ページの画像
PDF
ePub

This in broad outline is the solution of the synoptic problem most popular with scholars to-day. They are by no means agreed as to its details. Was the source we have called the Logia really the book mentioned by Papias, or was it some other collection of Jesus' words? There is really nothing to connect it with Papias' statement except that it contained many sayings of Jesus, and Logia originally meant sayings. The recent tendency is to call it simply the source (Quelle) document, and refer to it as Q. Did Mark make any use of this source? Were there other sources common to Matthew and Luke? Did Luke have the Gospel of Matthew? How far were there successive revisions or editions of Matthew and Luke as well as of Mark? Questions like these are easier to ask than to answer; they are constantly discussed in the endeavor to account for all the complex phenomena presented by the synoptics; but even to state the minute details involved in such discussions would take too much space, and pass beyond the purpose of this book.

The fascination of the synoptic problem arises from the fact that it is an attempt to get behind our present gospels, and recover the earlier form of the gospel story out of which they grew. For centuries we have used the synoptics as original sources; now we find that common sources lie behind them, and we are eager to ascertain what these contained. For every step back

ward brings us closer to the original statements of those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and to the story of Jesus as it used to be told by the church in Jerusalem.

CHAPTER IX

THE JOHANNINE PROBLEM

No book in the Bible, unless it be Genesis, has given rise to so much discussion and controversy as the Gospel of John. The literature it has called forth is enormous; merely the titles of books and pamphlets would make a large volume. The main question, of course, is, How far can we accept this gospel as trustworthy? A few years ago critics seemed to be approaching an agreement about the answer; but recent writers are again far apart.

This is not surprising. Differences of temperament cause the book to make different impressions as to its value. For example, Dr. Philip Schaff feels it to be "the most original, the most important, the most influential book in all literature"; while Mr. John Stuart Mill contemptuously dismisses it-especially the speeches of Jesus, and in particular the speech after the Last Supper-as "mystical-poor stuff-matter imported from Philo and the Alexandrian Platonists, and put into the mouth of the Saviour." Evidently these two critics would never agree, because the book appeals to the one and does not to the other.

Still more dividing are differences in theological attitude. John sets forth the pre-existence and divine claims of Jesus far more plainly than do the other gospels. It is possible to accept the synoptics as in the main trustworthy, and yet see in Jesus simply a human teacher-one remarkable indeed, perhaps unique, but not divine. This is impossible with John: if the Fourth Gospel is trustworthy, we must believe that Jesus clearly showed himself to be the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. If, therefore, we have already come to some decision about the claims of Jesus (and no man can live in a Christian world without some decision, conscious or unconscious) we have thereby taken a definite attitude toward the Gospel of John— an attitude which, in spite of all attempts to weigh the evidence honestly and without prejudice, will influence our decision as to its trustworthiness.

This almost inevitable difference of opinion is best shown in a discussion of the authorship of the gospel. What was the relation of the Apostle John to the book? The answer, as in the question of date, must be determined by external and internal evidence.

The external evidence that the apostle was the author is strong. The earliest is at the end of the book itself: "This is the disciple that beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true" (21: 24). This verse immediately follows the story accounting for the origin of

the report that Jesus had said John should not die; and it purports to be a declaration by some persons who knew John-possibly the elders of Ephesus-that the book is by him and is trustworthy. It is like the attestation clause to a will; and, like such a clause, it must be either a forgery or genuine. If it be a forgery, it is put in such a form as to weaken its force, since it omits names entirely. A forger would have put the matter clearly: "This book was written by the beloved apostle John, and we, the elders of Ephesus, bear witness to its truth." If it is not a forgery, then it is very early and strong evidence for John's authorship. Possibly it was an endorsement placed originally on the margin of the manuscript, and later transferred to the text itself.

There is abundant evidence that in the latter half of the second century-that period where we begin to have clear light upon church life and thought-everybody supposed the apostle John to be the author of the fourth gospel, except a few who rejected the teachings of that gospel. The statement of Irenæus, already quoted (p. 92), is a good example of such evidence. But hostile critics refuse to accept the external evidence or find various ways of diminishing its force. For example, in reply to the argument from Irenæus they point out that according to Papias (see p. 40) there was a presbyter John as well as an apostle John, and argue that Irenæus may have meant the

« 前へ次へ »