Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (737 page)

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)

6.51Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

ads

THE LIFE OF JESUS.

ministry of several years’ duration, only one attendance at Jerusalem was noticed, or (in case tlie synoptical writers supposed but a single year’s ministry, of which we shall speak below) wlien lie was represented as neglecting two of the great annual feasts.

If, tlien, a circle in close proximity to Jewish usage found nothing offensive in the opinion tliat Jesus attended but one feast, may not tins autliority remove all hesitation on tlic subject from our minds? Besides, on a more careful weighing of the historical and geographical relations, the question suggests itself, whether between tlic distant, lialf G-entile Galileo, and Jerusalem, tlie ecclesiastical bond was so close that the observance of all tlic feasts could be expected from a Galilean ?

Even according to tlie fourth Gospel, Jesus omitted attending one Passover tliat occurred in tlie period of Ills public career (John vi. 4).

There is, however, one point unfavourable to tho synoptical writers.Tliat Jesus in his last visit to Jerusalem should, within tlie short space of tlie feast day, have brought himself into sueli decided hostility to tlie ruling party in tlic capital, that they contrived his arrest and deatli, is inexplicable, if we reject tlie statement of John, tliat tin’s liostility originated and was gradually aggravated during his frequent previous visits.* If it be rejoined, that even in Galilcan synagogues there were stationary scribes and phansees (Matt. ix. 3. xii. 14), tliat such as were resident in tlic capital often visited the provinces (Matt. xv. 1), and that thus there existed a hierarchical nexus by means of which a deadly enmity against Jesus might be propagated in Jerusalem, before he had ever publicly appeared there; we tlicn have precisely that ecclesiastical bond between Galilee and Jerusalem which renders improbable on tlic part of Jesus tlie non-observance of a scries of feasts. Moreover the synoptical writers liave recorded an expression of Jesus wliicli tells strongly against their own view.

The words: Jerusalem, Jerusalem-how often would I have gathered thy children together-and ye would not, have no meaning whatever in Luke, who puts them into the mouth of Jesus before lie had even seen Jerusalem during his public ministry (xiii. 34); and even from the better arrangement of Mattliew (xxiii. 37) it is not be understood how Jesus, after a single residence of a few days in Jerusalem, could found his reproaches on multiplied efforts to win over its inhabitants to Ins cause. Tills wliole apostrophe of Jesus has so original a character, that it is difficult to believe it incorrectly assigned to him; hence to explain its existence, we must suppose a series of earlier residences in Jerusalem, such as those recorded by tlic fourth evangelist.There is only one resource,to pronounce tlic statement of tlic synoptical writers unliistorical in the particular of limiting the decisive visit of Jesus to Jerusalem to tlie few days of tlie feast, and to suppose tliat he made a more protracted stay in the capital.!

It will be seen from the foregoing discussion, wlietlicr, when so much is to be argued pro and contra, the unhesitating decision of

LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.

tlie critics in favour of the fourth evangelist’s statement is a just one.

For our own part, we are far from being equally hasty in declaring for the synoptical writers, and are content to have submitted the actual state of tlie controversy, as to tlie comparative merit’s of John and the synoptical writers, to farther consideration.

§ 58. THE RESIDENCE OF JESUS AT CAPERNAUM.

DLTJXG the time spent by Jesus in Judea, tlie capital and its environs recommended themselves as tlie most eligible theatre for his agency; and we might have conjectured that in like manner when in Galilee, he would have chosen his native city, Nazareth, as tlie centre of his labours. Instead of this we find him, when not travelling, domesticated at Capernaum, as already mentioned; the synoptical writers designate tills place the ISia TTOAK; of Jesus (Matt.

ix. 1, comp. Mark. ii. 1); here, according to them, was the ol/coc, which Jesus was accustomed to inhabit, (Mark ii. 1; iii. 20; Matt.

xiii. 1. 36,) probably tliat of Peter (Mark i. 29 ; Matt. viii. 14; xvii.

25 ; Luke iv. 38). In tlie fourth Gospel, which only mentions very transient visits of Jesus to Galilee, Capernaum is not given as Ilia dwelling-place, and Cana is tlie place with which he is supposed to have the most connection. After his baptism he proceeds first to Cana, (ii. 1) on a special occasion, it is true: after this he makes a short stay at Capernaum (v. 12); and on his return from his first attendance at the passovcr, it is again Cana to which lie resorts, and in wliieli tlie fourth evangelist makes him effect a cure (iv. 46 ft.), according to the synoptical writers, performed at Capernaum, and after tills we find him once again in the synagogue at Capernaum (vi. 59). Tlic most eminent disciples, also, are said by tlie writer of tlie fourth Gospel, not, as by tlie synoptical writers, to come from Capernaum, but partly from Cana (xxi. 2) and partly from Bethsaida (i. 45).

Tlie latter place, even in tlie synoptical gospels, is mentioned, witli Chorazin, as one iii which Jesus had been pre-eminently active (Matt. xi. 21; Luke x. 13).

Why Jesus chose Capernaum as his central residence in Galilee, Mark does not attempt to show, but conducts him thither without comment after his return into Galilee, and the calling of tlie two pairs of fishermen (i. 21). Matthew (iv. 13 ff.) alleges as a motive, that an Old Testament prophecy, (Isai. viii. 23 ; ix. 1,) was thereby fulfilled; a dogmatical motive, and therefore of no historical value.

Luke thinks lie lias found tlie reason in a fact, which is more worthy of notice. According to him, Jesus after his return from baptism does not immediately take up his residence in Capernaum, but makes an essay to teach in Nazareth, and after its failure first turns to Capernaum. This evangelist tells us in tlie most graphic style, how Jesus presented himself at tlie synagogue on the sabbath-day, and expounded a prophetic passage, so as to excite general admiration, but at tlie same time to rirovol.:!--, mnHfImia Toflo,.i-;^a ^” +i.” ^-.-

284 THE LIFE OF JESUS.

circumstances of .his family. Jesus, in reply, is made to refer the

discontent of the Nazarenes, that he performed no miracles before them as at Capernaum, to the contempt which every prophet meets •with in his own country, and to threaten them in Old Testament allusions, that the divine benefits would be withdrawn from them and conferred on strangers. Exasperated by tills, they lead him to the brow of the liill, intending to cast him down: he, however, passes unhurt through the midst of them (iv. 16-30).

Both the other synoptical writers are acquainted witli a visit of Jesus to Nazareth ; but they transfer it to a much later period, when Jesus had been long labouring in Galileo, and resident in Capernaum (Matt. xiii. 54 ff.; Mark vi. 1 ff.). To reconcile their narrative with that of Luke, it has been customary to suppose that Jesus, notwithstanding his first rough reception, as described by Luke, wislied to make one more experiment whether his long absence and subsequent fame might not liave altered the opinion of the Nazarenesan opinion worthy of a petty town; but the result was equally unfavourable.* Tlie two scenes, liowever, are too similar to be prevented from mingling witli each oilier. In botli instances the teaching of Jesus in the synagogue makes the same impression on the Nazarenes,-that of amazement at tlie wisdom of tlie carpenter’s son (Luke only giving more details); in both instances there is a lack of miracles on the part of Jesus, the first two evangelists presenting more prominently its cause; namely, the unbelief of the Nazarenes, and the third dwelling more on its unfavourable effect; lastly, in botli instances, Jesus delivers the maxim (tlie result of his experience), that a prophet is the least esteemed in his own country; and to tills Luke appends a more ample discourse, which irritates the Nazarenes to attempt an act of violence, unnoticed by the oilier evangelists. But tlie fact which most decisively shows tliat tlie two narratives cannot exist in each other’s presence, is that they both claim to relate the first incident of tlie kind ;f for in both, the Nazarenes express their astonishment at the suddenly revealed intellectual gifts of Jesus, wliicli they could not at once reconcile with Ills known condition.f Tlie first supposition that presents itself is, that the scene described by Luke preceded tliat of Matthew and Mark;

but if so, tlie Nazarenes could not wonder a second time and inquire, whence hath this man this wisdom ? since they must have had proof on tliat point on the first occasion; if, on tlie contrary, we try to give the later date to Luke’s incident, it appears unnatural, for tlie same reason that they should wonder at the gracious words ‘which proceeded out of his mouth, neither could Jesus well say, This day is this scripture fulfilled in, your ears, without severely reflecting on their former insensibility, which had retarded tliat fulfilment.

These considerations have led tlie majority of modern commen

* Paulus, exeg. Handb. 1, 6, S. 403. t Tins Schleiermachcr has made evident, uber den Luhas, S. 63.

\ Sieffert, fiber den Ursprung des ersten kanonischen Evangeliums, S- 89

LOCALITY OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.

285

tators to the opinion, that Luke and the other synoptical evangelists have here given the same history, merely differing in the date, and in the colouring of the facts ;* and the only question among them is, which of the two narrations deserves the preference. With respect to the date, that of Luke seems, at tlie first glance, to have the advantage ; it gives tlie desiderated motive for the change of residence, and the wonder of the Nazarenes appears most natural on the supposition that then he first assumed the function of a public teacher;

hence Matthew’s divergency from Luke has been recently made a serious reproach to him, as a chronological error, f But there is one particular in all tlie three narratives which is an obstacle to our referring the incident to so early a period. If Jesus presented himself thus at Nazareth before he liad made Capernaum the principal theatre of his agency, the Nazarenes could not utter the words which Jesus imputes to them in Luke: Whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country ; nor could they, according to Matthew and Mark, be astonished at the- mighty works of Jesus,} for as he performed few if any miracles at Nazareth, that expression, nothwithstanding its perplexing connection with the aocfi’ia, the wisdom,, manifested in tliat city, must refer to woi’ks performed elsewlierc. If, then, tlie Nazarenes wondered at the deeds of Jesus at Capernaum, or were jealous of the distinction conferred on that city, Jesus must have previously resided there, and could not have proceeded thither for tlie first time in consequence of the scene at Nazareth. From this, it is plain that the later chronological position of the narrative is the original one, and that Luke, in placing it earlier, out of mere conjecture, was honest or careless enough to retain the mention of the wonders at Capernaum, though only consistent with the later position.§ If, with regard to the date of the incident, the advantage is tlius on the side of Matthew and Mark, we are left in darkness as to the motive wliich led Jesus to alter his abode from Nazareth to Capernaum; unless the circumstance that some of his most confidential disciples had their home there, and the more extensive frame of the place, may be regarded as inducements to the measure.

The fullness .and particularity of Luke’s description of the scene, contrasted with tlie summary style in which it is given by the other two evangelists, has generally won for the former tlie praise of superior accuracy.!] Let us look more closely, and we shall find that the greater particularity of Luke shows itself chiefly in this, that he is not satisfied with a merely general mention of the discourse delivered by Jesus in the synagogue, but cites tlie Old Testament passage on which he enlarged, and the commencement of its application. Tlie passage is from Isai. Ixi. 1, 2, where the prophet an

* Olshausen, Fritzsche, in loc.
Hase, Leben Jesu, § 62. Sieffert, ut supra.

t Sieffert, ut supra.
\ What these, rn’igihy works were can only be made clear when we come to the chapter on the Miracles.

BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)

6.51Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub

Read Book Download Book

ads