Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (803 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
7.93Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
. § 104
JESUS CURSES A BARREN FIG-TREE.
JESUS CURSES A BARREN FIG-TREE.
THE anecdote of the fig-tree which Jesus caused to wither by his word, because when he was hungry he found no fruit on it, is peculiar to the two first gospels (Matt. xxi. 18 if.; Mark xi. 12 if.), but is narrated by them with divergencies which must
affect our view of the fact. One of these divergencies of Mark from Matthew, appears so favourable to the natural explanation, that, chiefly in consideration of it, a tendency towards the natural view of the miracles of Jesus has been of late ascribed to this evangelist; and for the sake of this one favourable divergency, he has been defended in relation to the other rather inconvenient one, which is found in the narrative before us.
affect our view of the fact. One of these divergencies of Mark from Matthew, appears so favourable to the natural explanation, that, chiefly in consideration of it, a tendency towards the natural view of the miracles of Jesus has been of late ascribed to this evangelist; and for the sake of this one favourable divergency, he has been defended in relation to the other rather inconvenient one, which is found in the narrative before us.
If we were restricted to the manner in which the first evangelist states the consequence of the curse of Jesus: and immediately the fig-tree withered away nal e^pdvdi] 7rapa%p7;/-ta fj av/aj, it would be difficult here to carry out a natural explanation; for even the forced interpretation of Paulus, winch, makes the word jrapaxpfj^a (immediately) only exclude farther Iranian accession to the fact, and not a longer space of time, rests only on an unwarranted transference of Mark’s particulars into the narrative of Matthew. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig-tree on the morning after his entrance into Jerusalem, 1
------I- in ^riac:irto\
------I- in ^riac:irto\
LG’
curses the fig-tree on the morning auei mo v^^----„ .
and not till the following morning the disciples remark, in passi that the tree is withered.Through this interim, which Mark leaves open between the declaration of Jesus and the withering of the tree, the natural explanation of the whole narrative insinuates itself, taking its stand on the possibility, that in this interval the tree might have withered from natural causes. Accordingly, Jesus is supposed to have remarked in the tree, besides the lack of fruit, a condition from which he prognosticated that it would soon wither away, and to have uttered this prediction in the words: -is o one will ever again gather trait from thee. The heat of the day having realized the prediction of Jesus with unexpected rapidity, and the disciples remarking this the next morning, they then first connected this result with the words of Jesus on the previous morning, and began to regard them as a curse: an interpretation which, indeed, Jesus does not confirm, but impresses on the disciples, that if they have only some self-reliance, they will be able, not, only to predict Such physiologically evident results, but also to know and effect things far more difficult.* But even admitting Mark’s statement to be the correct one, the natural explanation still remains impossible.
part to the supply of bread, and both as corresponding to the b”••--:„ t\,a List supper. But, he continues, the mythical view is opposed, 1, 1>; authenticity of the fourth gospel; 2, by the fact that the narra Gary than a subjective, impress, by the obscurity that rets upoi presulinj”-----”• - -;><‘
*>>« abundance of practical ideas i a subjective, impress, by uie uur>ni..v
----: idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas ‘•>-Wntto «i><.,na to intimate •ad and wine in the last . the not yet overthrown ive bears less of a legen-n it, and its want of one worthy of Jesus wh.ch it idea
together with the abundance m I”---”-. ••;” H’ roval of a natural -- B^,MS^
*>>« abundance of practical ideas i a subjective, impress, by uie uur>ni..v
----: idea, together with the abundance of practical ideas ‘•>-Wntto «i><.,na to intimate •ad and wine in the last . the not yet overthrown ive bears less of a legen-n it, and its want of one worthy of Jesus wh.ch it idea
together with the abundance m I”---”-. ••;” H’ roval of a natural -- B^,MS^
MIRACLES-CURSING THE BARREN FIG-TREE.For the words of Jesus in Mark (v. 14): p?«en iic aov elf rov aluva [irjdelt; Kaprrbv (f>dyoi, Jfo man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever, if they had been meant to imply a mere conjecture as to what would probably happen, must necessarily have had a potential signification given to them by the addition of av- and in the expression of Matthew: p?«£Tt SK aov /caprrof jtvrfTai, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever, the command is not to be mistaken, although Paulus would only find in this also the expression of a possibility. Moreover the circumstance that Jesus addresses the tree itself, as also the solemn dq rbv aluva, for ever, which he adds, speaks against the idea of a mere prediction, and in favour of a curse; Paulus perceives this fully, and hence with unwarrantable violence lie interprets the words Aeyet avry he saith to it, as if they introduced a saying merely in reference to the tree, while he depreciates the expression «
Thus we are inexorably thrown back from the naturalistic attempt at an explanation, to the conception of the supranaturalists, pre-eminently difficult as this is in the history before us. We pass over what might be said against the physical possibility of such an influence as is there presupposed; not, indeed, because, with Ilase, we could comprehend it through the medium of natural magic,* but because another difficulty beforehand excludes the inquiry, and does npt^ allow us to come to the consideration of the physical possibility. I his decisive difficulty relates to the moral possibility of such an act ^on the part of Jesus. The miracle he here performs is of a punitive character. Another example of the kind is not found inTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
the canonical accounts of the life of Jesus; the apocryphal gospels alone, as has been above remarked, are full of such miracles. In one of the synoptical gospels there is, on the contrary, a passage often quoted already (Luke ix. 55 f.), in which it is declared, as the profound conviction of Jesus, that the employment of miraculous power in order to execute punishment or to take vengeance, is contrary to the spirit of his vocation; and the same sentiment is attributed to Jesus by the evangelist, when he applies to him the words of Isaiah: lie shall not break a bruised reed, &c. (Matt. xii. 20.). Agreeably to this principle, and to his prevalent mode of action. Jesus must rather have given new life to a withered tree, than have made a green one wither; and in order to comprehend his conduct on this occasion, we must be able to show reasons which he might possibly have had, for departing in this instance from the above principle, which has no mark of unauthenticity. The occasion on which he enunciated that principle was when, on the refusal of a Samaritan village to exercise hospitality towards Jesus and his disciples, the sons of Zebedce asked him whether they should not rain down fire on the village, after the example of Elijah.
Jesus replied by reminding them of
the nature of
the spirit to which they belonged, a spirit with which so destructive an act was incompatible. In our present case Jesus had not to deal with men who had treated him with injustice, but with a tree which he happened not to find in the desired state. Now, there is here no special reason for departing from the above rule; on the contrary, the chief reason which in the first case might possibly have moved Jesus to determine on a judicial miracle, is not present in the second. The moral end of punishment, namely, to bring the punished person to a conviction and acknowledgment of his error, can have no existence in relation to a tree; and eyen punishment in the light of retribution, is out of the question when we are treating of natural objects destitute of volition.* For one to be irritated against an inanimate object, which does not happen to be found just in the desired state, is with reason pronounced to be a proof of an uncultivated mind; to carry such indignation to the destruction of the object is regarded as barbarous, and unworthy of a reasonable being; and hence Woolston is not wrong in maintaining, that in any other person than Jesus, such an act would be severely blamed.f It is true that when a natural object is intrinsically and habitually defective, it may very well happen, that it may be removed out of the way, in order to put a better in its place; a measure, however, for which, in every case, only the owner has the adequate motive and authority (comp. Luke xiii. 7.). But that this tree, because just at that time it presented no fruit, would not have borne any in succeeding years, was by no means self-evi-dent:-nay, the contrary is implied in the narrative, since the torm MIRACLES-CURSING THE BARREN FIG-TREE.in which the curse of Jesus is expressed, that fruit shall never more grow on the tree, presupposes, that without this curse the tree might yet have been fruitful.
Jesus replied by reminding them of
the nature of
the spirit to which they belonged, a spirit with which so destructive an act was incompatible. In our present case Jesus had not to deal with men who had treated him with injustice, but with a tree which he happened not to find in the desired state. Now, there is here no special reason for departing from the above rule; on the contrary, the chief reason which in the first case might possibly have moved Jesus to determine on a judicial miracle, is not present in the second. The moral end of punishment, namely, to bring the punished person to a conviction and acknowledgment of his error, can have no existence in relation to a tree; and eyen punishment in the light of retribution, is out of the question when we are treating of natural objects destitute of volition.* For one to be irritated against an inanimate object, which does not happen to be found just in the desired state, is with reason pronounced to be a proof of an uncultivated mind; to carry such indignation to the destruction of the object is regarded as barbarous, and unworthy of a reasonable being; and hence Woolston is not wrong in maintaining, that in any other person than Jesus, such an act would be severely blamed.f It is true that when a natural object is intrinsically and habitually defective, it may very well happen, that it may be removed out of the way, in order to put a better in its place; a measure, however, for which, in every case, only the owner has the adequate motive and authority (comp. Luke xiii. 7.). But that this tree, because just at that time it presented no fruit, would not have borne any in succeeding years, was by no means self-evi-dent:-nay, the contrary is implied in the narrative, since the torm MIRACLES-CURSING THE BARREN FIG-TREE.in which the curse of Jesus is expressed, that fruit shall never more grow on the tree, presupposes, that without this curse the tree might yet have been fruitful.
Thus the evil condition of the tree was not habitual but temporary;
still further, if we follow Mark, it was not even objective, or existing intrinsically in the tree, but purely subjective, that is, a result of the accidental relation of the tree to the momentary wish and want of Jesus.
For according to an addition which forms the second feature peculiar to Mark in this narrative, it was not then the time of tigs (v. 13): it was not therefore a defect, but, on the contrary, quite in due order, that this tree, as well as others, had no fio-g on it, and Jesus (in whom it is already enough to excite surprise that he expected to find figs on the tree so out of season) might at least have reflected, when he found none, on the groundlessness of his expectation, and have forborne so wholly unjust an act as the cursing of the tree. Even some of the fathers stumbled at this addition of Mark’s, and felt that it rendered the conduct of Jesus enigmatical;* and to descend to later times, Woolston’s ridicule is not unfounded, when he says that if a Kentish countryman were to seek for fruit in his garden in spring, and were to cut down the trees which had none, he would be a common laughing-stock. Expositors have attempted to free themselves from the difficulty which this addition introduces, by a motley series of conjectures and interpretations.On the one hand, the wish that the perplexing words did not stand in the text, has been turned into the hypothesis that they may probably be a subsequent gloss.fOn the other hand, as, if an addition of this kind must stand there, the contrary statement, namely, that it was then the time of rigs, were rather to be desired, in order to render intelligible the expectation of Jesus, and his displeasure when he found it deceived ; it has been attempted in various ways to remove the negative out of the proposition. One expedient is altogether violent, ov being read instead of ov, a point inserted after qv, and a second i]v supplied after OUKUV, $o that the translation runs thus:ubi eniin turn versabatur (Jesus), tempus Jicuuin erat;\ another expedient, the transformation of the sentence into an interrogatory one, nonne enim, etc., is absurd.§ A third expedient is to understand the words Kotpo? avnuv as implying the time of the fig-gathering, and thus to take Mark’s addition as a statement that the figs were not yet gathered, i. e. were still on the trees, || in support of which interpretation, appeal is made to the * Orig. Comin. in Matth. Tom. xvi. 29. ‘0OT> Tt (if Trpof To fitjmv 7rpooei9v//fe, voa/aa;, on-ov yilp tjv naipbf OVKUV.-Etnoc yup av rif d ,<«) o Kaipbf ninuv }/v, xuc qhtisv 6 ‘I. ijf evprjaurv n ev auTr/, /cat trwf &Kaiof entv avn) /a/>tm elf TOV aluva in not /jijdtlc napruv tjiuyy • comp. Augustin ut sup. Mark, *” ri:’at’»y this emit, adds something whieh seems not to tal’y well with his statement, when . octrees that it was not the season for Jigs. It might be urged: if it was not the season Jl”‘j’«js, why should Jesus go and louk for fruit on the tree, and hoto could he, -with justice, say . |j Dalimc. in Henke’sTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
still further, if we follow Mark, it was not even objective, or existing intrinsically in the tree, but purely subjective, that is, a result of the accidental relation of the tree to the momentary wish and want of Jesus.
For according to an addition which forms the second feature peculiar to Mark in this narrative, it was not then the time of tigs (v. 13): it was not therefore a defect, but, on the contrary, quite in due order, that this tree, as well as others, had no fio-g on it, and Jesus (in whom it is already enough to excite surprise that he expected to find figs on the tree so out of season) might at least have reflected, when he found none, on the groundlessness of his expectation, and have forborne so wholly unjust an act as the cursing of the tree. Even some of the fathers stumbled at this addition of Mark’s, and felt that it rendered the conduct of Jesus enigmatical;* and to descend to later times, Woolston’s ridicule is not unfounded, when he says that if a Kentish countryman were to seek for fruit in his garden in spring, and were to cut down the trees which had none, he would be a common laughing-stock. Expositors have attempted to free themselves from the difficulty which this addition introduces, by a motley series of conjectures and interpretations.On the one hand, the wish that the perplexing words did not stand in the text, has been turned into the hypothesis that they may probably be a subsequent gloss.fOn the other hand, as, if an addition of this kind must stand there, the contrary statement, namely, that it was then the time of rigs, were rather to be desired, in order to render intelligible the expectation of Jesus, and his displeasure when he found it deceived ; it has been attempted in various ways to remove the negative out of the proposition. One expedient is altogether violent, ov being read instead of ov, a point inserted after qv, and a second i]v supplied after OUKUV, $o that the translation runs thus:ubi eniin turn versabatur (Jesus), tempus Jicuuin erat;\ another expedient, the transformation of the sentence into an interrogatory one, nonne enim, etc., is absurd.§ A third expedient is to understand the words Kotpo? avnuv as implying the time of the fig-gathering, and thus to take Mark’s addition as a statement that the figs were not yet gathered, i. e. were still on the trees, || in support of which interpretation, appeal is made to the * Orig. Comin. in Matth. Tom. xvi. 29. ‘0
phrase /coipbf TUV itapnuv (Matt. xxi.
34.).
But this expression strictly refers only to the antecedent of the harvest, the existence of the fruits in the fields or on the trees; when it stands in an affirmative proposition, it can only be understood as referring to the consequent, namely, the possible gathering of the fruit, in so far as it also includes the antecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field : hence eon naipbq nap-tiv can only mean thus much : the (ripe) fruits stand in the fields, and are therefore ready to be gathered.In like mannei, when the above expression stands in a negative proposition, the antecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field, on the trees, &c., is primarily denied, that of the consequent only secondarily and by implication; thus ova KOTI luupb/; OVKUW, means:
the figs are not on the trees, and therefore not ready to be gathered, by no means the reverse: they are not yet gathered, and therefore are still on the trees.But this unexampled figure of speech, by which, while according to the words, the antecedent is denied, according to the sense only the consequent is denied, and the antecedent affirmed, is not all which the above explanation entails upon us; it also requires the admission of another figure which is sometimes called •syuchisis, sometimes hypcrbaton.For, as a statement that the figs were then still on the trees, the addition in question docs not show the reason why Jesus found none on that tree, but why he expected the contrary; it ought therefore, say the advocates of this explanation, to stand, not after he found nothing but leaves, but after lie came, if haply he might find any thing thereon,’ a transposition, however, which only proves that this whole explanation runs counter to the text. Convinced, on the one hand, that the addition of Mark denies the prevalence of circumstances favourable to the existence of figs on that tree, but, on the other hand, still labouring to justify the expectation of Jesus, other expositors have sought to give to that negation, instead of the general sense, that it was not the right season of the year for figs, a fact of which Jesus must unavoidably have been aware, the particular sense, that special circumstances only, not necessarily known to Jesus, hindered the fruitful-ness of the tree.It would have been a hindrance altogether special, if the soil in which the tree was rooted had been an unfruitful one; hence, according to some, the words ncupbg avuuv actually signify a soil favourable to figs.* Others with more regard to the verbal meaning of Kotpoc, adhere it is true to the interpretation of it as favourable time, but instead of understanding the statement of Mark universally, as referring to a regular, annual season, in which figs were not to be obtained, they maintain it to mean that that particular year was from some incidental causes unfavourable to iigs.f But the immediate signification of naipbi; is the right, in opposition to the wrong season, not a favourable season as opposed to an unfavourable one. Now, when any one, even in an unproductive year, seeks for 1............•
™-’.......- «..-.iK ft
ns
l7Si Olsliansen, b. Corain.
34.).
But this expression strictly refers only to the antecedent of the harvest, the existence of the fruits in the fields or on the trees; when it stands in an affirmative proposition, it can only be understood as referring to the consequent, namely, the possible gathering of the fruit, in so far as it also includes the antecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field : hence eon naipbq nap-tiv can only mean thus much : the (ripe) fruits stand in the fields, and are therefore ready to be gathered.In like mannei, when the above expression stands in a negative proposition, the antecedent, the existence of the fruits in the field, on the trees, &c., is primarily denied, that of the consequent only secondarily and by implication; thus ova KOTI luupb/; OVKUW, means:
the figs are not on the trees, and therefore not ready to be gathered, by no means the reverse: they are not yet gathered, and therefore are still on the trees.But this unexampled figure of speech, by which, while according to the words, the antecedent is denied, according to the sense only the consequent is denied, and the antecedent affirmed, is not all which the above explanation entails upon us; it also requires the admission of another figure which is sometimes called •syuchisis, sometimes hypcrbaton.For, as a statement that the figs were then still on the trees, the addition in question docs not show the reason why Jesus found none on that tree, but why he expected the contrary; it ought therefore, say the advocates of this explanation, to stand, not after he found nothing but leaves, but after lie came, if haply he might find any thing thereon,’ a transposition, however, which only proves that this whole explanation runs counter to the text. Convinced, on the one hand, that the addition of Mark denies the prevalence of circumstances favourable to the existence of figs on that tree, but, on the other hand, still labouring to justify the expectation of Jesus, other expositors have sought to give to that negation, instead of the general sense, that it was not the right season of the year for figs, a fact of which Jesus must unavoidably have been aware, the particular sense, that special circumstances only, not necessarily known to Jesus, hindered the fruitful-ness of the tree.It would have been a hindrance altogether special, if the soil in which the tree was rooted had been an unfruitful one; hence, according to some, the words ncupbg avuuv actually signify a soil favourable to figs.* Others with more regard to the verbal meaning of Kotpoc, adhere it is true to the interpretation of it as favourable time, but instead of understanding the statement of Mark universally, as referring to a regular, annual season, in which figs were not to be obtained, they maintain it to mean that that particular year was from some incidental causes unfavourable to iigs.f But the immediate signification of naipbi; is the right, in opposition to the wrong season, not a favourable season as opposed to an unfavourable one. Now, when any one, even in an unproductive year, seeks for 1............•
™-’.......- «..-.iK ft
ns
l7Si Olsliansen, b. Corain.
Other books
The Potty Mouth at the Table by Laurie Notaro
Pretty Ugly: A Novel by Kirker Butler
I Can Hear You by Hannah Davenport
Alphas of Red Moon Ranch - Complete Series by Morgan Rae
Raine on Me by Dohner, Laurann
Hotter Than Hell by Kim Harrison, Martin H. Greenberg
Bedford Street Brigade 01 - Where the Lady Belongs by Laura Landon
The Tycoon's Seductive Revenge by Kristi Avalon
The Strangers by Jacqueline West