Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) (774 page)
Read Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated) Online
Authors: George Eliot
BOOK: Delphi Complete Works of George Eliot (Illustrated)
5.37Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
Tlic two divergencies relative to tlie person of tlie woman wlio anoints Jesus, and to tlie party wlio blames her, were thought to be tlie most readily explained.Tliat what Jolm ascribes to Judas singly, Mattliew and Mark refer to all tlie disciples or spectators, was believed to be simply accounted for by tlic supposition tliat while tlic rest manifested their disapprobation by gestures only, Judas vented his in words.tWe grant tliat tlie word e/leyov, (f,hey said) preceded as it is in Mark, by the words ayava,nrovvTK(; -n-poc tw-oL’c (/laving indignation ‘within themselves), and followed, as in Mattliew, by tlie words yvoavg SE b ‘IJ]
But as tlie two first synoptists attach so much importance to the deed of tlie woman, tliat tlicy make Jesus predict the perpetuation of her memory on account of it-a particular which Jolm lias notthey would assuredly have also given her name had they known it;
so tliat in any case we may conclude thus much; tlicy knew not wlio tlie woman was, still less did they conceive her to be Mary of Bethany.
Thus if tlic identity only of tlie last evangelist’s narrative with tliat of tlic two first be acknowledged, it must be confessed tliat we have, on tlic one side or tlic other, an account which is inaccurate,
* Schiieckcnburger, fiber den Ursprung, u. s. f S. 60. There is no trace in Mark’3
account that tlie words cwrpl^affa n) u”ML^acrpov signify an accidental fracture ; nor, on the other hand can they, without tlie harshest ellipsis, be understood to imply merely the removal of that which stopped the opening of the vessel, as Paulns and Fritzsche maintain.
Interpreted without viole’.ic’, they can only mean a breaking of tlie vessel itself. It is asked with Paulus (vs.. llandb. 3. B. S. 471): To what purpose destroy a costly vessel ?
or with Frit/sclie Fin Marc. p. G02): To wliat purpose risk wounding lier own hand, and possibly tlie licad of Jesus also ? These are questions which have a bearing on the matter considered as the act of the woman, but not as a narrative of Mark; tot that to him, the destruction of a precious vessel should appear suited to the noble prodigality of the woman, is in perfect accordance with tlie exaggerating style which we have often observed in him. + Kuim’.l, in Mattli. p. G8i).t 1’aulus, exeg. Handb. 3. B. S. 466, and many others.
444 THE LIFE OP JESUS.
and disfigured by tradition. It is, however, not only between these, but also between Luke and his fellow evangelists collectively, that they who suppose only one incident to be tlie foundation of their narratives, seek to remove as far as possible the appearance of contradiction.
Schlcicrmachcr, wliose highest authority is John, but who will on no account renounce Luke, comes in tills instance, when the two so widely diverge, into a peculiar dilemma, from wliicli he must liave thought tliat lie could extricate himself with singular dexterity, since he lias not evaded it, as lie docs others of a similar kind, by tlie supposition of two fundamental occurrences. It is true that he finds himself constrained to concede, in favour of John, that Luke’s informant could not in this case liave been an eve witness;
Schlcicrmachcr, wliose highest authority is John, but who will on no account renounce Luke, comes in tills instance, when the two so widely diverge, into a peculiar dilemma, from wliicli he must liave thought tliat lie could extricate himself with singular dexterity, since he lias not evaded it, as lie docs others of a similar kind, by tlie supposition of two fundamental occurrences. It is true that he finds himself constrained to concede, in favour of John, that Luke’s informant could not in this case liave been an eve witness;
wliencc minor divergencies, as for instance tliose relative to tlie locality, are to be explained. On the other hand, the apparently important differences that, according to Luke, tlie woman is a sinner, according to John, Mary of Bethany; tliat according to tlie former, the host, according to the latter, the disciples, make objections; and that tlie reply of Jesus is in tlie respective narrations totally different-these, in Schleiermacher’s opinion, liave their foundation in the fact that. tlie occurrence may be regarded from two points of view.
The one aspect of the occurrence is tlie murmuring of tlie disciples, and this is given by Matthew; the other, namely, tlie relations of Jesus with tlie pharisaic host, is exhibited by Luke ; and John confirms botli representations. The most decided impediment to the reconciliation of Luke with tlie other evangelists, his designation of the woman as a sinner, a^ap-y/loc, Schleiermachcr invalidates, by calling it a false inference of tlie narrator from tlie address of Jesus to Mary, Thy sins are forgiven thee, a^ewrai aoi al wap-iai. This Jesus might say to Mary in allusion to some error, unknown to us, but such as tlie purest are liable to, without compromising her reputation with the spectators, wlio were well acquainted with her character; and it was only tlie narrator wlio erroneously concluded from tlie above words of Jesus, and from his further discourse, that tlie woman concerned was a sinner in tlie ordinary sense of the word, whence lie has incorrectly amplified the thoughts of tlie host, v. 39.*
It is not, however, simply of sins, a.y,ap-ia,i, but of many sins, “TO/I/la2 ajLtffpTtat, that Jesus speaks in relation to tlie woman; and if this also be an addition of tlie narrator, to be rejected as such because it is inconsistent with tlie character of Mary of Bethany, tlien lias the entire speecli of Jesus from v. 40-48, which turns on the opposition between forgiving and loving little and much, been falsified or misrepresented by the evangelist: and on the side of Luke especially, it is in vain to attempt to harmonize tlie discordant narratives.
If, then, the four narratives can be reconciled only by the supposition tliat several of them have undergone important traditional modifications: the question is, which of them is tlie nearest to the
EVENTS IN THE PUBLIC LIFE OT JESUS.445
original fact? That modern critics should unanimously decide in favour of Jolm, cannot surprise us after our previous observations;
and as little can the nature of the reasoning by wliicli their judgment is supported. The narrative of John, say they, (reasoninw in a circle.) being tliat of an eye witness, must be at once supposed the true one,* and this conclusion is sometimca rested for greater security on tlie false premiss, that the more circumstantial and dramatic narrator is tlie more accurate reporter-the eye witness.!
The breaking of tlie box of ointment, in Mark, although a dramatic particular, is readily rejected as a mere embellishment; but does not John’s statement of tlie quantity of spikenard as a pound, border on exaggeration ? and ought not the extravagance which Olshausen, in relation to tins disproportionale consumption of ointment, attributes to Mary’s love, to be rather referred to the evangelist’s imagination, which would then also have tlie entire credit of tlie circumstance, that the house was filled vnth the odozir of the ointment ? It ia worthy of notice, tliat the estimate of the value of tlio perfume at 300 denarii, is given by Jolm and Mark alone; as also at tlie miraculous feeding of the multitude, it is tliesc two evangelists wlio rate the necessary food at 200 denarii. If Mark only had tills close estimate, how quickly would it be pronounced, at least by Schleiermaclier, a gratuitous addition of the narrator! What then is it that, in tlie actual state of the case, prevents the utterance of this opinion, even as a conjecture, but tlie prejudice in-favour of tlie fourth gospel ? Even the anointing of tlie head, which is attested by two of the synoptists, is, because John mentions the feet instead of the head, rejected as unusual, and incompatible with the position of Jesus at a meal ;f whereas the anointing of the feet with precious oil was far less usual; and this tlie most recent commentator on the fourth gospel admits. §
The breaking of tlie box of ointment, in Mark, although a dramatic particular, is readily rejected as a mere embellishment; but does not John’s statement of tlie quantity of spikenard as a pound, border on exaggeration ? and ought not the extravagance which Olshausen, in relation to tins disproportionale consumption of ointment, attributes to Mary’s love, to be rather referred to the evangelist’s imagination, which would then also have tlie entire credit of tlie circumstance, that the house was filled vnth the odozir of the ointment ? It ia worthy of notice, tliat the estimate of the value of tlio perfume at 300 denarii, is given by Jolm and Mark alone; as also at tlie miraculous feeding of the multitude, it is tliesc two evangelists wlio rate the necessary food at 200 denarii. If Mark only had tills close estimate, how quickly would it be pronounced, at least by Schleiermaclier, a gratuitous addition of the narrator! What then is it that, in tlie actual state of the case, prevents the utterance of this opinion, even as a conjecture, but tlie prejudice in-favour of tlie fourth gospel ? Even the anointing of tlie head, which is attested by two of the synoptists, is, because John mentions the feet instead of the head, rejected as unusual, and incompatible with the position of Jesus at a meal ;f whereas the anointing of the feet with precious oil was far less usual; and this tlie most recent commentator on the fourth gospel admits. §
But peculiar gratitude is rendered to the eye witness John, because he has rescued from oblivion the names, both of the anointing woman, and of tlie censorious disciple. || It has been supposed that tlie synoptists did in fact know the name of the woman, but withheld it from tlie apprehension that danger might possibly accrue to tlie family of Lazarus, wliile John, writing later, was under no such restraint if but this expedient rests on mere assumptions. Our former conclusion therefore subsists, namely, that the earlier evangelists knew nothina; of tlie name of the woman; and tlie question arises, how was this possible ? Jesus having expressly promised immortal renown to tlie deed of tlie woman, tlie tendency must arise to perpetuate her name also, and if tins were identical witli the known and oft repeated name of Mary of Bethany, it is not easy to understand how the association of the deed and the name could be lost in
• Siliffert, lit sup. S. 123 f.+ Schuiz, ut sup. S. 320 f.f Schneckenburger, ut aup. S.60.
(i Liickc, 2, S. 417 ; comp. Lightfoot, borae, p. 468, 1081.
I] Sclnilz, ut sup.
446 THE LIFE OF JESUS.
tradition, and the woman who anointed Jesus become nameless. It is perhaps still more incomprehensible, supposing tlic covetous blame cast upon the woman to have been really uttered by him who proved the betrayer, that this should be forgotten in tradition, and the expression of blame attributed to the disciples generally. When a tact is narrated of a person otherwise unknown, or even wlien tlic person being known, tlic fact docs not obviously accord with his general character, it is natural tliat the name should be lost in tradition; but wlicn the narrated word or work of a person agrees so entirely witli his known character, as docs tlic covetous and hypocritical blame in question witli the character of tlie traitor, it is difficult to suppose tliat tlie legend would sever it from his name. Moreover, tlic history in which tins blame occurs, verges so nearly on the moment of tlie betrayal, (especially according to tlic position given to it by tlic two first evangelists,) tliat liad tlic blame really proceeded from Judas, tlie two facts would have been almost inevitably associated.
Nay, even if tliat expression of latent cupidity liad not really belonged to Judas, there must have been a temptation eventually to ascribe it to him, as a help to tlie delineation of his character, and to tlie explanation of his subsequent treachery. Thus tlie case is reversed, and tlie question is whether, instead of praising John tliat he lias preserved to us this precise information, we ought not rather to give our approbation to the synoptists, tliat they have abstained from so natural but unhistorical a combination. We can arrive at no other conclusion with respect to tlie designation of tlic woman who annoints Jesus as Mary of Bcthany. On tlie one hand, it is inconceivable tliat tlie deed, if originally hers, should be separated from her celebrated name; on tlie other, tlic legend, in tlic course of its development, might naturally come to attribute to one whose spiritual relations with Jesus liad, according to the third and fourth gospels, early obtained great celebrity in tlie primitive church, an act of devoted love towards him, which originally belonged to another and less known person.
But from another side also we find ourselves induced to regard tlie narratives of Matthew and Mark, who give no name to tlie woman, rather than tliat of John, who distinguishes her as Mary of Bcthany, as tlie parent stem of tlic group of anecdotes before us.
Our position of tlie identity of all tlie four narratives must, to be tenable, enable us also to explain how Luke’s representation of the facts could arise. Now, supposing tlic narrative of John to be tlie nearest to tlic truth, it i.a not, a little surprising tliat in tlie legend, the anointing woman should doubly descend from the highly honoured Mary, sister of Lazarus, to an unknown, nameless individual, and thence even to a notorious sinner; it appears tar more natural to give the intermediate position to tlie indifferent statement of tlie synoptists, out of whose equivocal nameless woman might equally be made, either in an ascending scale, a Mary; or, in a descending
EVENTS IX THE PUBLIC LIFE OF JESUS.
The possibility of the first transformation has been already shown: it must next be asked, where could be an inducement, without historical grounds, gradually to invest the anointincr w’oman with tlic character of a sinner ? In tlie narrative itself our only clue is a feature wliicli the two first synoptists have not, but which John has in common with Luke; namely that tlie v.’oman anointed the feet of Jesus.
To tlie fourth evangelist, this tribute of feelin”‘ appeared in accordance witli tlic sensitive, devoted nature of Mary, whom lie elsewhere also (xi. 32), represents as falling at tlie feet of Jesus; but by another it might be taken, as by Luke, for the gesture of contrition ; an idea which might favour the conception of the woman as a sinner.-Miglit favour, we say, not cause: for a cause;
To tlie fourth evangelist, this tribute of feelin”‘ appeared in accordance witli tlic sensitive, devoted nature of Mary, whom lie elsewhere also (xi. 32), represents as falling at tlie feet of Jesus; but by another it might be taken, as by Luke, for the gesture of contrition ; an idea which might favour the conception of the woman as a sinner.-Miglit favour, we say, not cause: for a cause;
Other books
Catch Me Falling by Elizabeth Sade
Going for the Blue by Roger A. Caras
The Billionaire Falls (Billionaire Bachelors - Book Three) by Anne, Melody
Ghost Town by Rachel Caine
Collision Course: Endless Growth on a Finite Planet by Kerryn Higgs
The Girls by Emma Cline
Burn Down the Night by M. O'Keefe
The Latchkey Kid by Helen Forrester
Middle Demons (Angels and Demons Book 2) by Randall Morris
