior to the meal ?
Must it not than have necessarily been said at least fjpav jap, for they took up?Farther, how, after it had just been said that the people did eat and were filled, can r’c -nepiaaevaav, tliat which remained, especially succeeded as it is in Luke by avrotf, to them, mean anything else than what the people had left? Lastly, how is it possible, that out of five loaves and two fishes, after Jesus and his disciples had reserved enough for themselves, or even without this, there could in a natural manner be twelve baskets filled for distribution among the people ? But still more strangely does the natural explanation deal with the narrative of John. Jesus here adds, as a reason for gathering up the fragments, Iva jj,fj -n a^oXrirai, 1-i ---------:™»,^OO;!,IA tn ilivnst the sucHIKACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.seeding statement that they filled twelve baskets with the remains of the five loaves, ofjts relation to the time after the meal; and in this case, it would be impossible to get clear of a miraculous multiplication of the loaves. Paulus therefore, although the words avvff yayov ovv KOI iyepaav dudeKa Kofovovg K. r. A., therefore they galh ered them together and filled twelve baskets, &c., form a strictly coherent whole, chooses rather to detach avwf/yayov ovv, and, by a still more forced construction than that which he employed with the synoptical text, makes the narrative pass all at once, without the slightest notice, into the pluperfect, and thus leap back to the time before the meal.
Must it not than have necessarily been said at least fjpav jap, for they took up?Farther, how, after it had just been said that the people did eat and were filled, can r’c -nepiaaevaav, tliat which remained, especially succeeded as it is in Luke by avrotf, to them, mean anything else than what the people had left? Lastly, how is it possible, that out of five loaves and two fishes, after Jesus and his disciples had reserved enough for themselves, or even without this, there could in a natural manner be twelve baskets filled for distribution among the people ? But still more strangely does the natural explanation deal with the narrative of John. Jesus here adds, as a reason for gathering up the fragments, Iva jj,fj -n a^oXrirai, 1-i ---------:™»,^OO;!,IA tn ilivnst the sucHIKACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.seeding statement that they filled twelve baskets with the remains of the five loaves, ofjts relation to the time after the meal; and in this case, it would be impossible to get clear of a miraculous multiplication of the loaves. Paulus therefore, although the words avvff yayov ovv KOI iyepaav dudeKa Kofovovg K. r. A., therefore they galh ered them together and filled twelve baskets, &c., form a strictly coherent whole, chooses rather to detach avwf/yayov ovv, and, by a still more forced construction than that which he employed with the synoptical text, makes the narrative pass all at once, without the slightest notice, into the pluperfect, and thus leap back to the time before the meal.
Here, then, the natural explanation once more fails to fulfil its task: the text retains its miracle, and if we have reason to think this incredible, we must inquire whether the narrative of the text deserve credence. The agreement of all the four evangelists is generally adduced in proof of its distinguished credibility: but this agreement is by no means so perfect. There are minor differences, first between Matthew and Luke; then between these two and Mark, who in this instance again embellishes; and lastly, between the synoptists collectively and John, in the following points : according to the synoptists, the scene of the event is a desert place, according to John, a mountain ; according to the former, the scene opens with an address from the disciples, according to John, with a question from Jesus (two particulars in which, as we have already remarked* the narrative of John approaches that of the second feeding in Matthew and Mark); lastly, the words which the three first evangelists put into the mouth of the disciples indefinitely, the fourth in his individualizing manner ascribes to Philip and Andrew, and the same evangelist also designates the bearer of the loaves and fishes as a boy (rraiddpiov^. These divergencies however may be passed over as less essential, that we may give our attention only to one, which has a deeper hold. While, namely, according to the synoptical accounts, Jesus had been long teaching the people and healing their sick, and was only led to feed them by the approach of evening, and the remark of the disciples that the people needed refreshment: in John, the first thought of Jesus, when he lifts up his eyes and sees the people gathering round him, is that which he expresses in his question to Philip: Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat? or rather, as he asked this merely to prove Philip, well knowing hinisell what he would do, he at once forms the resolution of feeding the multitude in a miraculous manner. But how could the design of feeding the people arise in Jesus immediately on their approach ? They did not come to him for this, but for the sake of his teaching and his curative power. He must therefore have conceived tins design entirely of his own accord, with a view to establish his miraculous power by so signal a demonstration. But did he ever thus work a miracle without any necessity, and even without any lm]nr.r.,^-n.,4. ..!».
i
-,-i
i .-, „ ,THE LIFE OF JESUS.
i
-,-i
i .-, „ ,THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Other books
Daily Rituals: How Artists Work by Mason Currey
Then Came Heaven by LaVyrle Spencer
The Pleasure of M by Michel Farnac
No ordinary hero (Keepers of justice # 1) by Dee J. Stone
The Last Single Girl by Caitie Quinn, Bria Quinlan
The Master Falconer by Box, C. J.
Dryden's Bride by Margo Maguire
Finn Again (The Finn Factor Book 5) by R.G. Alexander
The Rancher and the Rock Star by Lizbeth Selvig
Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir by Clint Hill, Lisa McCubbin