Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (806 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
5.67Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
. . „.„., j „„,..„ „,„„ „„,,.),. exe2.
I
natural brilliancy is supposed to have been produced by a flash of lightning, the idea of voices, by thunder, and lastly, the idea of two persons in company with Jesus, by the actual presence of two unknown individuals. All this the disciples could properly perceive only when they were awake; and hence the supposition of a dream falls to the ground as superfluous.
Therefore, since this interpretation, by still retaining a thread of connexion between the alleged character of the event and a mental condition, lias the peculiar difficulty of making three partake in the same dream, it is better entirely to break this thread, and restore all to the external world: so that we now have a natural external occurrence before us, as in the first instance we had a supernatural one. Something objective presented itself to the disciples ; thus it is explained how it could be perceived by several at once: they deceived themselves when awake as to what they saw; this was natural, because they were all born within the same circle of ideas, were in the same frame of mind, and in the same situation. According to this opinion, the essential fact in the scene on the mountain, is a secret interview which Jesus had preconcerted, and with a view to which he took with him the three most confidential of his disciples. Who the two men were with whom Jesus held this interview, Paulus does not venture to determine; Kuinol conjectures that they were secret adherents of the same kind as Nicodemus ; according to Venturini, they were Essenes, secret allies of Jesus. Before these were arrived, Jesus prayed, and the disciples, not being invited to join, slept; for the sleep noticed by Luke, though it were dreamless, is gladly retained in this interpretation, since a delusion appears more probable in the case of persons just awaking. On hearing strange voices talking with Jesus, they awake, see Jesus, who probably stood on a higher point of the mountain than they, enveloped in unwonted brilliancy, proceeding from the first rays of morning, which, perhaps reflected from a sheet of snow, fell on Jesus, but were mistaken by them in the surprise of the moment for a supernatural illumination; they perceive the two men, whom, for some unknown reasons, the drowsy Peter, and after him the rest, take for iloses and Elias ; their astonishment increases when they see the two unknown individuals disappear in a bright morning cloud, which descends as they are in the act of departing, and hear one of them pronounce out of the cloud the words : ovroq ianv K. r. A., which they under these circumstances unavoidably regard as a voice from heaven * This explanation, which even Schleicrmacher is inclined to favour,! is supposed, like the former, to find a special support in Luke, because in this evangelist the assertion that the two men are Moses and Elias, is much less confidently expressed than in Matthew and Mark, and more -as a mere notion of the drowsy Peter. For while the two first evangelists directly say: u0r]aav avrolg M«
.T
1Rs
7 ff •v»frt^i;/.i.o
n«0..i,:..v»«
QTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
.T
1Rs
7 ff •v»frt^i;/.i.o
n«0..i,:..v»«
QTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
pearcd unto them Moses and Julias,) Luke more warily, as it seems, speaks of dvdpes 6vo, olriveg fjaav Mwa^f KOL ‘HAia? (two men, who were Moses and JKlias), the first designation being held to contain the objective fact, the second its subjective interpretation.But this interpretation is obviously approved by the narrator, from his choice of the word o’inveg ?}
§ 107.THE HISTORY OF THE TRANSFIGURATION CONSIDERED AS
A MYTHUS.
THUS here, as in every former instance, after having run through the circle of natural explanations, we are led back to the supernatural ; in which however we are precluded from resting by difficulties equally decisive. Since then the text forbids a natural interpretation, while it is impossible to maintain as historical the supernatural interpretation which it sanctions, we must apply ourselves to a critical examination of its statements. These are indeed said to be especially trustworthy in the narrative before us, the fact being narrated by three evangelists, who strikingly agree even in the precise determination of the time, and being moreover attested by the apostle Peter (2 Pet. 1.17.).*The agreement as to the time (the eight days f^iipai OKTU of Luke meaning, according to the usual reckoning, the same as the six days fyepai e| of the other evangelists,) is certainly striking; and besides this, all the three narrators concur in placing immediately after the transfiguration the cure of the demoniacal boy, which the disciples had failed to effect. But both these points ot aorr.pment may be accounted for, by the origin of the synoptical gosTKANSFIGUKATION OF JESUS.pels from a fixed fund of evangelical tradition, in relation to Avhich, we need not be more surprised that it has grouped together many anecdotes in a particular manner without any objective reason, than that it has often preserved expressions in which it might have varied, through all the three editions.* The attestation of the history by the three synoptists is, however, very much weakened, at least on the ordinary view of the relation -which the four gospels bear to each other, by the silence of John; since it does not appear why this evangelist should not have included in his history an event which was so important, and which moreover accorded so well with his system, nay, exactly realized the declaration in his prologue (v. 14): We beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. The worn out reason, that he might suppose the event to be sufficiently known through his predecessors, is, over and above its general invalidity, particularly unavailable here, because no one of the synoptists was in this instance an eye-witness, and consequently there must be many things in their narratives which one who, like John, had participated in the scene, might rectify and explain.
Hence another reason lias been sought for this and similar omissions in the fourth gospel; and such an one has been supposed to be found in the anti-gnostic, or, more strictly, the anti-docetic tendency which has been ascribed to the gospel, in common with the epistles, bearing the name of John. It is, accordingly, maintained that in the history of the transfiguration, the splendour which illuminated Jesus, the transformation of his appearance into something more than earthly, might give countenance to the opinion that his human form was nothing but an unsubstantial veil, through which at times his true, superhuman nature shone forth; that his converse with the spirits of ancient prophets might lead to the conjecture, that he was himself perhaps only a like spirit of some Old Testament saint revisiting the earth; and that, rather than give nourishment to such erroneous notions, which began early to be formed among gnosticis-ing Christians, John chose to suppress this and similar histories, f But besides that it does not correspond with the apostolic plainness of speech (Trappjjaia”) to suppress important facts in the evangelical history, on account of their possible abuse by individuals, John, if he were guided by the above consideration, must at least have proceeded with some consistency, and have excluded from the circle of his accounts all narratives which, in an equal degree with the one in question, were susceptible of a docetic misinterpretation. Now, here, every one must at once be reminded of the history of the walking of Jesus on the sea, which is at least equally calculated with the history of the transfiguration, to produce the idea that the body of Jesus was a mere phantom, but which John nevertheless records. It is true that the relative importance of events might introduce a distinction: so that of two narratives with an equally strong docetic rva w~**~T?!..I:Is-THE LIFE
OF JESUS.
Hence another reason lias been sought for this and similar omissions in the fourth gospel; and such an one has been supposed to be found in the anti-gnostic, or, more strictly, the anti-docetic tendency which has been ascribed to the gospel, in common with the epistles, bearing the name of John. It is, accordingly, maintained that in the history of the transfiguration, the splendour which illuminated Jesus, the transformation of his appearance into something more than earthly, might give countenance to the opinion that his human form was nothing but an unsubstantial veil, through which at times his true, superhuman nature shone forth; that his converse with the spirits of ancient prophets might lead to the conjecture, that he was himself perhaps only a like spirit of some Old Testament saint revisiting the earth; and that, rather than give nourishment to such erroneous notions, which began early to be formed among gnosticis-ing Christians, John chose to suppress this and similar histories, f But besides that it does not correspond with the apostolic plainness of speech (Trappjjaia”) to suppress important facts in the evangelical history, on account of their possible abuse by individuals, John, if he were guided by the above consideration, must at least have proceeded with some consistency, and have excluded from the circle of his accounts all narratives which, in an equal degree with the one in question, were susceptible of a docetic misinterpretation. Now, here, every one must at once be reminded of the history of the walking of Jesus on the sea, which is at least equally calculated with the history of the transfiguration, to produce the idea that the body of Jesus was a mere phantom, but which John nevertheless records. It is true that the relative importance of events might introduce a distinction: so that of two narratives with an equally strong docetic rva w~**~T?!..I:Is-THE LIFE
OF JESUS.
aspect, John might include the one on account of its superior weight, while he omitted the less important. But no one will contend that the walking of Jesus on the sea surpasses, or even equals in importance, the history of the transfiguration.John, if he were intent on avoiding what wore a docetic appearance, must on every consideration have suppressed the first history before all others. As he has not done so, the above principle cannot have influenced him, and consequently can never be advanced as a reason for the designed omission of a history in the fourth gospel; rather it may be concluded, and particularly in relation to the event in question, that the author knew nothing, or at least nothing precise, of that history.* It is true that this conclusion can form an objection to the historical character of the narrative of the transfiguration, to those only who suppose the fourth gospel to be the work of an apostle ; so that from this silence we cannot argue against the truth of the narrative. On the other hand, the agreement of the synoptists proves nothing in its favour, since we have already been obliged to pronounce unhis-torical more than one narrative in which three, nay, all four gospels agree. Lastly, as regards the alleged testimony of Peter, from the more than doubtful genuineness of the second Epistle of Peter, the passage which certainly refers to our history of the transfiguration, is renounced as a proof of its historical truth even by orthodox theologians.f On the other hand, besides the difficulties previously enumerated, lying in the miraculous contents of the narrative, we^have still a farther ground for doubt in relation to the historical validity of the transfiguration: namely, the conversation which, according to the two first evangelists, the disciples held with Jesus immediately after. In descending from the mountain, the disciples ask Jesus: ft ovv ol ypaftjUarEtf Myovoiv, on ‘HAi
* Xeander, because he considers the objective reality of the transfiguration doubtful, -i-, ««^«. ,!,„ Ojion,.p. nf t)la fourth evangelist a difficulty in this instance (S. 475 ?•)•
TRANSFIGURATION OF JESUS.without farther activity.* This explanation would be admissible if the words drroKaraorijaei -ndvra (will restore all things) stood in the question of the disciples; instead of this, however, it stands in both narratives (Matt. v. 11; Mark v. 12) only in the answer of Jesus: so that the disciples, according to this supposition, must, in the most contradictory manner, have been silent as to what they really missed, the restoration of all things, and only have mentioned that which after the foregoing appearance they could not have missed, namely, the coining of Elias.As, however, the question of the disciples presupposes no previous appearance of Elias, but, on the contrary, expresses the feeling that such an appearance was wanting, so the answer which Jesus gives them has the same pin-port. For when he replies : the scribes are right in saying that Elias must come before the Messiah; but this is no argument against my Messiahship, since an Elias has already preceded me in the person of the Baptist,-when lie thus seeks to guard his disciples against the doubt which might arise from the expectation of the scribes, by pointing out to them the figurative Elias who had preceded him,-it is impossible that an appearance of the actual Elias can have previously taken place; otherwise Jesus must in the first place have referred to this appearance, and only in the second place to the Baptist, f Thus the immediate connexion of this conversation with that appearance cannot be historical, but is rather owing solely to this point of similarity ;-that in both mention is made of Elias.}:But not even at an interval, and after the lapse of intermediate events, can such a conversation have been preceded by an appearance of Elias; for however long afterwards, both Jesus and the three eye-witnesses among his disciples must have remembered it, and could never have spoken as if such an appearance had not taken place.
Still further, an appearance of the real Elias cannot have happened even after such a conversation, in accordance with the orthodox idea of Jesus.Eor he too explicitly declares his opinion that the literal Elias was not to be expected, and that the Baptist was the promised Elias : if therefore, nevertheless, an appearance of the real Elias did subsequently take place, Jesus must have been mistaken ; a consequence which precisely those Avho arc most concerned for the historical reality of the transfiguration, are the least in a position to admit. If then the appearance and the conversation directly exclude each other, the question is, which of the two passages can better be renounced ?Now the purport of the conversation is so confirmed by Matt. xi. 14.
comp.
Luke i.
17., while the transfiguration is rendered so improbable by all kinds of difficulties, that there cannot be much doubt as to the decision.According to this, it appears here as in some former cases, that two narratives proceeding from quite different presuppositions, and having arisen also in different times, have been awkwardly enough combined:
Still further, an appearance of the real Elias cannot have happened even after such a conversation, in accordance with the orthodox idea of Jesus.Eor he too explicitly declares his opinion that the literal Elias was not to be expected, and that the Baptist was the promised Elias : if therefore, nevertheless, an appearance of the real Elias did subsequently take place, Jesus must have been mistaken ; a consequence which precisely those Avho arc most concerned for the historical reality of the transfiguration, are the least in a position to admit. If then the appearance and the conversation directly exclude each other, the question is, which of the two passages can better be renounced ?Now the purport of the conversation is so confirmed by Matt. xi. 14.
comp.
Luke i.
17., while the transfiguration is rendered so improbable by all kinds of difficulties, that there cannot be much doubt as to the decision.According to this, it appears here as in some former cases, that two narratives proceeding from quite different presuppositions, and having arisen also in different times, have been awkwardly enough combined:
Other books
Enchanted Pilgrimage by Clifford D. Simak
Mr and Mrs Darcy 02 Suspense & Sensibility by Carrie Bebris
In Love by Design (The Adventures of Anabel Axelrod) by Ellen, Tracy
Kikwaakew by Joseph Boyden
Love on Call by Shirley Hailstock
Fall: A Seaside Novel (The Seaside Series) by Van Dyken, Rachel
Native Son by Richard Wright
Bad Juju by Dina Rae
The Forgotten Room by Lincoln Child