Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (800 page)
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.88Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
a miracle ? I am unable to describe strongly enough how impossible it is that eating should here have been the first thought of Jesus, how impossible that he could thus obtrude his miraculous repast on the people. Thus in relation to this point, the synoptical narrative, in which there is a reason tor the miracle, must have the preference to that of John, who, hastening towards the miracle, overlooks the requisite motive for it, and makes Jesus create instead of awaiting the occasion for its performance. An eye witness could not narrate thus ;* and if, therefore, the account of that gospel to which the greatest authority is now awarded, must be rejected as unhistorical; so, with respect to the other narratives, the difficulties of the fact itself are sufficient to cast a doubt on their historical credibility, especially if in addition to these negative grounds we can discover positive reasons which render it probable that our narrative had an unhistorical origin.
Such reasons are actually found both within the evangelical history itself, and beyond it in the Old Testament history, and the Jewish popular belief. In relation to the former source, it is worthy of remark, that in the synoptical gospels as well as in John, there are more or less immediately appended to the feeding of the multitude by Jesus with literal bread, figurative discourses of Jesus on bread and leaven: namely, in the latter, the declarations concerning the bread of heaven, and the bread of life which Jesus gives (John vi. 27 fF.); in the former, those concerning the false leaven of the Pharisees and Sadclucees, that is, their false doctrine and hypocrisyf (Matt. xvi. 5 ff.: Mark viii. 14 ff.; comp. Luke xii. 1.); and on both sides, the figurative discourse of Jesus is erroneously understood of literal bread. It would not then be a very strained conjecture, that as in the passages quoted we find the disciples and the people generally, understanding literally what Jesus meant figuratively ; so the same mistake was made in the earliest Christian tradition. If, in figurative discourses, Jesus had sometimes represented himself as him who was able to give the true bread of life to the wandering and hungering people, perhaps also placing in opposition to this, the * Against Xeanrler’e attempt at reconciliation, compare De Wette, exeg. Handb. 1, 3, fi. 77. T This indication has been recently followed up by Weisse. He finds the key iU> the history of the miraculous multiplication of the loaves, in the question addressed by Jesus to the disciples when they misunderstand his admonition against the leaven of the I’luirisees and Sadducecs. lie asks them whether they did not remember, how many baskers they had been able to fill from the live and again from the seven loaves, and then adds, Ifnoi it it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, &c., (Malt, xvi. 11.). Now, says Weisse, the parallel which Jesus here institutes between his discourse on the leaven, and the history of the feeding of the multitude, shows that the latter also is only to be interpreted parabolically (S. 511 ft’.). But the form of the question of Jesus : Troaorc no6ivov<; ((TTnjpuSaf) tUi^ST?; how m
‘------1
:»
-.,..„nl,a,,rrltn UDMIKACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.leaven of the Pharisees: the legend, agreeably to its realistic tendency, may have converted this into the fact of a miraculous feeding of the hungry multitude in the wilderness by Jesus. The fourth evangelist makes the discourse on the bread of heaven arise out of the miracle of the loaves; but the relation might very well have been the reverse, and the history owe its origin to the discourse, especially as the question which introduces John’s narrative, Whence, shall we buy bread that these mat/ eat ? may be more easily conceived as being uttered by Jesus on the first sight of the people, if he alluded to feeding them with the word of God (comp. John iv. 32 ft”.), to appeasing their spiritual hunger (Matt. v. 6), in order to exercise (KS.I-pdfuv) the higher understanding of his disciples, than if he really thought of the satisfaction of their bodily hunger, and only wished to try whether his disciples would in this case confide in his miraculous power. The synoptical narrative is less suggestive of such a view; for the figurative discourse on the leaven could not by itself originate the history of the miracle. Thus the gospel of John stands alone with reference to the above mode of derivation, and it is more agreeable to the character of this gospel to conjecture that it has applied the narrative of a miracle presented by tradition to the production of figurative discourses in the Alexandrian taste, than to suppose that it has preserved to us the original discourses out of which the legend spun that miraculous narrative.
‘------1
:»
-.,..„nl,a,,rrltn UDMIKACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.leaven of the Pharisees: the legend, agreeably to its realistic tendency, may have converted this into the fact of a miraculous feeding of the hungry multitude in the wilderness by Jesus. The fourth evangelist makes the discourse on the bread of heaven arise out of the miracle of the loaves; but the relation might very well have been the reverse, and the history owe its origin to the discourse, especially as the question which introduces John’s narrative, Whence, shall we buy bread that these mat/ eat ? may be more easily conceived as being uttered by Jesus on the first sight of the people, if he alluded to feeding them with the word of God (comp. John iv. 32 ft”.), to appeasing their spiritual hunger (Matt. v. 6), in order to exercise (KS.I-pdfuv) the higher understanding of his disciples, than if he really thought of the satisfaction of their bodily hunger, and only wished to try whether his disciples would in this case confide in his miraculous power. The synoptical narrative is less suggestive of such a view; for the figurative discourse on the leaven could not by itself originate the history of the miracle. Thus the gospel of John stands alone with reference to the above mode of derivation, and it is more agreeable to the character of this gospel to conjecture that it has applied the narrative of a miracle presented by tradition to the production of figurative discourses in the Alexandrian taste, than to suppose that it has preserved to us the original discourses out of which the legend spun that miraculous narrative.
If then we can discover, beyond the limits of the New Testament, vezy powerful causes for the origination of our narrative, we must renounce the attempt to construct it out of materials presented by the gospels themselves. And here the fourth evangelist, by putting into the mouth of the people a reference to the manna, that bread of heaven which Moses gave to the fathers in the wilderness (v. 31), reminds us of one of the most celebrated passages in the early history of the Israelites (Exocl. xvi.), which was perfectly adapted to engender the expectation that its antitype would occur in the messianic times ; and we in fact learn from rabbinical writings, that among those functions of the first Goel which were to be revived in the second, a chief place was given to the impartation of bread from heaven.* If the Mosaic manna presents itself as that which was most likely to be held a type of the bread miraculously augmented by Jesus ; the fish which Jesus also multiplied miraculously, may remind us that Moses gave the people, not only a substitute for bread in the manna, but also animal food in the quails (Kxod. xvi. 8 : xii. 13; Numb. xi. 4 fF.). On comparing these Mosaic narratives with our evangelical ones, there appears a striking resemblance even in details. The locality in both cases is the wilderness ; the inducement to the miracle here as there, is fear lest the people should suffer from want in the wilderness, or perish from hunger; in the Old Testament history, this fear is expressed by the people in loud murmurs, in that of the New Testament, it resultsTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
I
from .the shortsightedness of the disciples, and the benevolence of Jesus. The direction of the latter to his disciples that they should give the people food, a direction which implies that lie had already formed the design of feeding them miraculously, may “be parallelled with the command which Jehovah gave to Moses to feed the people with manna (Exod. xvi. 4.), and with quails (Exod. xvi. 12; Numb, xi. 18-20.). But there is another point of similarity which speaks yet more directly to our present purpose. As, in the evangelical narrative, the disciples think it an impossibility ihat provision for so great a mass of people should be procured in the wilderness, so, in the Old Testament history, Moses replies doubtingiy to the promise of Jehovah to satisfy the people with flesh (Numb. xi. 21 £). To Moses, as to the disciples, the multitude appears too great for the possibility of providing sufficient food for them ; as the latter ask, whence they should have so much bread in the wilderness, so Moses asks ironically whether they should slay the flocks and the herds (which they had not). And as the disciples object, that not even the most impoverishing expenditure on their part would thoroughly meet the demand, so Moses, clothing the idea in another form, had declared, that to satisfy the people as Jehovah promised, an impossibility must happen (the fish of the sea be gathered together for them); objections which Jehovah there, as here Jesus, does not regard, but issues the command that the people should prepare for the reception of the miraculous food.
But though these two cases of a miraculous supply of nourishment are thus analogous, there is this essential distinction, that in the Old Testament, in relation both to the manna and the quails, it is,a miraculous procuring of food not previously existing which is spoken of, while in the New Testament it is a miraculous augmentation of provision already present, but inadequate;so that the chasm between the Mosaic narrative and the evangelical one is too great for the latter
to have been derivedimmediately from the former.
If we search for an intermediate step, a very natural one between Moses and the Messiah is afforded by the prophets. We read of Elijah, that through him and for his sake, the little store of meal and oil which he found in the possession of the widow of Zarephath
was
miraculously replenished, or rather was made to suffice throughout the duration of a famine (1 Kings xvii. 8-16). This species of miracle is developed still farther, and with a greater resemblance to the evangelical narrative, in the history of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 42 if.).
-As Jesus fed five thousand men iu the wilderness with
five, loaves
and two fishes, so this prophet, during a famine, fed a hundred men with twenty loaves, (which like those distributed by Jesus in John, are called barley loaves, together with some ground corn, (^”-”3, LXX: miAdOac); a disproportion between the quantity of provisions and the number of men, which his servant, like the disciples in the other instance,indicatcs in the question:
to have been derivedimmediately from the former.
If we search for an intermediate step, a very natural one between Moses and the Messiah is afforded by the prophets. We read of Elijah, that through him and for his sake, the little store of meal and oil which he found in the possession of the widow of Zarephath
was
miraculously replenished, or rather was made to suffice throughout the duration of a famine (1 Kings xvii. 8-16). This species of miracle is developed still farther, and with a greater resemblance to the evangelical narrative, in the history of Elisha (2 Kings iv. 42 if.).
-As Jesus fed five thousand men iu the wilderness with
five, loaves
and two fishes, so this prophet, during a famine, fed a hundred men with twenty loaves, (which like those distributed by Jesus in John, are called barley loaves, together with some ground corn, (^”-”3, LXX: miAdOac); a disproportion between the quantity of provisions and the number of men, which his servant, like the disciples in the other instance,indicatcs in the question:
•»
-i.ii’.t. 1:1,,, MIRACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.11
-i.ii’.t. 1:1,,, MIRACLES-FEEDING THE MULTITUDE.11
Jesus, is not diverted from his purpose, but commands the servant to give what lie lias to the people; and as in the New Testament narrative great
stress is laid on the collection of the remaining fragments, so in the Old Testament it is specially noticed at the close of this story, that notwithstanding so many had eaten of the store, there was still an overplus.* The only important difference here is, that on the side of the evangelical narrative, the number of the loaves is smaller, and that of the people greater; but who docs not know that in general the legend does not easily imitate, without at the same time surpassing, and who docs not see that in this particular instance it was entirely suited to the position of the Messiah, that his miraculous power, compared with that of Elisha, should be placed, as it regards the need of natural means, in the relation of five to twenty, but as it regards the supernatural performance, in that of five thousand to one hundred ?Paulas indeed, in order to preclude1 the inference, that as the two narratives in the Old
Testament are
to
be understood mythically, so also is the strikingly similar evangelical narrative, extends to the former the attempt at a natural explanation which he has pursued with the latter, making the widow’s cruse of oil to be replenished by the aid of the scholars of the prophets, and the twenty loaves suffice for one hundred men by means of a praiseworthy moderation :f a mode of explanation which is less practicable here than with the New Testament narrative, in proportion as, by reason of the greater remoteness of these anecdotes, they present fewer critical, (and, by reason of their merely mediate
relation to Christianity, fewer dogmatical,) motives for maintaining their historical veracity.
stress is laid on the collection of the remaining fragments, so in the Old Testament it is specially noticed at the close of this story, that notwithstanding so many had eaten of the store, there was still an overplus.* The only important difference here is, that on the side of the evangelical narrative, the number of the loaves is smaller, and that of the people greater; but who docs not know that in general the legend does not easily imitate, without at the same time surpassing, and who docs not see that in this particular instance it was entirely suited to the position of the Messiah, that his miraculous power, compared with that of Elisha, should be placed, as it regards the need of natural means, in the relation of five to twenty, but as it regards the supernatural performance, in that of five thousand to one hundred ?Paulas indeed, in order to preclude1 the inference, that as the two narratives in the Old
Testament are
to
be understood mythically, so also is the strikingly similar evangelical narrative, extends to the former the attempt at a natural explanation which he has pursued with the latter, making the widow’s cruse of oil to be replenished by the aid of the scholars of the prophets, and the twenty loaves suffice for one hundred men by means of a praiseworthy moderation :f a mode of explanation which is less practicable here than with the New Testament narrative, in proportion as, by reason of the greater remoteness of these anecdotes, they present fewer critical, (and, by reason of their merely mediate
relation to Christianity, fewer dogmatical,) motives for maintaining their historical veracity.
Nothing more is wanting to complete the mythical derivation of this history of the miraculous feeding of the multitude, except the proof, that the later Jews also believed of particularly holy men, that by their means a small amount of provision was made sufficient, and of this proof the disinterested industry of Dr. Paulus as a collector, has put us in possession. He adduces a rabbinical statement that in the time of a specially holy man, the small quantity of show-bread more than sufficed for the supply of the priests.£ To be consequent, this commentator should try to explain this story also naturally,-by the moderation of the priests, for instance: but it is not in the canon, hence he can unhesitatingly regard it as a fable, and he only so far admits its striking similarity to the evangelical narrative as to observe, tint in consequence of the Jewish (
*
2 Kings iv. 43, LXX:ri da TOVTO John vi:u?.Au ravra. ri tarix elf roaoiitvuTTiov CKartiv avdptiv, rovf;
*
2 Kings iv. 43, LXX:ri da TOVTO John vi:u?.Au ravra. ri tarix elf roaoiitvuTTiov CKartiv avdptiv, rovf;
Il’ul. v.
44 : Kai fyayov, no} Kari’^nrav
Matth. xiv. 20 :not ttyayov iravrec, Knl “ana. TO pfi/M Kvpim. exnp-ua&ijoav, /cat t/pav rd trept.cm?vov TUV
44 : Kai fyayov, no} Kari’^nrav
Matth. xiv. 20 :not ttyayov iravrec, Knl “ana. TO pfi/M Kvpim. exnp-ua&ijoav, /cat t/pav rd trept.cm?vov TUV
K/MffUaTUV, K. T. /U
t Excg. Handb. 2, S. 237 f.
t Joma f, o!)5 1:Tr/itpoi-e fitmeonis justi bcnedictw crat super duos pane. fl-s ft super decent panes TrpoxJeo’ewcr, ut siiumli saccrdot.ps- ntii «*v> *./»//»
«,.w.
«,.w.
panes pealecosta-THE LIFE OP JESUS.
UOibelief in such augmentations of food, attested by that rabbinical statement, the New Testament narrative may in early times have been understood by judaizing Christians in the same (miraculous) sense. But our examination has shown that the evangelical narrative was designedly composed so as to convey this sense, and if this sense was an element of the popiilar Jewish legend, then is the evangelical narrative without doubt a product of that legend.
§ 103.
JESUS TURNS WATER INTO WINE.
JESUS TURNS WATER INTO WINE.
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
4.88Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
ads
Other books
Renegade by Cambria Hebert
The Devil's Garden by Edward Docx
PursuedbythePrisoner by Ann Mayburn
Piercing by Ryu Murakami
Reckless Eyeballing by Ishmael Reed
Heating Up Hawaii by Carmen Falcone
Yesterday's Echo by Matt Coyle
Ice Diaries by Revellian, Lexi
Native Speaker by Chang-Rae Lee