The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Eight Lectures on the Morse Foundation, Delivered in the Union Seminary, New York in October and November 1904Sanday, W. (William)
Religion
The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel: Eight Lectures on the Morse Foundation, Delivered in the Union Seminary, New York in October and November 1904
Sanday, W. (William)
Bible. John -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.
Now I am not going to maintain that, if one of us had been an
eye-witness of the Life of Christ, the profound teaching of which I have
just given an outline would have seemed to him to bear the same kind of
proportion to the sum total of His teaching that it bears in the Fourth
Gospel. By the essential conditions of the case it could not be so. It
is this particular kind of teaching which the Evangelist specially
wishes to enforce; and, in order to enforce it, he has singled out for
his narrative just those scenes in which it came up—those and, broadly
speaking, no others.
We have seen that in regard to this teaching there is a very large
amount of coincidence between St. Paul and St. John. We shall have
presently to consider what is the nature and ground of this coincidence,
how it arose and what relation it implies between the two Apostles. But
before going on to this, we must first ask ourselves how far it can be
verified by comparison with the Synoptic Gospels. It is right to look
for such verification, however much we may be convinced that these
Gospels are an extremely partial and fragmentary representation of all
that Christ said and did. Even a modern biography, contemplated perhaps
during the life-time of its subject, and actually begun soon after his
death, will only contain a tithe (if he is a really great man) of his
more significant acts and sayings. But those who attempted to write what
we wrongly call Lives of Christ did not, as it would seem, for the most
part even begin to do so or make preparations for beginning for some
thirty years after the Crucifixion, when the company of the apostles and
intimate disciples was already dispersed, or at least in no near contact
with the writers[66]. We have only to ask ourselves what we should
expect in such circumstances. And I think we should find that our
expectations were fully borne out if we were to compare together the
contents of the oldest documents, those of the _Logia_ with the
Mark-Gospel, and those of the special source or sources of St. Luke with
both. The amount and value of the gleanings which each attempt left for
those who came after tells its own story.
But if we do not expect that the Synoptic Gospels would be in the least
degree exhaustive in the materials they have preserved for us from the
Life of Christ, we might be sure that their defects would be greatest in
regard to the class of teaching with which we are at present concerned.
It is teaching of a kind that might perhaps haunt the minds of a few
gifted and far-sighted individuals, but would certainly fall through the
meshes of the mind of the average man. It was this very fact, as we have
seen, which prompted the Fourth Evangelist to write his Gospel. The
externals of the Lord’s Life he recognized as having been adequately
told; but it was just the profoundest teaching and some of the most
significant acts that had escaped telling, and that he himself desired
to rescue from oblivion.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account