Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (770 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
3.6Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
above charge; he lias also another, after tlie second feeding of the multitude (xvi. 1 ff.), and this second demand Mark also lias (viii.
11 f.), while he omits the first. Here the Pharisees come to Jesus (according to Matthew, in the unlikely companionship of Sadducees), and tempt him by asking for a. sign, from. heaven, ai]ueiov en TW
ovpavov. To this Jesus gives an answer, of wliicli the concluding proposition, a zoicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;
and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas, ysvea r:ovi]pa aal jUOi^a/lZc (3i]i.isiov eTt^reZ, KCU or)iie~iov ov 600fiaerai avry, d yiff -o a’q^elov ‘luva -ov -rpo^^-ov, in Matthew, agrees word for word witli the opening of the earlier refusal. It is already improbable enough, tliat Jesus sliould have twice responded to the above requisition with tlie same cnismatical reference to Jonah ; but the words (v. 2, 3) wdilch, in the second passage of Matthew, precede the sentence last quoted, are totally unintelligible. Por wliy Jesus, in reply to tlie demand of his enemies that lie would show them a sign from heaven, should tell them tliat they were indeed well versed in the natural signs of the heavens, but were so much tlie more glaringly ignorant of the spiritual signs of the messianic times, is so far from evident, tliat the otherwise unfounded omission of v. 2 and 3, seems to have arisen from despair of rinding any connexion for them.* Luke, who also lias, (xii. 44 f.), in words only partly varied, tills reproach of Jesus that his cotemporaries understood better tlie signs of tlie weather than of the times, gives it another position, wliich might be regarded as the preferable one ; since after speaking of tlie fire which he was to kindle, and the divisions which lie was to cause, Jesus might very aptly say to the people: You take no notice of the. unmistakeable prognostics of this great revolution which is being prepared by my means, so ill do you understand the signs of the times.t But on a closer examination, Luke’s arrangement appears just as abrupt here, as in tlie case of the two parables (xiii. 18)4 If from hence we turn again to Matthew, we easily see liow he was led to his mode of representation,
He may have been induced to double tlie demand of a sign, by the verbal variation which he met witli, the required sign being at one time called simply a ari[is~iov, at another a O-^MOV en TOV ovpavov. And if lie knew that Jesus had exhorted tlie Jews to study the signs of the times, as they liad hitherto studied tlie appearance of tlie heavens, the conjecture was not very remote, tliat the Jews liad given occasion for this admonition by demanding a sign from. heaven, cny.ewv KK TOV
He may have been induced to double tlie demand of a sign, by the verbal variation which he met witli, the required sign being at one time called simply a ari[is~iov, at another a O-^MOV en TOV ovpavov. And if lie knew that Jesus had exhorted tlie Jews to study the signs of the times, as they liad hitherto studied tlie appearance of tlie heavens, the conjecture was not very remote, tliat the Jews liad given occasion for this admonition by demanding a sign from. heaven, cny.ewv KK TOV
ovpavov. Thus Mattliew here presents us, as Luke often does elsewhere, with a fictitious introduction to a discourse of Jesus ; a proof of the proposition, advaaiced indeed, but too little regarded by Sicffert :§ that it is in tlie nature of traditional records, such as the three first gospels, tliat one particular should be best preserved in this
* Vid. Griesbach, Coniin. crit. in loc.
f Comp. Schkiiirmacher, S. 190 f.
+ Wptte pv,-p- Hanrlllucli. i. S. 139.
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.429
narrative, another in that; so that first one, and then the other, ia at a disadvantage, in comparison with the rest.
§ 86. VISIT OF THE’ MOTHEE AND BEETHEEN OF JESUS--THE WOMAN
WHO PEONOUNCES THE MOTIIEE OF JESUS BLESSED.
ALL the synoptists mention a visit of the mother and brethren
of Jesus, on being apprised of wliich Jesus points to his disciples, and declares tliat they who do tlie wdll of God arc his mother and liig brethren (Matt. xii. 46 ff.; Mark iii. 31 ff.; Luke viii. 19 ff.).
Matthew and Luke do not tell us tlie object of this visit, nor, consequently, whether tills declaration of Jesus, wliicli appears to imply a disowning of his relatives, was occasioned by any special circumstance. On tills subject Mark gives us unexpected information : he tells us (v. 21) that wliile Jesus was teaching among a concourse of people, who even prevented him from taking food, his relatives, under the idea that he was beside himself, went out to seize him, and take him into the keeping of his family.* In describing this incident, the evangelist makes use of tlie expression, S^-syov on. K^EO-I], {they said, he is beside himself), and it was merely tills expression, apparently, tliat suggested to him wliat lie next proceeds to narrate:
ol ypajJ.i.i.a.TEic e^eyov, o-t Bee^efJovX S^ei K. -. \. (the scribes said, he hath Beelzebub, &c., comp. John x. 20). With this reproach, which however, lie does not attacli to an expulsion of demons, he connects the answer of Jesus; he then recurs to the relatives, whom he now particularizes as tlie mother and brethren of Jesus, supposing them to have arrived in tlie meantime; and he makes their announcement call forth from Jesus the answer of wliich we have above spoken.
Tliese particulars imparted by Mark are very welcome to commentators, as a means of explaining and justifying tlie apparent harshness of tlie answer wliicli Jesus returns to the announcement of his nearest relatives, on tlie ground of the perverted object of their visit. But, apart from the difficulty that, on the usual interpretation of tlie accounts of the childhood of Jesus, it is not to be explained liow his mother could, after the events therein described, be thus mistaken in her son, it is very questionable whether we ouglit to accept this information of Mark’s. In tlie first place, it is associated witli tl’.e obvious exaggeration, that Jesus and Ills disciples were prevented even from taking food by tlie throng of people ; and in tlie second place, it has in itself a strange appearance, from its want of relation to tlie context.
If these points are considered, it will scarcely be possible to avoid agreeing witli the opinion of Sclileiermacher, tliat no explanation of the tlicn existing relations of Jesus with his family is to be sought in this addition; that it rather belongs to tliose exaggerations to wliicli Mark is so prone, as well in his introductions to isolated incidents, as in his general state
If these points are considered, it will scarcely be possible to avoid agreeing witli the opinion of Sclileiermacher, tliat no explanation of the tlicn existing relations of Jesus with his family is to be sought in this addition; that it rather belongs to tliose exaggerations to wliicli Mark is so prone, as well in his introductions to isolated incidents, as in his general state
THE LIFE OF JESUS.
mcnts.* lie wished to make it understood why Jesus returned an ungracious answer to the announcement of Ills relatives; tor this purpose lie thought it necessary to give their visit an object of which Jesus did not approve, and as he knew tliat tlie Pharisees had pronounced him to be under tlie influence of Beelzebub, lie attributed a similar opinion to his relatives.
If we lay aside this addition of Mark’s, the comparison of tlie three very similar narratives presents no result as it regards their matter;+ but there is a striking difference between tlie connexions in wliicli tlie evangelists place tlie event. Matthew and Mark insert it after tlie defence against tlie suspicion of diabolical aid, and.
before tlie parable of tlie sower, whereas Luke makes the visit considerably prior to that imputation, and places the parable even before tlie visit.
It is worthy of notice, however, tliat Luke has, after the defence against tlie accusation of a league with Beelzebub, in tlie position wliicli tlie two other evangelists give to tlie visit of the relatives of Jesus, an incident which issues in a declaration, precisely similar to tliat wliicli tlie announcement calls forth. After the refutation of the Pharisaic reproach, and the discourse on the, return of the unclean spirit, a woman in tlie crowd is rilled with admiration, and pronounces tlie mother of Jesus blessed, on which Jesus, as before on tlie announcement of Ills mother, replies; Yea, rather blessed are they v:ho hear the word of God and keep it /f Schleiermacher here again prefers the account of Luke: lie thinks tills little digression on the exclamation of the woman, especially evinces a fresh and lively recollection, wliicli has inserted it in its real place and circumstances; whereas Mattlicw, confounding tlie answer of Jesus to the ejaculation of tlie woman, witli tlie very similar one to the announcement of his relatives, gives to the latter tlie place of the former, and tliua passes over the scene with the wonian.§ But how tlie woman could feel herself hurried away into so enthusiastic an exclamation, precisely on hearing the abstruse discourse on tlie return of tlie expelled demons, or even the. foregoing rcprchcnsive reply to the Pharisees, it is difficult to understand, and tlie contrary conjecture to tliat, of Schleiermacher might rather be established; namely, tliat in tlie place of tlie announcement of tlie relatives, tlie writer of tlie third gospel inserted tlie scene with tlie
It is worthy of notice, however, tliat Luke has, after the defence against tlie accusation of a league with Beelzebub, in tlie position wliicli tlie two other evangelists give to tlie visit of the relatives of Jesus, an incident which issues in a declaration, precisely similar to tliat wliicli tlie announcement calls forth. After the refutation of the Pharisaic reproach, and the discourse on the, return of the unclean spirit, a woman in tlie crowd is rilled with admiration, and pronounces tlie mother of Jesus blessed, on which Jesus, as before on tlie announcement of Ills mother, replies; Yea, rather blessed are they v:ho hear the word of God and keep it /f Schleiermacher here again prefers the account of Luke: lie thinks tills little digression on the exclamation of the woman, especially evinces a fresh and lively recollection, wliicli has inserted it in its real place and circumstances; whereas Mattlicw, confounding tlie answer of Jesus to the ejaculation of tlie woman, witli tlie very similar one to the announcement of his relatives, gives to the latter tlie place of the former, and tliua passes over the scene with the wonian.§ But how tlie woman could feel herself hurried away into so enthusiastic an exclamation, precisely on hearing the abstruse discourse on tlie return of tlie expelled demons, or even the. foregoing rcprchcnsive reply to the Pharisees, it is difficult to understand, and tlie contrary conjecture to tliat, of Schleiermacher might rather be established; namely, tliat in tlie place of tlie announcement of tlie relatives, tlie writer of tlie third gospel inserted tlie scene with tlie
• Ueber den Lukas, S. 121.
•[• Schncckcnbiirger, (illier den Urspr. S. .’“>t), finds an attempt at dramatic enect in the tint. “w, and tile t’/crnvac n/v ^npa, of Matthew, as coinpared with the eiTT’.iv aiid TT^pi^/^’afzKvoc />{‘/>:?,<.) of Mark.This is a remarkable proof of the partial acumen which plays so distinguished a part to th1 disadvantage of Matthew in modern criticism. Fur who does not see that if Matthew had SLTTOV, it would lie numbered among tlie proofs tliat his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for tlie vords fhTelvar TI’IV yipii, there is nothing to be discovered in thnn wliicli could give to them more than to tlie KE’}if3^,eipu^£VO(; of murk llie stamp of artiiiciality : we might as well attribute (lie latter expression to Mark^s al eadv discovered fondness for describing tlie action of tlie eyes, and consequently regard t as an addition of Ilia own.
•[• Schncckcnbiirger, (illier den Urspr. S. .’“>t), finds an attempt at dramatic enect in the tint. “w, and tile t’/crnvac n/v ^npa, of Matthew, as coinpared with the eiTT’.iv aiid TT^pi^/^’afzKvoc />{‘/>:?,<.) of Mark.This is a remarkable proof of the partial acumen which plays so distinguished a part to th1 disadvantage of Matthew in modern criticism. Fur who does not see that if Matthew had SLTTOV, it would lie numbered among tlie proofs tliat his narrative is wanting in dramatic life? As for tlie vords fhTelvar TI’IV yipii, there is nothing to be discovered in thnn wliicli could give to them more than to tlie KE’}if3^,eipu^£VO(; of murk llie stamp of artiiiciality : we might as well attribute (lie latter expression to Mark^s al eadv discovered fondness for describing tlie action of tlie eyes, and consequently regard t as an addition of Ilia own.
^ Answer to the aimoucen .•nt, viii. 21 ;
Answer t.» ti*,.’ woman, xi. 28 : fiKvovv’^E
Answer t.» ti*,.’ woman, xi. 28 : fiKvovv’^E
^r?/p JMOV Kai uoiA^oi fiov OL’TO ELOLV ol TOV ^i/capifit (sc. oi’^ ?/ itij~-i]i) uor, u/.Z’) Oi ukovov’A(i\’nt’ -run ^f’nn n^n/’vnr ^al ^Oiof’rr^c Cli’TOV. TCC TOV Aoyur Toil -^sov Kai (!>u/i^(7CorTFf, ^I’TOV.
EVENTS IS THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
woman, from its having a like termination.
The evano-elical tradition, as we see from Mattliew and Mark, whether from historical or merely accidental motives, had associated tlie above visit and the saying about tlie spiritual relatives, with the discourse of Jesus on tlie accusation of a league witli Beelzebub, and on the return of the unclean spirit; and Luke also, when lie came to tlie conclusion of tliat discourse, was reminded of the anecdote of the visit and its point-tlie extolling of a spiritual relationship to Jesus. But he liad already mentioned tlie visit ;* he therefore seized on tlie scene witli tlie woman, wdiich presented a similar termination. From the strong resemblance between tlie two anecdotes, I can scarcely believe that they are founded on two really distinct incidents; rather, it is more likely that tlie memorable declaration of Jesus, tliat lie preferred his spiritual before his bodily relatives, liad in the legend received two different settings or frames. According to one, it seemed the most natural that such a depreciation of his kindred should be united witli an actual rejection of them ; to another, that the exaltation of those wlio were spiritually near to him, should be called forth bv a blessing pronounced on those who were nearest to him in the flesh.
Of tliese two forms of tlie legend, Mattliew and Mark give only the first: Luke, however, liad already disposed of this on an earlier occasion; when, therefore, lie came to the passage where, in tlio common evangelical tradition, tliat anecdote occurred, he was induced to supply its place by the second form.
The evano-elical tradition, as we see from Mattliew and Mark, whether from historical or merely accidental motives, had associated tlie above visit and the saying about tlie spiritual relatives, with the discourse of Jesus on tlie accusation of a league witli Beelzebub, and on the return of the unclean spirit; and Luke also, when lie came to tlie conclusion of tliat discourse, was reminded of the anecdote of the visit and its point-tlie extolling of a spiritual relationship to Jesus. But he liad already mentioned tlie visit ;* he therefore seized on tlie scene witli tlie woman, wdiich presented a similar termination. From the strong resemblance between tlie two anecdotes, I can scarcely believe that they are founded on two really distinct incidents; rather, it is more likely that tlie memorable declaration of Jesus, tliat lie preferred his spiritual before his bodily relatives, liad in the legend received two different settings or frames. According to one, it seemed the most natural that such a depreciation of his kindred should be united witli an actual rejection of them ; to another, that the exaltation of those wlio were spiritually near to him, should be called forth bv a blessing pronounced on those who were nearest to him in the flesh.
Of tliese two forms of tlie legend, Mattliew and Mark give only the first: Luke, however, liad already disposed of this on an earlier occasion; when, therefore, lie came to the passage where, in tlio common evangelical tradition, tliat anecdote occurred, he was induced to supply its place by the second form.
§ 87. CONTENTIONS FOE PKE-EMINENCE AMONG THE DISCIPLES.
THE LOVE OF JESUS FOE CHILDREN.
Tlie three first evangelists narrate several contentions for preeminence which arose among the disciples, with tlie manner in wliicli Jesus composed tliese differences.One such contention, wliicli is said to have arisen among the disciples after tlie transfiguration, and the first prediction of tlie passion, is common to all tlie gospels (Matt. xviii. 1 ff.; Mark ix. 33 ft. ; Luke ix. 46 ft.).
There are indeed divergencies in tlie narratives, but tlie identity of the incident on wliicli they are founded is attested by tlie fact, tliat in all of them, Jesus sets a little child before his disciples as an example; a scene wliicli, as Schleiermacher rcmarks,t would hardly be. repeated. Mattliew and Mark concur in mentioning a dispute about pre-eminence, wliicli was excited by tlie two sons ofZebedee.
Other books
Into the Blue by Robert Goddard
Family Reunion by Caroline B. Cooney
Royal Blood by Kolina Topel
Undying Love (The Introduction) by sidney d
Bunny Bear - Wild Bear 02 by Ruby Shae
Fae by Emily White
Menu for Romance by Kaye Dacus
Reluctant Bride by Joan Smith
Burglars Can't Be Choosers by Lawrence Block
Dark Blue (South Island PD Book 1) by Ranae Rose
