Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (802 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
7.66Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Peculiar difficulty is occasioned by the relation in. which this narrative places Jesus to his mother, and his mother to him. According to the express statement of the evangelist, the turning of water into wine was the beginning of the miracles of Jesus, «P%*) TUV arifjiMuv; and yet his mother reckons so confidently on his performing a miracle here, that she believes it only necessary to point out to him the deficiency of wine, in order to induce him to afford * Olshausen, ut sup.f Liicke also thinks this symbolical interpretation too farfetched, and too little supported by the tone of the narrative, S. 406.
Comp. De Wette, J1-•«a
a
“-^
t
r\ Wirtemlmrg wine Maas, or measure, is equal to about - -----™,,rarnnl MIRACLES-TURNING WATER INTO WINE.supernatural aid; and even when she receives a discouraging answer, she is so far from losing hope, that she enjoins the servants to be obedient to the directions of her son (v. 3, 5). How is this expectation of a miracle on the part of the mother of Jesus to be explained? Are we to refer the declaration of John, that the metamorphosis of the water was the first miracle of Jesus, merely to the period of his public life, and to presuppose as real events, for his previous years, the apocryphal miracles of the Gospel of the infancy? Or, believing that Chrysostom was right in regarding this as too uncritical,* are we rather to conjecture that Mary, in consequence of her conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, a conviction wrought in her by the signs that attended his birth, expected miracles from him, and as perhaps on some earlier occasions, so now on this, when the perplexity was great, desired from him a proof of his power ?f Were only that early conviction of the relatives of Jesus that he was the Messiah somewhat more probable, and especially the extraordinary events of the childhood, by which it is supposed to have been produced, better accredited! Moreover, even presupposing the belief of Mary in the miraculous power of her son, it is still not at all clear how, notwithstanding his discouraging answer, she could yet confidently expect that he would just on this occasion perform his first miracle, and feel assured that she positively knew that he would act precisely so as to require the assistance of the servants. J This decided knowledge on the part of Mary, even respecting the manner of the miracle about to be wrought, appears to indicate an antecedent disclosure of Jesus to her, and hence Olshausen supposes that Jesus had given his mother an intimation concerning the miracle on which he had resolved. But when could this disclosure have been made ? Already as they were going to the feast ? Then Jesus must have foreseen that there would be a want of wine, in which case Mary could not have apprised him of it as of an unexpected embarassmcnt Or did Jesus make the disclosure after her appeal, and consequently in connexion with the words: W/iat have I to do vjith. tkee, u-oman, &c. ? But with this answer, it is impossible to conceive so opposite a declaration to have been united; it would therefore be neccssarv, on Olshausen’s view, to imagine that Jesus uttered the nagative words aloud, the affirmative in an under tone, merely for Mary: a supposition which would give the scene the appearance of a comedy. Thus it is on no supposition to be understood how Mary could expect a miracle at all, still less precisely such an one. The first difficulty might indeed be plausibly evaded, by maintaining that Mary did not here apply to Jesus in expectation oi a miracle, but simply that she might obtain her son’s advice in the case, as she was wont to do in all difficult circumstances: § his * Homil. in Joatm. ir. loc. f Tholuck, in loc. \ This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism, ;(S. 370) 2 Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, S. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc. *THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Comp. De Wette, J1-•«a
a
“-^
t
r\ Wirtemlmrg wine Maas, or measure, is equal to about - -----™,,rarnnl MIRACLES-TURNING WATER INTO WINE.supernatural aid; and even when she receives a discouraging answer, she is so far from losing hope, that she enjoins the servants to be obedient to the directions of her son (v. 3, 5). How is this expectation of a miracle on the part of the mother of Jesus to be explained? Are we to refer the declaration of John, that the metamorphosis of the water was the first miracle of Jesus, merely to the period of his public life, and to presuppose as real events, for his previous years, the apocryphal miracles of the Gospel of the infancy? Or, believing that Chrysostom was right in regarding this as too uncritical,* are we rather to conjecture that Mary, in consequence of her conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, a conviction wrought in her by the signs that attended his birth, expected miracles from him, and as perhaps on some earlier occasions, so now on this, when the perplexity was great, desired from him a proof of his power ?f Were only that early conviction of the relatives of Jesus that he was the Messiah somewhat more probable, and especially the extraordinary events of the childhood, by which it is supposed to have been produced, better accredited! Moreover, even presupposing the belief of Mary in the miraculous power of her son, it is still not at all clear how, notwithstanding his discouraging answer, she could yet confidently expect that he would just on this occasion perform his first miracle, and feel assured that she positively knew that he would act precisely so as to require the assistance of the servants. J This decided knowledge on the part of Mary, even respecting the manner of the miracle about to be wrought, appears to indicate an antecedent disclosure of Jesus to her, and hence Olshausen supposes that Jesus had given his mother an intimation concerning the miracle on which he had resolved. But when could this disclosure have been made ? Already as they were going to the feast ? Then Jesus must have foreseen that there would be a want of wine, in which case Mary could not have apprised him of it as of an unexpected embarassmcnt Or did Jesus make the disclosure after her appeal, and consequently in connexion with the words: W/iat have I to do vjith. tkee, u-oman, &c. ? But with this answer, it is impossible to conceive so opposite a declaration to have been united; it would therefore be neccssarv, on Olshausen’s view, to imagine that Jesus uttered the nagative words aloud, the affirmative in an under tone, merely for Mary: a supposition which would give the scene the appearance of a comedy. Thus it is on no supposition to be understood how Mary could expect a miracle at all, still less precisely such an one. The first difficulty might indeed be plausibly evaded, by maintaining that Mary did not here apply to Jesus in expectation oi a miracle, but simply that she might obtain her son’s advice in the case, as she was wont to do in all difficult circumstances: § his * Homil. in Joatm. ir. loc. f Tholuck, in loc. \ This argument is valid against Neander also, who appeals to the faith of Mary chiefly as a result of the solemn inauguration at the baptism, ;(S. 370) 2 Hess, Gesch. Jesu, 1, S. 135. Comp. also Calvin, in loc. *THE LIFE OF JESUS.
reply however shows that he regarded the words of his mother as a summons to perform a miracle, and moreover the direction which Mary gave to the servants remains on this supposition totally unexplained.
The answer of Jesus to the intimation of his mother (v. 4) has been just as often blamed with exaggeration* as justified on insufficient grounds. However truly it may be iirged that the Hebrew phrase, -?i •Virg, to which the Greek TL t-uol KM aol corresponds, appears elsewhere as an expression of gentle blame, e. g. 2 Sam. xvi. 10 :f or that, with the entrance of Jesus on his special office his relation to his mother as regarded his actions was dissolved:]: it nevertheless remains undeniable, that it was fitting for Jesus to be ‘•!-- c- ±1*0 o^oi-niar. nf Ivis miraculous OLLLCSCiy^ -iv.j/iv^^.*..,^....,
.
.
less did Mary, when she brought to his knowledge a want which had arisen, with a merely implied intrcaty for assistance. The case would have been different had Jesus considered the occasion not adapted, or even unworthy to have a miracle connected with it; he might then have repelled with severity the implied summons, as an incitement to a false use of miraculous power (instanced in the history of the temptation); as, on the contrary, he immediately after showed by his actions that he held the occasion worthy of a miracle, it is absolutely incomprehensible how he could blame his mother for her information, which perhaps only came to him a few moments too soon.S
Here again it has been attempted to escape from the numerous difficulties of the supranatural view, by a natural interpretation of the history. The commentators who advance this explanation set out from the fact, that it was the custom among the Jews to make presents of oil or wine at marriage feasts.
Now Jesus, it is said, having brought with him live new disciples as uninvited guests, might foresee a deficiency of wine, and wished out of pleasantry to present his gift in an unexpected and mysterious manner. The 8o^a ((/lory) which he manifested by this proceeding, is said to be merely his humanity, which in the proper place did not disdain to pass a jest: the ^in-ii;, {fuitfi) which he thereby excited in his disciples, was a joyful adherence to a man who exhibited none ot the oppressive severity which had been anticipated in the Messiah. Mary was aware of her son’s project, and warned him when it appeared to her time to put it in execution; but he reminded her playfully not ill his jest by over-haste.
‘-i-«>«
Now Jesus, it is said, having brought with him live new disciples as uninvited guests, might foresee a deficiency of wine, and wished out of pleasantry to present his gift in an unexpected and mysterious manner. The 8o^a ((/lory) which he manifested by this proceeding, is said to be merely his humanity, which in the proper place did not disdain to pass a jest: the ^in-ii;, {fuitfi) which he thereby excited in his disciples, was a joyful adherence to a man who exhibited none ot the oppressive severity which had been anticipated in the Messiah. Mary was aware of her son’s project, and warned him when it appeared to her time to put it in execution; but he reminded her playfully not ill his jest by over-haste.
‘-i-«>«
His causing water to spoil his jest by over-haste. His causing water to be drawn, seems to have belonged to the playful deception which he intended; that all at once wine was found in the vessels instead of water, and that this was regarded as a miraculous metamorphosis, might easily happen at a late hour of the night, when there had already been -• ••
‘ ->• «».-,,t «,,n. S. 90:Tholiick, in loc,J OlsMIRACLES-TUKNIXG WATER INTO WINE.considerable drinking; lastly, that Jesus did not enlighten the wed-din
11), which, in the phraseology of this gospel, can only mean his superior dignity; he ought not to have called the incident a sign (ar/uelov), by which something supernatural is implied: lastly, he ought not, by the expression, the water that was made wine, (TO i’owp olvov yK-yev-rjUKVov, y. ()), and still less by the subsequent designation of Cana as the place where he made the water wine (oirov e-oi-rjasv vdup olvov^ to have occasioned the impression, that he approved the miraculous conception of the event.t The author of the Natural History sought to elude these difficulties by the admission, that the narrator himself, John, regarded the event as a miracle, and meant to describe it as such. Not to mention, however, the unworthy manner in which he explains this error on the part of the evangelist, £ it is not easy to conceive of Jesus that lie should have kept his disciples in the same delusion as the rest of the guests, and not have given to them at least an explanation concerning the real course of the event. It would therefore be necessary to suppose that the narrator of this event was not one of the disciples of Jesus: a supposition which goes beyond the sphere of this system of interpretation. But even admitting that the narrator himself, whoever he may have been, was included in the same deception with those who regarded the affair as a miracle, in which case his mode of representation and the expressions which he uses would be accounted for; still the procedure of Jesus, and his mode of acting, are all the more inconceivable, if no real miracle were on foot. Why did he with refined assiduity arrange the presentation of the wine, so that it might appear to be a miraculous gift ? Why, in particular, did he cause the vessels in which he intended forthwith to present the wine to be filled beforehand with water, the necessary removal of which could only be a hindrance to the secret execution of his plan ? unless indeed it be supposed, with Woolston, that he merely imparted to *
Paulus, Comm. 4, S. 150 ft”.;I.. J. J, a. S. 1C!) ff.; jSTatiirliche Geschichte, 2, S. «‘ ff- | Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sun. S. 77 ft’, anrl Ln.-ti.
in I™
+ ir-----i-.-THE LIFE OF JESUS.
‘ ->• «».-,,t «,,n. S. 90:Tholiick, in loc,J OlsMIRACLES-TUKNIXG WATER INTO WINE.considerable drinking; lastly, that Jesus did not enlighten the wed-din
11), which, in the phraseology of this gospel, can only mean his superior dignity; he ought not to have called the incident a sign (ar/uelov), by which something supernatural is implied: lastly, he ought not, by the expression, the water that was made wine, (TO i’owp olvov yK-yev-rjUKVov, y. ()), and still less by the subsequent designation of Cana as the place where he made the water wine (oirov e-oi-rjasv vdup olvov^ to have occasioned the impression, that he approved the miraculous conception of the event.t The author of the Natural History sought to elude these difficulties by the admission, that the narrator himself, John, regarded the event as a miracle, and meant to describe it as such. Not to mention, however, the unworthy manner in which he explains this error on the part of the evangelist, £ it is not easy to conceive of Jesus that lie should have kept his disciples in the same delusion as the rest of the guests, and not have given to them at least an explanation concerning the real course of the event. It would therefore be necessary to suppose that the narrator of this event was not one of the disciples of Jesus: a supposition which goes beyond the sphere of this system of interpretation. But even admitting that the narrator himself, whoever he may have been, was included in the same deception with those who regarded the affair as a miracle, in which case his mode of representation and the expressions which he uses would be accounted for; still the procedure of Jesus, and his mode of acting, are all the more inconceivable, if no real miracle were on foot. Why did he with refined assiduity arrange the presentation of the wine, so that it might appear to be a miraculous gift ? Why, in particular, did he cause the vessels in which he intended forthwith to present the wine to be filled beforehand with water, the necessary removal of which could only be a hindrance to the secret execution of his plan ? unless indeed it be supposed, with Woolston, that he merely imparted to *
Paulus, Comm. 4, S. 150 ft”.;I.. J. J, a. S. 1C!) ff.; jSTatiirliche Geschichte, 2, S. «‘ ff- | Compare on this point, Flatt, ut sun. S. 77 ft’, anrl Ln.-ti.
in I™
+ ir-----i-.-THE LIFE OF JESUS.
the water the taste of wine, by pouring into it some liquour.Thus there is a double difficulty ; on the one hand, that of imagining how the wine could be introduced into the vessels already filled with water; on the other, that of freeing Jesus from the suspicion of having wished to create the appearance of a miraculous transmutation of the water. It may have been the perception of these difficulties which induced the author of the Natural History entirely to sever the connexion between the water which was poured in, and the wine which subsequently appeared, by the supposition that Jesus had caused the water to be fetched, because there was a deficiency of this also, and Jesus wished to recommend the beneficial practice of washing before and after meals, but that he afterwards caused the wine to be brought out of an adjoining room where he had placed it:-a conception of the matter which requires us either to suppose the intoxication of all the guests, and especially of the narrator, as so considerable, that they mistook the wine brought out of the adjoining room, for wine drawn out of the water vessels; or else that the deceptive arrangements of Jesus were contrived with very great art, which is inconsistent with the straightforwardness of character elsewhere ascribed to him.
In this dilemma between the supranatural and the natural interpretations, of which, in this case again, the one is as insufficient as the other, we should be reduced, with one of the most recent commentators on the fourth gospel, to wait “until it pleased God, by further developments of judicious Christian reflection, to evolve a solution of the enigma to the general satisfaction ;”* did we not discern an outlet in the fact, that the history in question is found in John’s gospel alone.
Single in its kind as this miracle is, if it were also the first performed by Jesus, it must, even if all the twelve were not then with Jesus, have yet been known to them all;
and even if among the rest of the evangelists there were no apostle, still it must have passed into the general Christian tradition, and from thence into the synoptical memoirs:consequently, as John alone has it, the supposition that it arose in a region of tradition unknown to the synoptists, seems easier than the alternative, that it so early disappeared out of that from which they drew ; the only question is, whether we are in a condition to show how such a legend could arise without historical grounds.
Kaiser points for this purpose to the extravagant spirit of the oriental legend, which has ever been so fertile in metamorphoses:
but this source is so wide and indefinite, that Kaiser finds it necessary also to suppose a real jest on the part of Jesus,t and thus remains uneasily suspended between the mythical and the natural explanations, a position which cannot be escaped from, until there can be produced points of mythical connexion arid origin more definite and exact.
Now in the present case we need halt neither at the character of eastern legend in general, nor at metamorphoses in general, since transmutations of this MIRACLES-TURNING WATER INTO WINE.591
Single in its kind as this miracle is, if it were also the first performed by Jesus, it must, even if all the twelve were not then with Jesus, have yet been known to them all;
and even if among the rest of the evangelists there were no apostle, still it must have passed into the general Christian tradition, and from thence into the synoptical memoirs:consequently, as John alone has it, the supposition that it arose in a region of tradition unknown to the synoptists, seems easier than the alternative, that it so early disappeared out of that from which they drew ; the only question is, whether we are in a condition to show how such a legend could arise without historical grounds.
Kaiser points for this purpose to the extravagant spirit of the oriental legend, which has ever been so fertile in metamorphoses:
but this source is so wide and indefinite, that Kaiser finds it necessary also to suppose a real jest on the part of Jesus,t and thus remains uneasily suspended between the mythical and the natural explanations, a position which cannot be escaped from, until there can be produced points of mythical connexion arid origin more definite and exact.
Now in the present case we need halt neither at the character of eastern legend in general, nor at metamorphoses in general, since transmutations of this MIRACLES-TURNING WATER INTO WINE.591
particular element of water are to be found within the narrower circle of the ancient Hebrew history. Besides some narratives of Moses procuring for the Israelites water out of the flinty rock in the wilderness (Exod. xvii. 1 ff.; Numb. xx. 1 if.)-a bestowal of water which, after being repeated in a modified manner in the history of Samson, (Judges xv. 18 f.) was made a feature in the messianic expectations ;*-the first transmutation of water ascribed to Moses, is the turning of all the water in Egypt into blood, which is enumerated among the so-called plagues (Exod. vii. 17 ff.) Together with this mutatio in detenus, there is in the history of Moses a mutatio in nielius, also effected in water, for he made bitter water sweet, under the direction of Jehovah (Exod. xiv. 23 ff.f);
as at a later era, Elisha also is said to have made unhealthy water good and innoxious (2 Kings ii.
19 ff.|). As, according to the rabbinical passage quoted, the bestowal of water, so also, according to this narrative in John, the transmutation of water appears to have been transferred from Moses and the prophets to the Messiah, with such modifications, however, as lay in the nature of the case. If namely, on the one hand, a change of water for the worse, like that Mosaic transmutation into blood-if a miracle of this retributive kind might not seem well suited to the mild spirit of the Messiah as recognised in Jesus : so on the other hand, such a change for the better as, like the removal of bitterness or noxiousness, did not go beyond the species of water, and did not, like the change into blood, alter the substance of the water itself, might appear insufficient for the Messiah ;
if then the two conditions be united, a change of water for the better, which should at the same time be a specific alteration of its substance, must almost of necessity be a change into wine.Now this is narrated by John, in a manner not indeed in accordance with reality, but which must be held all the more in accordance with the spirit of his gospel. For the harshness of Jesus towards his mother is, historically considered, incredible; but it is entirely in the spirit of the fourth gospel, to place in relief the exaltation of Jesus as the divine Logos by such demeanour towards suppliants (as in John iv. 48.), and even towards his mother.§ Equally in the spirit of this gospel is it also, to exhibit the firm faith which Mary maintains notwithstanding the negative answer of Jesus, by making her give the direction to the servants above considered, as if she had a preconception even of the manner in which Jesus would perform his miracle, a preconception which is historically impossible.”THE LIFE OF JESUS.
as at a later era, Elisha also is said to have made unhealthy water good and innoxious (2 Kings ii.
19 ff.|). As, according to the rabbinical passage quoted, the bestowal of water, so also, according to this narrative in John, the transmutation of water appears to have been transferred from Moses and the prophets to the Messiah, with such modifications, however, as lay in the nature of the case. If namely, on the one hand, a change of water for the worse, like that Mosaic transmutation into blood-if a miracle of this retributive kind might not seem well suited to the mild spirit of the Messiah as recognised in Jesus : so on the other hand, such a change for the better as, like the removal of bitterness or noxiousness, did not go beyond the species of water, and did not, like the change into blood, alter the substance of the water itself, might appear insufficient for the Messiah ;
if then the two conditions be united, a change of water for the better, which should at the same time be a specific alteration of its substance, must almost of necessity be a change into wine.Now this is narrated by John, in a manner not indeed in accordance with reality, but which must be held all the more in accordance with the spirit of his gospel. For the harshness of Jesus towards his mother is, historically considered, incredible; but it is entirely in the spirit of the fourth gospel, to place in relief the exaltation of Jesus as the divine Logos by such demeanour towards suppliants (as in John iv. 48.), and even towards his mother.§ Equally in the spirit of this gospel is it also, to exhibit the firm faith which Mary maintains notwithstanding the negative answer of Jesus, by making her give the direction to the servants above considered, as if she had a preconception even of the manner in which Jesus would perform his miracle, a preconception which is historically impossible.”THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Other books
Healing Fire by Angela Castle
Novel 1986 - Last Of The Breed (v5.0) by Louis L'Amour
Saturday (Timeless Series #6) by E. L. Todd
Xone Of Contention by Anthony, Piers
RavenShadow by Win Blevins
The Boleyn Effect (The Boorman Ending) by Deborah.C. Foulkes
The Flying Pineapple by Jamie Baulch
Mary and Lou and Rhoda and Ted: A History of the Mary Tyler Moore Show by Jennifer Keishin Armstrong
Juliana by Lauren Royal, Devon Royal
Kristmas Collins by Derek Ciccone