Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (807 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
13.91Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
* Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 5r>3 ; Olshausen, 1, S. 541. Still less satisfactory expedients in Gabler, ut sup. and Matthii. Eeligionsgl. der Apostel, 2, S. 5
.,,1.,,:.- ii .-*
‘..-.„..-THE LIFE OF JESUS.
.,,1.,,:.- ii .-*
‘..-.„..-THE LIFE OF JESUS.
the passage containing the conversation proceeding from tlie probably earlier opinion, that the prophecy concerning Elias had its fulfilment in John; whereas the narrative of the transfiguration doubtless originated at a later period, when it was not held sufficient that in the messianic time of Jesus Elias should only have appeared figuratively, in the person of the Baptist,-wlien it was thought fitting that he should also have shown himself personally and literally, if in no more than a transient appearance before a few witnesses (a public and more influential one being well known not to have taken place).*
In order next to understand how such a narrative could arise in a legendary manner, the first feature to be considered, on the examination of which that of all the rest will most easily follow, is the sun-like splendour of the countenance of Jesus, and the bright lustre of his clothes. To the oriental, and more particularly to the Hebrew imagination, the beautiful, the majestic, is the luminous ; the poet of the Song of Songs compares his beloved to the hues of morning, to the moon, to the sun (vi. 9.); the holy man supported by the blessing of God, is compared to the sun going forth in his might (Judg. v. 31.); and above all the future lot of the righteous is likened to the splendour of the sun and the stars (Dan. xii. 3.; Matt. xiii. 4o.).f Hence, not only does God appear clothed in light, and angels with resplendent countenances and shining garments (Ps. 1, 2, 3 ; Dan. vii. 9 f.; x. 5, 6; Luke xxiv. 4; liev. i. 13 ff.), but also the pious of Hebrew antiquity, as Adam before the fall, and among subsequent instances, more particularly Moses and Joshua, are represented as being distinguished by such a splendour ;| and the later Jewish tradition ascribes celestial splendour even to eminent rabbins in exalted moments.§ But the most celebrated example of this kind is the luminous countenance of Moses, which is mentioned, Exod. xxxiv. 29 ff., and as in other points, so in this, a conclusion was drawn from him in relation to the Messiah, a minori ad majus. Such a mode of arguing is indicated by the apostle Paul, 2 Cor. iii. 7 ff., though he opposes to Moses, the minister of the letter, 8idnovo<; -ov ypdfi^arof, not Jesus, but, in accordance with the occasion of his epistle, the apostles and Christian teachers, ministers of the spirit, diaKuvovg -ov Trvevna-og, and the glory, (56£a, of the latter, which surpassed the glory of Moses, is an object of hope, eArnc, to be attained only in the future life. But especially in the Messiah himself, it was expected that there would be a splendour which would correspond to that of Moses, nay, outshine it; and a Jewish writing which takes no notice of our history of the transfiguration, argues quite in the spirit of the f Comp. Jalkut Simeoni, p. 2, inelar sotts, Josuae mst-ar wnae ; quod idem afliiviiu., *,-,* *~ **------• * ii. there is, according to Wetstein, the following statement: infer docendum ‘«.*»*« facie »«wms, ut olim e Mosu facie, prodilse, adeo ut non dignoscvet qmt, utrum dtes cssei TRANSFIGURATION OF JESUS.Jews of the first Christian period, when it urges that Jesus cannot have been the Messiah, because his countenance had not the splendour of the countenance of Moses, to say nothing of a higher splendour.* Such objections, doubtless heard by the early Christians from the Jews, and partly suggested by their own minds, could not but generate in the early church a tendency to introduce into the life of Jesus an imitation of that trait in the life of Moses, nay, in one respect to surpass it, and instead of a shining countenance that might be covered with a veil, to ascribe to him a radiance, though but transitory, which was diffused even over his garments.
That the illumination of the countenance of Moses served as a type for the transfiguration of Jesus, is besides proved by a series of particular features.Moses obtained his splendour on Mount Sinai: of the transfiguration of Jesus also the scene is a mountain; Moses, on an earlier ascent of the mountain, which might easily be confounded with the later one, after which his countenance became luminous, had taken with him, besides the seventy elders, three confidential friends, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, to participate in the vision of Jehovah (Exod. xxiv. 1, 9-11); so Jesus takes with him his three most confidential disciples, that, so far as their powers were adequate, they might be witnesses of the sublime spectacle, and their immediate object was, according to Luke, v. 28, to J)rat/, •npoaev^acOai • just as Jehovah calls Moses with the three companions and the elders, to come on the mountain, that they might worship at a distance. As afterwards, when Moses ascended Sinai with Joshua, the glory of the J^ord, doja Kvpiov, covered the mountain as a cloud, vefiekr) (v. 15 f. LXX.);as Jehovah called to Moses out of the cloud, until at length the latter entered into the cloud (v. 16-18):so we have in our narrative a bright cloud, verf>e/(.ri 06)rof, which overshadows Jesus and the heavenly forms, a voice out of the cloud, 0«w) EK rrjc; vstftefajf, and in Luke an entering, elaeWelv, Of the three into the cloud. The first part of the address pronounced by the voice out of the eloud, consists of the messianic declaration, composed out of Ps. ii. 7., and Is. xlii. 1., which had already sounded from heaven at the baptism of Jesus;
the second part is taken from the words with which Moses, in the passage of Deuteronomy quoted earlier (xviii. 15.), according to the usual interpretation, anounces to the people the future Messiah, and admonishes them to obedience towards him.t event frnm *!,„v,
., J”^” ““^ mu HI&L c\ uiif-uusis sefmi.ice me present veutu^of ^sr^^,!^ S^?,8 ^”^ F” ““ hist°7 °f *’ •*THE LIFE OP JESUS.
the second part is taken from the words with which Moses, in the passage of Deuteronomy quoted earlier (xviii. 15.), according to the usual interpretation, anounces to the people the future Messiah, and admonishes them to obedience towards him.t event frnm *!,„v,
., J”^” ““^ mu HI&L c\ uiif-uusis sefmi.ice me present veutu^of ^sr^^,!^ S^?,8 ^”^ F” ““ hist°7 °f *’ •*THE LIFE OP JESUS.
By tlie transfiguration on the mount Jesus was brought into contact with his type Moses, and as it had entered into the anticipation of the Jews that the messianic time, according to Is. lii. 6 ff,, would have not merely one, but
several forerunners,*
and that among others the ancient lawgiver especially would appear in the time of the Messiah :f so no moment was more appropriate for his appearance, than that in which the Messiah was being glorified on a mountain, as he had himself once been. With him was then naturally associated the prophet, who, on the strength of Mai. iii. 23., was the most decidedly expected to be a messianic forerunner, and, indeed, according to the rabbins, to appear contemporaneously with Moses. If these two men appeared to the Messiah, it followed as a matter of course that they conversed with him;
and if it were asked what was the tenor of their conversation, nothing would suggest itself so soon as the approaching sufferings and death of Jesus, which had been announced in the foregoing passage,
and which besides, as constituting emphatically the messianic mystery of the New Testament, were best adapted for the subject of sxich a conversation with beings of another world: whence one cannot but wonder how Olshausen can maintain that the mythus would never have fallen upon this theme of conversation. According to this, we have here a mythus,J the tendency of which is twofold: first, to exhibit in the lite of Jesus an enhanced repetition of the glorification of Moses;
and secondly, to bring Jesus as the Messiah into contact with his two forerunners,-by this appearance of the lawgiver and the prophet, of the founder and the reformer of the theocracy, to represent Jesus as the pcrfecter of the kingdom of God, and the fulfilment of the law and the prophets; and besides this, to show a confirmation of his messianic dignity by a heavenly voice.§
several forerunners,*
and that among others the ancient lawgiver especially would appear in the time of the Messiah :f so no moment was more appropriate for his appearance, than that in which the Messiah was being glorified on a mountain, as he had himself once been. With him was then naturally associated the prophet, who, on the strength of Mai. iii. 23., was the most decidedly expected to be a messianic forerunner, and, indeed, according to the rabbins, to appear contemporaneously with Moses. If these two men appeared to the Messiah, it followed as a matter of course that they conversed with him;
and if it were asked what was the tenor of their conversation, nothing would suggest itself so soon as the approaching sufferings and death of Jesus, which had been announced in the foregoing passage,
and which besides, as constituting emphatically the messianic mystery of the New Testament, were best adapted for the subject of sxich a conversation with beings of another world: whence one cannot but wonder how Olshausen can maintain that the mythus would never have fallen upon this theme of conversation. According to this, we have here a mythus,J the tendency of which is twofold: first, to exhibit in the lite of Jesus an enhanced repetition of the glorification of Moses;
and secondly, to bring Jesus as the Messiah into contact with his two forerunners,-by this appearance of the lawgiver and the prophet, of the founder and the reformer of the theocracy, to represent Jesus as the pcrfecter of the kingdom of God, and the fulfilment of the law and the prophets; and besides this, to show a confirmation of his messianic dignity by a heavenly voice.§
Although the point of departure was a totally different one, this statement of time might be retained for the opening of the scene of transfiguration in the history of Jesus.
* Vide Bcrtholdt, Christologia JucUeorum, 115, S. 60 ff.
•f
Debarim Rabba, iii. (Wetstein): D’urit Deus S. B. Mosi: per vitam tuam, quern-Imodttm vitam tuam posuisti pro Jsraelitis in hoc inundo, ita tempore J’uturo, quando Eliam t “ophetam ad ipsos mitt-am, vos duo eodem tempore venirtis. Comp. Tanchuma f. xlii. 1, ap. Schottgen, 1, S. 149
Debarim Rabba, iii. (Wetstein): D’urit Deus S. B. Mosi: per vitam tuam, quern-Imodttm vitam tuam posuisti pro Jsraelitis in hoc inundo, ita tempore J’uturo, quando Eliam t “ophetam ad ipsos mitt-am, vos duo eodem tempore venirtis. Comp. Tanchuma f. xlii. 1, ap. Schottgen, 1, S. 149
t This narrative is pronounced to be a mythus by De Wettc, Kritik der mos. Gesch. S. 250; comp. exeg. llamlb. 1, 1, S. HG f. ;” Bertholdt, Christologia Jud. I 15, not 17; Credner, Einleitung in das N. T. 1, S. 241 ; Sdiulz, fiber das Abendmahl, S. 319, at least admits that there is more or less of the mythical in the various evangelical accounts of the transfiguration, and Fritzsche, in Matth. p. 448 f. and 450, adduces the mythical view of this event not without signs of approval. Compare also Kuinul, in Matth. p. 459, and Gratz. 2, S. 1G1 IT.
\ Plato also in the Symposion, (p. 223, B. ff. Stcph.,) glorifies his Socrates by arranging in a natural manner, and in a comic spirit, a similar group to that which the evangelists here present in a supernatural manner, and in a tragic spirit. After a bacchanalian entertainment, Socrates outmatches his friends, who lie sleeping around him : as here the disciples around their master ; with Socrates there are awake two noble forms alone, the tragic and the comic poet, the two elements of the early Grecian life, which Socrates united in himself: as, with Jesus, the lawgiver and prophet, the two pillars of flip OH Tpstiimrrit economy, which in a higher manner were combined in Jesus; lastly, LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM.ad pr.
I
Before we part with our subject, this example may serve to show with peculiar clearness, how the natural system of interpretation, while it seeks to preserve the historical certainty of the narratives, loses their ideal truth-sacrifices the essence to the form: whereas the mythical interpretation, by renouncing the historical body of such narratives, rescues and preserves the idea which resides in them, and which alone constitutes their vitality and spirit. Thus if, as the natural explanation would have it, the splendour around Jesus was
an
accidental,
optical phenomenon, and the two
appearances cither images of a dream or unknown men, where is the significance of the incident ? where the motive for preserving in the memory of the church an anecdote so void of ideas, and so barren of inference, resting on a common delusion and superstition ? On the contrary, while according to the mythical interpretation, I do not, it is true, see in the evangelical narrative any real event,-I yet retain a sense, a purpose in the narrative, know to what sentiments and thoughts of the first Christian community it owes its origin, and why the authors of the gospels included so important a passage in their memoirs.*
an
accidental,
optical phenomenon, and the two
appearances cither images of a dream or unknown men, where is the significance of the incident ? where the motive for preserving in the memory of the church an anecdote so void of ideas, and so barren of inference, resting on a common delusion and superstition ? On the contrary, while according to the mythical interpretation, I do not, it is true, see in the evangelical narrative any real event,-I yet retain a sense, a purpose in the narrative, know to what sentiments and thoughts of the first Christian community it owes its origin, and why the authors of the gospels included so important a passage in their memoirs.*
§ 108.DIVERGING ACCOUNTS CONCERNING TiJi LAST JOURNEY OP JESUS TO JERUSALEM.
SHORTLY after the transfiguration on the mountain, the evangelists make Jesus enter on the fatal journey which conducted him to his death. With respect to the place from whence he set out on this journey, and the route which he took, the evangelical accounts differ. The synoptists agree as to the point of departure, for they all represent Jesus as setting out from Galilee (Matt. xix. 1; Mark x. 1; Luke ix. 51. ; in this last passage, Galilee is not indeed expressly named, but we necessarily infer it to be the supposed locality from what precedes, in which only Galilee and districts in Galilee are spoken of, as well as from the journey through Samaria, mentioned in the succeeding passagef): but concerning the route alone in possession of the field: so in the gospel, Moses and Elias at last vanish, and the disciples see Jesus left alone.
* Weisse, not satisfied with the interpretation found by me in the mythus, and la-louring besides to preserve an historical foundation for the narrative, understands it as a figurative representation in the oriental manner- liv ™« r.r n.- »>------- • , of the lecially ; prophecies, lich the dis-- -.^, ~.iii ttie splendour of his - -~, uio uu image of their intuition of the spiritual messianic idea; the cloud which overshadowed the appearance, signilies the dimness and indenuiteness in which the knowledge faded away, from the inability of the disciples yet to retain it; the proposal of Peter to build tabernacles, is the attempt of this apostle at” once to give a fixed dogmatical form to the sublime intuition. Weisse is fearful (S. 543) that this his conception of the history Of the transfiguration mar also be pronounced mythical : I think not; it is too manifestly allegorical.THE LIFE OF JESUS.
which Jesus chose from thence to Judeea, they appear to be at variance. It is true that the statements of two of them on this point are so obscure, that they might appear to lend some aid to the harmonizing exegesis.
Mark says in the clearest and most definite manner that Jesus took his course through Perasa; but his statement, He came into the coasts of Judcea on the farther side of Jordan,
£p%e-ai etf ra opia rfjg ‘lovdatag dia ~ov nipav roil ‘lopddvov, is scarcely anything more than the mode in which he judged it right to explain the hardly intelligible expression of Matthew, whom he follows in this chapter.What it precisely is which the latter intends by the words, lie departed, from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judcea beyond Jordan, nsrfjpev dnb rrjs Fa/UAata? /cat faOev el<; ret opia TTJC; ‘lovdaiac; nipav rov ‘lopddvov, is in fact not at all evident. For if the explanation: he came into that part of Judasa which lies on the opposite side of the Jordan,* clashes alike with geography and grammar, so the interpretation to which the comparison of Mark inclines the majority of commentators, namely, that Jesus came into Judsea through the country on the farther side of the Jordan,t is, even as modified by Fritzsche, not free from grammatical difficulty. In any case, however, thus much remains;
that Matthew, as well
as Mark, makes Jesus take the more circuitous course through Perasa, while Luke, on the other hand, appears to lead him the more direct way through Samaria. It is true that his expression, xvii. 11., where he says that Jesus, on his journey to Jerusalem, passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, dirjpxe-o 6ia fieaov Zafiapetas KOI roAtAcwaf, is scarcely clearer than the one just cited from Matthew.According to the customary meaning of words, he seems to state that Jesus first crossed Samaria, and then Galilee, in order to arrive at Jerusalem. But this is an inversion of the true order; for if he set out from a place in Galilee, he must first traverse the rest of Galilee, and not until then could he enter Samaria. Hence the words (5(.t’p^sa0at did vioov it. T. A. have been interpreted to mean a progress along the boundary between Galilee and Samaria,:}: and Luke has been reconciled with the two first evangelists by the supposition, that Jesus journeyed along the Galilean- Samariau frontier, until he reached the Jordan, that he then crossed this river, and so proceeded through Pertea towards Juda?a and Jerusalem. But this latter supposition does not agree with Luke ix. 51 ff.; for we learn from this passage that Jesus, after his departure from Galilee, went directly to a Samaritan village, and here made an unfavourable impression,
because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem, on TO npoaunov avrov TJV nopsvo-\isvov etf ‘Ispovaa^i’m. Now this seems clearly to indicate that Jesus took his way directly from Galilee, through Samaria, to Judsa. We shall therefore be on the side of probability, if we judge this statement to be an artificial arrangement of words, to which the T-.I.L--J. : !„„
+ Wetstpin. Olsliausen.
Mark says in the clearest and most definite manner that Jesus took his course through Perasa; but his statement, He came into the coasts of Judcea on the farther side of Jordan,
£p%e-ai etf ra opia rfjg ‘lovdatag dia ~ov nipav roil ‘lopddvov, is scarcely anything more than the mode in which he judged it right to explain the hardly intelligible expression of Matthew, whom he follows in this chapter.What it precisely is which the latter intends by the words, lie departed, from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judcea beyond Jordan, nsrfjpev dnb rrjs Fa/UAata? /cat faOev el<; ret opia TTJC; ‘lovdaiac; nipav rov ‘lopddvov, is in fact not at all evident. For if the explanation: he came into that part of Judasa which lies on the opposite side of the Jordan,* clashes alike with geography and grammar, so the interpretation to which the comparison of Mark inclines the majority of commentators, namely, that Jesus came into Judsea through the country on the farther side of the Jordan,t is, even as modified by Fritzsche, not free from grammatical difficulty. In any case, however, thus much remains;
that Matthew, as well
as Mark, makes Jesus take the more circuitous course through Perasa, while Luke, on the other hand, appears to lead him the more direct way through Samaria. It is true that his expression, xvii. 11., where he says that Jesus, on his journey to Jerusalem, passed through the midst of Samaria and Galilee, dirjpxe-o 6ia fieaov Zafiapetas KOI roAtAcwaf, is scarcely clearer than the one just cited from Matthew.According to the customary meaning of words, he seems to state that Jesus first crossed Samaria, and then Galilee, in order to arrive at Jerusalem. But this is an inversion of the true order; for if he set out from a place in Galilee, he must first traverse the rest of Galilee, and not until then could he enter Samaria. Hence the words (5(.t’p^sa0at did vioov it. T. A. have been interpreted to mean a progress along the boundary between Galilee and Samaria,:}: and Luke has been reconciled with the two first evangelists by the supposition, that Jesus journeyed along the Galilean- Samariau frontier, until he reached the Jordan, that he then crossed this river, and so proceeded through Pertea towards Juda?a and Jerusalem. But this latter supposition does not agree with Luke ix. 51 ff.; for we learn from this passage that Jesus, after his departure from Galilee, went directly to a Samaritan village, and here made an unfavourable impression,
because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem, on TO npoaunov avrov TJV nopsvo-\isvov etf ‘Ispovaa^i’m. Now this seems clearly to indicate that Jesus took his way directly from Galilee, through Samaria, to Judsa. We shall therefore be on the side of probability, if we judge this statement to be an artificial arrangement of words, to which the T-.I.L--J. : !„„
+ Wetstpin. Olsliausen.
Other books
Lost and Fondue by Aames, Avery
Of Monsters and Madness by Jessica Verday
The Ramayana by R. K. Narayan
Black and White and Gray All Over by Rachel Wise
Dominion 4 - Ascendance by Lissa Kasey
The Trouble with Andrew by Heather Graham
Night at the Fiestas: Stories by Kirstin Valdez Quade
Upstate by Kalisha Buckhanon
The Case of the Haunted Horrors by Anthony Read
Tower of Thorns by Juliet Marillier