By Alfred E. Garvie
Part XX
XX. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.
(1) Having collected the data in
the continuous examination of
the Fourth Gospel in the
previous articles, the writer
will endeavour in this
concluding article to give a
summary of his argument for the
authorship, character, and
credibility of the Gospel, which
he has in detail been seeking to
establish; and in so doing will
take fuller account of contrary
opinions than has hitherto been
done. Briefly to state his own
position, he holds that the
evangelist to whom, with the
exception of some additions to
be afterwards particularized,
the work as a whole is to be
assigned was an eyewitness of
most of the events he records,
although in regard to events in
Galilee he seems to have had
secondhand reports. He was a
Judean, and probably even an
influential citizen of
Jerusalem, closely connected
with the priesthood, if not
himself a priest. His dominating
interest is in the progress of
Christ's self-testimony and the
growing unbelief and hate
provoked by it in the Jewish
leaders and teachers; and he
again and again shows an
intimate knowledge of the
conflicting currents of opinion
among the people, and the secret
machinations of the hostile
party. In the Galilean ministry
his interest is entirely
secondary, and he refers to it
in the sixth chapter only to
mark the contrast of Galilean
enthusiasm, even if mistaken,
and Judean unbelief; and to show
how Judean hostility pursued
Jesus even into Galilee to undermine
His popularity there. Probably
he provided both the ass for the
triumphal entry and the
guest-chamber for the Last
Supper, and was also able owing
to his rank and wealth to offer
some protection and hospitality
to the company of disciples. He
was not a constant companion of
Jesus in Hs public ministry,
even in Judea; but enjoyed a
peculiar intimacy, as did others
outside of the apostolic circle,
such as the family in Bethany.
As an appreciative and
sympathetic hearer it is
probable that Jesus laid bare to
him His inner life as He could
not even to the twelve. The
difference of the Synoptic and
the Johannine reports is, if not
entirely, yet to a large extent
explicable by two circumstances.
In His public utterances in
Judea Jesus was urging His claim
on the Jewish people through its
representatives, the priests and
scribes, and He exercised less
reserve than in Galilee, for the
peril of a mistaken Messianic
movement was absent, and He gave
more advanced teaching
doctrinally as He was addressing
Himself to a learned class, and
not the unlearned masses. In His
private conversations He was
confiding His secrets to a
companion who could understand.
For some reason, which we can
now but conjecture, not only did
the evangelist keep in the
background in the early Church,
so that he is not mentioned in
the Acts of the Apostles and the
Pauline letters; but even in his
later years, when he bore his
testimony to the world, he did
not reveal his name, and
probably it was out of respect
to his wishes that the disciple
who edited what he had written,
or reported what he had said as
an eyewitness, did not betray
the secret, but gave as a
tribute of affection the
description of him as "the
disciple whom Jesus loved." This
account of the evangelist is in
all. particulars based on the
data discussed in detail in the
preceding articles; and it
offers a. consistent, and to the
writer a convincing picture.
(2) But it may be objected that
the tradition that John the son
of Zebedee was the author bars
the way. Dr. Drummond, in his
book on The Character and
Authorship of the Fourth Gospel,
after an exhaustive and
searching discussion of the
external evidence for the
traditional belief, concludes
that " the attestation is
perfectly unanimous in
favour of the early date of the
Gospel, for in this even the
dubious Alogi are supporters of
the Catholic view" (p. 348); but
that " the second point, that
the Apostle John was the author,
can hardly claim the same degree
of confidence." He admits,
however, that "if the Gospel was
issued soon after the Apostle's
death by some writer who chose
to keep himself unknown, and on
the ground either of its own
title or of internal evidence
was pronounced to be John's, and
generally accepted as such, the
phenomena of the existing
attestation would be
sufficiently explained; in other
words, we have no testimony
which affords us any security
against an error of this kind "
(349). It is true that he holds
such an error not probable; but
he leaves us with a door not
altogether closed, but at least
ajar. The authorship by John the
son of Zebedee is not a
certainty, but only a
probability. Dr. Sanday states
the aim of his book on The
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel
as follows: "I propose to defend
the traditional view, or (as an
alternative) something so near
to the traditional view that it
will count as the same thing "
(p. 3). The alternative referred
to is Delff's theory that the
evangelist was not the Apostle,
the son of Zebedee, but the
disciple whom Papias mentions
separately and describes as the
presbyter. While he inclines
still to the traditional view,
he admits the possibility of
this theory. He too, therefore,
allows that we are not shut up
to the traditional view. The
writer sees no good reason
against identifying the
evangelist, as described in the
previous section, with the
presbyter John. Against the
traditional view we may place
not only Papias' statement in
Eusebius (Ecclesiastical
History, BK. III. c. 39), but
also another statement in De
Boor's Fragment that " Papias in
his second book says that John
the Divine and James his brother
were slain by Jews," and the
statement of Polycrates, bishop
of Ephesus, in a letter written
to Rome about 190
A.D., that "John... had been a
priest and worn the High
Priest's mitre." If John the
Apostle at an early date
suffered martyrdom, and the fact
was not generally known, one can
understand that another John
living in Ephesus, and also
bearing witness as a disciple of
Jesus, might be confused with
him. Without claiming that these
statements are certain, we can
at least appeal to them as a
justification for the claims for
freedom from the fetters of the
traditional view to investigate
the problem on the grounds of
internal evidence.
(3) On these grounds Westcott
sought to prove the authorship
of John the son of Zebedee. The
writer can go with him entirely
in the first three steps of his
argument, i.e., that the author
was a Jew, a Jew of Palestine,
and an
eyewitness; but his next step,
that he was an Apostle, rests on
the assumption that the twelve
and twelve alone stood in so
intimate relations to Jesus as
the author of the Fourth Gospel
appears to stand, whereas it has
been shown in the previous
discussion that the twelve
formed Jesus' constant
companions in Galilee, but that
in Judea there were other
disciples who came into close
contact with Him also. "It is
not on the face of it certain,"
says Dr. Sanday, "that 'the
disciple whom Jesus loved' must
have been one of the Twelve "
(op. cit., p. 98). But it is
only by assuming this as certain
that Westcott is justified by
the method of exclusion in
taking his last step to St. John
as author. Dr. Sanday's argument
for the son of Zebedee as
author, that the beloved
disciple is associated in the
Fourth Gospel with Peter in the
same way, as John in the Acts of
the Apostles, has been dealt with
in detail, to disprove its
cogency. The writer is, however,
in entire accord with both
Westcott and Dr. Sanday in
insisting that the evangelist
writes as an eyewitness, and it
is hoped that throughout these
notes the evidence for this
conclusion has been strengthened. He is inclined to insist
that the reason for the
addition or the omission of an
incident is not always to be
found in the evangelist's
pragmatism, but, where that is
not obvious, and needs to be
discovered by strained
ingenuity, in the presence or
absence of the evangelist from
the scene. The view of Mr. Scott
in the Fourth Gospel that "apart
from its allegorical value, the
picturesque detail in John's
narrative can be set down, not
to the accurate memory of the
eyewitness, but to the fine
instinct of the literary
artist," appears not only
intellectually improbable, but
even morally offensive, as the
evangelist seems far too serious
and sincere to stoop to any
devices such as are suggested in
the following sentence. " All
the more that the prevailing
tenor of his work was abstract
and meditative, he felt the need
of relieving it with touches of
livelier colour "
(p. 19). What we meet with in
the Gospel is reality and not
realism. The intensity of
religious faith excludes the
artifices of literary culture.
(4) To one point adverse to the
traditional view very full
consideration has been given
throughout these notes, namely,
that the evangelist was not a
Galilean but a Judean, even a
Jerusalemite.
It is not necessary to repeat
here what has been already said
in describing the author of the
Gospel. It seems to be
altogether more difficult to
maintain the historical
credibility of the Gospel if we
assume that a Galilean disciple
who was Jesus' companion
throughout His whole ministry
there was so indifferent to and
ignorant of the course and
characteristics of that
ministry, and that a fisherman
of Galilee had a dominating
interest in, and an intimate
knowledge of, not only the
Judean ministry, but of all
the local and temporary
conditions of it. It must be
added that the character of the
evangelist does not correspond
with the impression of the son
of Zebedee which the Synoptics
leave upon us. If it be urged
that in his long life he was
much changed, so that the fiery
zealot became the thoughtful and
tender interpreter of the heart
of God in Christ, it has to be
pointed out that his
qualifications for the tender
and thoughtful intimacy he
enjoyed with Jesus must have
belonged to his youth and not
old age only. He must have
already been as companion what
he proved as witness, receptive
of, and responsive to that inner
life of Jesus which he has
unveiled for us, and for which,
as the Synoptic Gospels
testify, the company of the
twelve was so insensitive and
inappreciative.
(5) While we are entitled to
regard the evangelist as an
eyewitness, yet the Gospel
itself has characteristics which
forbid our treating it
throughout as historical report
or record. While the partition
theories which. separate the
source from the editorial
framework are too simple a
solution, we must recognise, in
spite of the dominating unity,
different strata which we may
with more or less certainty
distinguish, although we may not
be able to assign each sentence
or clause to one or another.
First of all, in view of the
conclusion reached by some
scholars, which the writer
himself maintains, that the
Prologue does not determine the
representation of the person and
work of Jesus, but rather a conception of
divine sonship, we may
conjecture that the Prologue
comes from the disciple of the
evangelist, whom we may call
the editor, without attempting
to decide whether the evangelist
himself wrote out the Gospel, or
his discipline gave shape to the
notes he had taken of his
master's teaching in some such
relation as is assumed regarding
Mark to Peter. The evangelist
may himself have concealed his
identity under such a phrase as
" another disciple," but surely
he never described himself as
"the disciple whom Jesus loved,"
and this phrase must be assigned
to the editor. Mr. Strachan, in
the EXPOSITOR for March,
sees also " the hand of an
editor " in (1) the
chronological scheme of
chapters i.-xii., according to
which the narrative of the
ministry is arranged according
to cycles of Jewish feasts; (2)
the very evident heightening of
the miraculous element of
chapter xi., superimposed on
what is evidently in its
original form a simple narrative
of raising from the dead." "As
regards (l)," he continues, "his
motive may be conjectured to be
a desire to represent Jesus as·
consistently keeping the
national feasts " (p. 256). The
writer himself can see no
adequate reason for assigning
the chronological scheme to the
editor and not the evangelist.
In the previous discussion he
has tried to show the historic
probability of a ministry of
Jesus in Jerusalem just at the
feasts, when the evangelist as a
Jerusalemite was in close
contact with Him, and so could
give the account of an
eyewitness. As regards the story
of Lazarus its difficulties
have been recognised, and it
would be assuredly a relief if
we could assign the heightening
of the effect to the editor and
not the evangelist. For the
editorial activity in chapter
xi. Mr. Strachan finds "an
eschatological motive," namely,
"that the Parousia is delayed,
and many who expected to be
alive at His coming are dead."
But if the Gospel was written in
the evangelist's old age, this
motive might affect him as well
as his disciple. "The same
motive," says Mr. Strachan,
"prompts the editorial
additions in such passages as
vi. 39b, 40b, 44b (ἀναστήσω . .
. τῇ ἐσχάτῇ ἡμέρᾳ, xiv. 1 ff.
(which seems to me to have a
very close connexion with the
thought of xxi. 23)." As regards
xiv. 1 ff. the writer feels no
need for any such assumption;
but he has already, in
discussing chapter vi. in
detail, suggested that the
"verses 3640 seem to contain
teaching far too advanced for
the multitude at the seashore,"
and he has applied this
consideration to verses 4346.
While still maintaining the
possibility that this teaching
was
given to the scribes in the
synagogue, he is ready to admit
the probability that the
eschatological reference is an
editorial addition. As regards
the passage v. 2129, which Mr.
Strachan finds " essentially
true to the consciousness of the
Fourth Evangelist as well as to
the thought of Jesus," the
writer does not consider it
necessary to refer it to the
editor; but finds that it is not
appropriate to its present
context, and must be regarded as
either a later doctrinal
development in the mind of the
evangelist, or less probably an
intimate communication made by
Jesus to him; as a public
utterance at the time and place
assigned to it the passage is
open to grave suspicion. It is
possible that xix. 35 should
also be assigned to the editor.
The Appendix, as has been argued
in the previous article, cannot
be assigned to the editor of the
Gospel, but must be regarded as
from another hand, and of later
date, and accordingly less
trustworthy.
(6)
In the evangelist's share in the
work we must, as has been
assumed throughout, distinguish
reminiscence from reflexion, his
report of what he had seen and
heard and his meditation on its
meaning. It must be admitted on
the one hand that even
reminiscences have often been
affected by the evangelist's
distinctive vocabulary; and that
consequently it is sometimes
impossible with certainty to
mark the point of transition
from reminiscence to reflexion.
There are many cases, however,
where the ipsissima verba of
Jesus can be detected, and where
we can follow the working of
the evangelist's mind as memory
passed into meditation. The
reminiscences may be further
distributed in three classes: (1)
There are reminiscences of which
one can be confident that they
are given in their appropriate
context;
(2)
there are reminiscences,
however, which seem out of place
where they are found, and for
which we may conjecture a more
fitting framework, such as the
logion in iii.
13-15, which would be in a more
suitable environment after
xii. 31-32, and the passage in
vi. 53-57, which if it is
authentic, can find a place
only in connexion with the Last
Supper; and (3) there are
secondhand reports of
occurrences in Galilee, as in
chapter vi., in which one feels
the evangelist is not speaking
as an eyewitness, and does not
quite understand the situation,
for only thus can some of the
differences from the Synoptists
be explained, and even what one
may call detached echoes of the
Synoptic tradition, as in xii.
25, 26, 27. In respect to the
last we may assume that the
evangelist remembered less
vividly what had been told him
than what he had himself seen
and heard of the ministry of
Jesus. We cannot accordingly
assert that all the
evangelist's reports or records
are of equal historical value,
because we are concerned with
less or more direct knowledge,
and less or more accurate
remembrance; and a searching
criticism is both legitimate and
necessary.
(7) In the refiexions one is
justified in distinguishing two
interests, the religious and the
theological; or two elements,
the experimental and the
speculative; and much of the
difficulty and failure to
appreciate properly the value of
the Gospel arises from the
neglect of this distinction.
The evangelist had no intention
of adding his own private
interpretations to the teaching
of Jesus; but as he meditated on
what he remembered he became
conscious of the Master's
presence and of the enlightening
and quickening of His Spirit to
bring all things to his
remembrance, and thereby to
guide him into all the truth;
and accordingly he was not aware
of any incongruity between his
reminiscences and his reflexions,
he was not conscious of any
offence against historical
veracity when he presented both,
blended together, as his
testimony to the truth and grace
of the Word become flesh, or of
the only-begotten and well-beloved
Son. He doubtless did not
distinguish
his experience in, and his
doctrine about' Christ; but we,
with our more accurate
epistemological method, cannot
avoid doing so. There are many
portions of the Fourth Gospel in
which the most spiritual
Christian piety finds itself at
home as nowhere else even in the
New Testament. The evangelist
has in his reflexions
interpreted as no other has done
what Christ is to, and does for,
the intensely devout soul. If in
the report of the discourse in
the Upper Room we cannot always
claim to possess historical
testimony, we have experimental
evidence regarding the work and
worth of Christ for the
spiritual life. This element in
the Fourth Gospel belongs surely
to the revelation of God in
Christ, and has permanent and
universal value. We can provoke
only contradiction if we make a
like claim for the entire
Christology of the evangelist.
There is a self· witness of
Jesus going beyond, and yet
consistent with, and even
necessary to complete the
Synoptic representation, which
we may accept as authentic.
Jesus' consciousness of a.
unique sonship in entire
dependence on, constant
communion with, and perfect
submission to, God as Father we
may accept as belonging to the
historical reality of which the
evangelist is the witness. But
along with this there goes a
tendency to over emphasise the
super-naturalness of Jesus'
knowledge and power, which does
not invent its illustrations,
but imposes an interpretation on
facts, which these contradict.
We can easily detect the
instances of this tendency, and
they do not depreciate the value
of the Gospel historically or
spiritually.
(8) It is in an interest vital
to Christian thought and life
that the previous investigation
has been undertaken. The writer
cannot agree with Dr Drummond
that we " may well withhold our
hands from the seamless robe ";
for it does seem to him to
.matter whether we have only
doctrinal or even experimental
interpretation or historical
testimony.
While the evangelist does not,
as has been shown, keep the two
apart, yet to him it was of
primary importance that the Word
became flesh, that men beheld
the glory of the only-begotten of
the Father, full of grace and
truth. And the writer cannot
understand how it can be of no
interest to Christian piety
whether Jesus was or was not as
the evangelist represents Him,
whether He spake, did, and
suffered as He is reported. It
is because he is convinced that
the view of the authorship and
composition of the Gospel here
advanced removes objections to,
and affords reasons for the
credibility of the Gospel as
both historical testimony and
doctrinal interpretation that he
has risked this adventure of
literary and historical
criticism.
|
|