Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (808 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
6.73Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM.writer was led by his desire to introduce the narrative of the ten lepers, one of whom was a Samaritan ;* and consequently admit that there is here a divergency between the synoptical gospcls.f Towards the end of the journey of Jesus, they are once more in unison, for according to their unanimous statement, Jesus arrived at Jerusalem from Jericho (Matt. xx. 29, parall.); a place which, we may observe, lay more in the direct road for a Galilean coming through Peraja, than for one coming through Samaria.
Thus there is indeed a difference between the synoptists with regard to the way taken by Jesus; but still they agree as to the first point of departure, and the last stage of the road ; the account of John, however, diverges from them in both respects. According to him, it is not Galilee from whence Jesus sets out to attend the last passover, for so early as before the Feast of Tabernacles of the previous year, he had left that province, apparently for the last time (yii. 1. 10.); that between this feast and that of the dedication (x.22.) he had returned thither, is at least not stated; after the latter feast, however, he betook himself to Percea, and remained there (x. 40.) until the illness and death of Lazarus recalled him into Judaea, and into the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, namely, to Bethany (xi. 8 ff.). On account of the machinations of his enemies, he quickly withdrew from thence again, but, because lie intended to be present at the coming Passover, he retired no further than to the little city of Ephraim, near to the wilderness (xi. 54.); and from this place, no mention being made of a residence in Jericho, (which, besides, did not lie in the way from Ephraim, according to the situation usually assigned to the latter city,) he proceeded to Jesusalem to the feast.
So total a divergency necessarily gave unwonted occupation to the harmonists. According to them, the departure from Galilee mentioned by the synoptists, is not the departure to the last Passover, but to the feast of dedication ;£ though Luke, when he says, when the time came that he should be received up, ev r£> (SV\IT;M\-povaOat rag -r^Kpag rrjf dvaA^ewf avrov, (ix. 51.) incontrovertibly marks it as the departure to that feast on which the sufferings and death of Jesus awaited him, and though all the synoptists make the journey then begun end in that triumphal entry into Jerusalem which, according to the fourth gospel also, took place immediately before the last passover.§ If, according to this, the departure from Galilee narrated by the synoptists, is regarded as that to the feast of dedication, and the entrance into Jerusalem which they mention, as that to the subsequent passover; they must have entirely passed over all which, on this supposition, lay between these two points, * Via. De Wette, in loc.f Fritzsche, ia Marc. p. 415 : Marcus ifatthaei, xix. I, se auctontati h. 1. adstringit, dicitque, Jesum e Galilaea (cf. ix. 33.) profectum esse per eraeam. Sed auctore Luca, xvii. 11, in Judaeam contendit per Samaria itinerem Iresisam a
,LPaUluS’
2’ S’ -93> 554- ComP- Olshausen. 1. S. 583.* 8rhlci«rm>Lphi>r.
i,tTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
,LPaUluS’
2’ S’ -93> 554- ComP- Olshausen. 1. S. 583.* 8rhlci«rm>Lphi>r.
i,tTHE LIFE OF JESUS.
LAST JOUKKEY OF JESUS TO JEEUSALEM.namely, the arrival and residence of Jesus in Jerusalem during the feast of dedication, his journey from thence into PeraBa, from Persea to Bethany, and from Bethany to Ephraim. If from this it should appear to follow that the synoptists were ignorant of all these particulars : our harmonists urge, on the contrary, that Luke makes Jesus soon after his journey out of Galilee encounter scribes, who try to put him to the proof (x. 25 if.); then shews him in Bethany in the vicinity of Jerusalem (x, 38 ff.); hereupon removes him to the frontiers of Samaria and Galilee (xvii. 11.); and not until then, makes him proceed to the passover in Jerusalem (xix. 29 ff.): all which plainly enough indicates, that between that departure out of Galilee, and the final entrance into Jerusalem, Jesus made another journey to Juda?a and Jerusalem, and from thence back again.* But, in the first place, the presence of the scribes proves absolutely nothing : and in the second, Luke makes no mention of Bethany but only of a visit to Mary and Martha, whom the fourth evangelist places in that village; from which, however, it does not follow that the third also supposed them to dwell there, and consequently imagined Jesus when at their home, to be in the vicinity of Jerusalem, Again, from the fact that so very long after his departure, (ix. 51.- xvii. 11), Jesus first appears on the frontier between Galilee and Samaria, it only follows that we have before us no orderly progressive narrative.
But, according to this
harmonizing view, even Matthew was aware of those intermediate events, and has indicated them for the more attentive reader: the one member of his sentence, he departed from Galilee, nerrjpev d-rro T^J Falt/tataf, intimates the journey of Jesus to the feast of dedication, and thus forms a separate whole ; the other, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan, KOL y/.6ev etf ra opia rfjq ‘lovdaiag -nipav TOV ‘lopddvov refers to the departure of Jesus from Jerusalem into Perjea (John x. 40.), and opens a new period. In adopting this expedient, however, it is honourably confessed that without the data gathered from John, no one would have thought of such a dismemberment of the passage in Matthew.t In. opposition to such artifices, no way is open to those who presuppose the accuracy of John’s narrative, but that adopted by the most recent criticism ; namely, to renounce the supposition that Matthew, who treats of the journey very briefly, was an eye-witness ; and to suppose of Luke, whose account of it is very full, that either he or one of the collectors of whose labours he availed himself, mingled together two separate narratives, of which one referred to the earlier journey of Jesus to the feast of dedication, the other to his last journey to the passover, without suspecting that between the departure of Jesus out of Galilee, and his entrance into Jerusalem, there fell yet an earlier residence in Jerusalem, together with other journeys and ad ventures. :f * Paalus, 2,294 ff. f Paulas, ut sup.
S. 295 f.; 584 f. t Schleiermaclier, ut sup. S. 1G1 f.; - --• - *•••••
- - *----------------:- >„!„»;„„ tn T nke.
Olshauson, I
But, according to this
harmonizing view, even Matthew was aware of those intermediate events, and has indicated them for the more attentive reader: the one member of his sentence, he departed from Galilee, nerrjpev d-rro T^J Falt/tataf, intimates the journey of Jesus to the feast of dedication, and thus forms a separate whole ; the other, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan, KOL y/.6ev etf ra opia rfjq ‘lovdaiag -nipav TOV ‘lopddvov refers to the departure of Jesus from Jerusalem into Perjea (John x. 40.), and opens a new period. In adopting this expedient, however, it is honourably confessed that without the data gathered from John, no one would have thought of such a dismemberment of the passage in Matthew.t In. opposition to such artifices, no way is open to those who presuppose the accuracy of John’s narrative, but that adopted by the most recent criticism ; namely, to renounce the supposition that Matthew, who treats of the journey very briefly, was an eye-witness ; and to suppose of Luke, whose account of it is very full, that either he or one of the collectors of whose labours he availed himself, mingled together two separate narratives, of which one referred to the earlier journey of Jesus to the feast of dedication, the other to his last journey to the passover, without suspecting that between the departure of Jesus out of Galilee, and his entrance into Jerusalem, there fell yet an earlier residence in Jerusalem, together with other journeys and ad ventures. :f * Paalus, 2,294 ff. f Paulas, ut sup.
S. 295 f.; 584 f. t Schleiermaclier, ut sup. S. 1G1 f.; - --• - *•••••
- - *----------------:- >„!„»;„„ tn T nke.
Olshauson, I
We may now observe how in the course of the narrative con-cernin0’ the last journey or journeys to Jerusalem, the relation between the synoptical gospels and that of John is in a singular manner reversed. As in the first instance, we discovered a great blank on the side of the former, in their omission of a mass of intermediate events which John notices; so now, towards the end of the account of the journey, there appears on the side of the latter, a similar, though smaller blank, for he gives no intimation of Jesus having • come through Jericho on his way to Jerusalem. It may indeed be said, that John might overlook this passage through Jericho, although, according to the synoptists, it was distinguished by a cure of the blind, and the visit to Zaccha3us; but, it is to be asked, is there in his narrative room for a passage through Jericho ? This city does not lie on the way from Ephraim to Jerusalem, but considerably to the eastward; hence help is sought in the supposition that Jesus made all kinds of minor excursions, in one of which he came to Jericho, and from hence went forward to Jerusalem.*
In any case a remarkable want of unity prevails in the evangelical accounts of the last journey of Jesus ; for according to the common, synoptical tradition, he journeyed out of Galilee by Jericho (and, as Matthew and Mark say, through Persea, as Luke says, through Samaria); while according to the fourth gospel, he must have come thither from Ephraim: statements which it is impossible to rcconcil’3
§ 109. DIVERGENCIES OF THE GOSPELS, IN RELATION TO THE POINT FROM WHICH JESUS MADE HIS ENTRANCE INTO JERUSALEM.
EVEN concerning the close of the journey of Jesus-concerning the last station before he readied Jerusalem, the evangelists are not entirely in unison. While from the synoptical gospels it appears, that Jesus entered Jerusalem on the same day on which he left Jericho, and consequently without halting long at any intervening place (Matt. xx. 34; xxi. 1 ff. parall.): the fourth gospel makes him go from Ephraim only so’far as Bethany, spend the night there, and enter Jerusalem only on the following day (xii. 1. 12 ff.). In order to reconcile the two accounts it is said: we need not wonder that the synoptists, in their summary narrative, do not expressly touch upon the spending of the night in Bethany, and we are not to infer from this that they intended to deny it; there exists, therefore, no contradiction between them and John, but what they present in a compaci
* Tholuck, Comm. zum Job. S. 227: Olshausen. 1
S 771 f 4.Tt,«l,,«l, «J
(-11.THE LIFE OP JESUS.
S 771 f 4.Tt,«l,,«l, «J
(-11.THE LIFE OP JESUS.
phage and Bethany, w? riyyiaev d<; ~Br\Q^>ayT] KOI Brjdaviav, he caused an ass to be fetched from the next village, and forthwith rode on this into the city.
Between events so connected it is impossible to imagine a night interposed; on the contrary, the narrative fully conveys the impression that immediately on the message of Jesus, the ass was surrendered by its owner, and that immediately after the arrival of the ass, Jesus prepared to enter the city. Moreover, if Jesus intended to remain in Bethany for the night, it is impossible to discover his motive in sending for the ass. For if we are to suppose the village to which he sent to be Bethany, and if the animal on which he purposed to ride would not be required until the following morning, there was no need for him to send forward the disciples, and he might conveniently have waited until he arrived with them in Bethany; the other alternative, that before he had reached Bethany, and ascertained whether the animal he required might not be found there, he should have sent beyond this nearest village to Bethphage,
in order there to procure an ass for the following morning, is altogether destitute of probability; and yet Matthew, at least, says decidedly that the ass was procured in Bethphage. To this it may be added, that according to the representation oi Mark, when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, the evening, 6i/>ta, had already commenced (xi. 11,), and consequently it was only possible for him to take a cursory survey of the city and the temple, after which he again returned to Bethany. It is not, certainly, to be proved that the fourth gospel lays the entrance in the morning; but it must be asked, why did not Jesus, when he only came from so near a place as Bethany, set out earlier from thence, that he might have time to do something worth speaking of in Jerusalem ?The late arrival of Jesus in the city, as stated by Mark, is evidently to be explained only by the longer distance from Jericho thither; if he came from Bethany merely, he would scarcely set out so late,
as that after he had only looked round him in the city, he must again return to Bethany, in order on the following day to set out earlier, which nothing had hindered him from doing on this day.It is true that, in deferring the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem until late in the evening, Mark is not supported by the two other synoptists, for these represent Jesus as undertaking the purification of the temple on the day of his arrival, and Matthew even makes him perform cures, and give answers to the high priests and scribes (Matt. xxi. 12 ff.): but even without this statement as to the hour of entrance, the arrival of Jesus near to the above villages, the sending of the disciples, the bringing of the ass, and the riding into the city, are too closely consecutive, to allow of our inserting in the narrative of the synoptists, a night’s residence in Bethany.
Between events so connected it is impossible to imagine a night interposed; on the contrary, the narrative fully conveys the impression that immediately on the message of Jesus, the ass was surrendered by its owner, and that immediately after the arrival of the ass, Jesus prepared to enter the city. Moreover, if Jesus intended to remain in Bethany for the night, it is impossible to discover his motive in sending for the ass. For if we are to suppose the village to which he sent to be Bethany, and if the animal on which he purposed to ride would not be required until the following morning, there was no need for him to send forward the disciples, and he might conveniently have waited until he arrived with them in Bethany; the other alternative, that before he had reached Bethany, and ascertained whether the animal he required might not be found there, he should have sent beyond this nearest village to Bethphage,
in order there to procure an ass for the following morning, is altogether destitute of probability; and yet Matthew, at least, says decidedly that the ass was procured in Bethphage. To this it may be added, that according to the representation oi Mark, when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem, the evening, 6i/>ta, had already commenced (xi. 11,), and consequently it was only possible for him to take a cursory survey of the city and the temple, after which he again returned to Bethany. It is not, certainly, to be proved that the fourth gospel lays the entrance in the morning; but it must be asked, why did not Jesus, when he only came from so near a place as Bethany, set out earlier from thence, that he might have time to do something worth speaking of in Jerusalem ?The late arrival of Jesus in the city, as stated by Mark, is evidently to be explained only by the longer distance from Jericho thither; if he came from Bethany merely, he would scarcely set out so late,
as that after he had only looked round him in the city, he must again return to Bethany, in order on the following day to set out earlier, which nothing had hindered him from doing on this day.It is true that, in deferring the arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem until late in the evening, Mark is not supported by the two other synoptists, for these represent Jesus as undertaking the purification of the temple on the day of his arrival, and Matthew even makes him perform cures, and give answers to the high priests and scribes (Matt. xxi. 12 ff.): but even without this statement as to the hour of entrance, the arrival of Jesus near to the above villages, the sending of the disciples, the bringing of the ass, and the riding into the city, are too closely consecutive, to allow of our inserting in the narrative of the synoptists, a night’s residence in Bethany.
If then it remains, that the three first evangelists make Jesus proceed directly from Jericho, without any stay in Bethany, while the fourth makes him come to Jerusalem from Bethany only: they LAST JOURNEY OF JESUS TO JERUSALEM.and this has been recently maintained by several critics.* According to them, Jesus first (as the synoptists relate) proceeded directly to Jerusalem with the caravan going to the feast, and on this occasion there happened, when he made himself conspicuous by mounting the animal, an unpremeditated demonstration of homage on the part of his fellow-travellers, which converted the entrance into a triumphal progress. Having retired to Bethany in the evening, on the following morning (as John relates) a great multitude went out to meet him, in order to convey him into the city, and as he met with them on the way from Bethany, there was a repetition on an enlarged scale of the scene on the foregoing day,-this time preconcerted by his adherents. This distinction of an earlier entrance of Jesus into Jerusalem before his approach was known in the city, and a later, after it was learned that he was in Bethany, is favoured by the difference, that according to the synoptical narrative, the people who render homage to him are only going before irpodyovreg, and following aKoXovdovv-eg (Matt. v. 9), while according to that of John, they are meeting him -v^avrr/ffav-eg (v. 13, 18). If however it be asked: why then among all our narrators, does each give only one entrance, and not one of them show any trace of a second ? The answer in relation to John is, that this evangelist is silent as to the first entrance, probably because he was not present on the occasion, having possibly been sent to Bethany to announce the arrival of Jesus.t As, however, according to our principles, if it be assumed of the author of the fourth gospel, that lie is the apostle named in the supcrscriqtion, the same assumption must also be made respecting the author of the first: we ask in vain, whither are we then to suppose that Matthew was sent on the secoad entrance, that he knew nothing to relate concerning it ? since with the repeated departure from Bethany to Jerusalem, there is no conceivable cause for such an errand. In relation to Jahn indeed it is a pure invention ; not to insist, that even if the two evangelists were not personally present, they must yet have learned enough of an event so much talked of in the circle of the disciples, to be able to furnish an account of it. Above all, as the narrative of the synoptists does not indicate that a second entrance had taken place after the one described by them: so that of John is of such a kind, that before the 011 i-vit-m r^n ----1. !
T-* i 1 *i
..••
.-.-.
T-* i 1 *i
..••
.-.-.
Other books
Upon the Threshold by April Zyon
Meltdown by Andy McNab
The Deceivers by Harold Robbins
The Klaatu Terminus by Pete Hautman
Lines We Forget by J.E. Warren
Hunter by Huggins, James Byron
Once We Had a Country by Robert McGill
Untangle Me by Chelle Bliss
Crush. Candy. Corpse. by Sylvia McNicoll