Part 8 (2/2)
The longer and shorter supplements to Mark belong again to the field of textual criticism. The ma.n.u.scripts and early translations carry us back to a time when neither ending was known; though only to leave us wondering how the necessity arose for composing them--a question of the higher criticism. Mark xvi. 9-20 shows acquaintance with Luke, and probably with John xx. It is noteworthy, however, in view of the author's attempt to cover the resurrection appearances of these two gospels, that he betrays no sign of acquaintance with John. xxi. In this case of the Roman gospel, however, textual evidence enables us to trace something of the history of supplementation. The so-called 'Shorter'
ending provides a close for the incomplete story, resembling Matthew, while the 'Longer' is drawn from Luke and John. i.-xx. Subsequent employments show that the 'Longer' ending had been attached (perhaps at Rome) not later than _c._ 150. It is the first evidence we have of combination of the Fourth gospel with the Synoptics; for even Justin, though _affected_ by John, does not _use_ it as he uses Matthew, Mark and Luke. Parity among the four is not traceable earlier than Tatian (_c._ 175), the father of gospel 'harmonies.' The 'Shorter' ending, if not the Longer as well, would seem to have been added in Egypt. The supplements to Mark have this at least of singular interest, that they show the progress of a process whose beginnings we traced back to Palestine itself in the church of the 'apostles, elders and witnesses of the Lord,' where ”the Elder” in the tradition reported by Papias is already offering explanations of the disagreements of Matthew and Mark with a view to their concurrent circulation.
After the addition of Mark to Matthew it was comparatively easy to take in Luke-Acts as a third, and to form composites out of the three such as the _Gospel of Peter_ (North Syria _c._ 130) and the _Gospel of the Nazarenes_ (Coele-Syria _c._ 140). Justin at Rome (_c._ 153) is still such a three-gospel man, though affected by the Fourth; whereas his predecessor Hermas (125-140) seems to rest on Mark alone, though perhaps acquainted with Matthew. The step was a harder one which aimed to take in the Fourth gospel. Tatian at Rome (_c._ 175) and Theophilus at Antioch (181) are the agents of its accomplishment; and, as we have seen, it was not effected without a determined opposition, led at Rome by the presbyter Gaius, and answered by Irenaeus (_c._ 186) and Hippolytus (_c._ 215). Such opposition from the side of advocates of Petrine apostolicity is antic.i.p.ated in the most significant and important of all the epilogues, the so-called Appendix or Epilogue to the Fourth gospel (John xxi.).
Just when, or where, this supplement was added is one of the most difficult problems of the higher criticism. On the side of external evidence we have the fact that it shows no effect in Mark xvi. 9-21, where John xx. is employed, and that there is a great change about A.D.
170 in the treatment of this Gospel and its related Epistles, those who use them before this time showing no disposition to treat them as having high apostolic authority. On the side of internal evidence there are such data as the use of the second-century name for the Sea of Galilee (”Sea of Tiberias,” xxi. 1), and references to the martyrdom of Peter at Rome (xxi. 18 f.) and to legends of John as the 'witness' who should survive until the Coming (xxi. 23). Whether these data suggest an origin at Ephesus, or at Rome, and at just what date, are problems for technical research. That which is of chief interest for us is the motive and function of this supplement to the Ephesian Gospel, and the light it throws upon conditions in the church at large.
It is quite apparent that John xxi. forms a subsequent attachment after the formal conclusion of the Gospel proper in xx. 30 f. For, apart from differences in style and doctrinal standpoint, it makes a complete new departure along the lines of Mark's story of Galilean resurrection manifestations; whereas the Gospel follows the Lukan type, and brings everything to a close without removal from Jerusalem. The message to the disciples by the women at the sepulchre is here given by Jesus in person as in Matt. xxviii. 10, and is actually delivered as in Luke xxiv. 10 f. It is followed by the promised manifestation to the disciples with the overcoming of their incredulity, and by the great Commission, accompanied by the Gift of the Spirit. The story has thus been brought to a formal conclusion, the invariable and necessary conclusion of all evangelic narratives. The author's recapitulation of the nature and contents of his book and a.s.surance in direct address to the reader of his purpose in writing (”that _ye_ may believe”) follows appropriately as a winding up of the whole. It is not conceivable that the same writer should resume immediately after this, at an earlier point in the narrative, where the disciples are still scattered in Galilee, unconscious of their vocation and commission. For in spite of the endeavour of the supplementer in ver. 14 to make this out ”the third[32]
time that Jesus was manifested” they have manifestly returned to their original means of livelihood unawakened to the resurrection faith.
Moreover the story culminates with a restoration of Peter to favour, with unmistakable reference to his humiliating failure to live up to the promise (xiii. 36-38), ”Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now? I will lay down my life for thee” (_cf._ xxi. 15-19). If it had been the evangelist's intention to tell this he would have told it before the Commission in xx. 19-23. In short, we have here two widely variant forms of the tradition of the rallying of the disciples from their unbelief by the risen Christ and commissioning of them to their task. The two commissions, one a general commission of all ”the twelve,” like Matt.
xviii. 18, the other a special commission of Peter like Matt. xvi. 19, are attached one after the other, with the curious infelicity that the restoration of Peter from his defection, together with his installation as chief under-shepherd of the flock, comes _after_ the commission in which he has already appeared with the rest, restored to full faith and favour, and gifted with the inspiration and authority of the Spirit.
Footnote 32: A miscount for ”fourth,” unless we disregard xx. 11-18, or else (with Wellhausen) consider xx. 24-29 an insertion later than the Epilogue.
It is true that the function of ”tending the flock of G.o.d” (_cf._ 1st Pet. v. 2) committed to Peter in xxi. 15-19 is a more special one than the apostolate conferred on all in xx. 21-23; but the Epilogue has previously (xxi. 1-14) given to Peter a special and commanding part in the apostolate (extension of the gospel to the world). No one will question that in such a writer as the Fourth evangelist (and if anything still more the writer of the Epilogue) narratives of miracle are intended to have a symbolical sense. Nor will it be denied that the miraculous draft of fishes, which in Luke v. 1-11 attends the original vocation of ”Simon,”[33] is here applied to the work the twelve are to accomplish in the now opening future as ”fishers of men.” The particularization of the number of the fishes, and the statement that the peril of the rending of the net (_cf._ Luke v. 6) was happily avoided, are, of course, also intended to convey a symbolical sense, which Jerome makes still easier to grasp by informing us that 153 was taken by naturalists of the time to be the full number of all species of fish. John xxi. 1-14 is therefore a primitive story of the appearance of Jesus after his resurrection ”to Peter and them that were with him,”
in Galilee (not in Jerusalem as in John i.-xx. and Luke), having a relation to Luke v. 1-11, and probably also to Matt. xiv. 28-33 (_cf._ John xxi. 7). It is also nearly akin to the fragment at the end of the _Gospel of Peter_. It symbolizes the work of the apostolic mission under the figure of the fis.h.i.+ng of men (_cf._ Mark i. 17; Matt. xiii. 47-50), and gives to Peter the leading part. In fact Peter not only comes to the Lord in advance of all the rest, and alone maintains with him something like the intimate relations of the past, but performs after his private interview with Jesus the gigantic feat of bringing unaided to land the entire miraculous catch. The great and various mult.i.tude, which all working in common had enclosed in the net, but had not been able to lift into the boat, Peter, at Jesus' word, brought safely home. The writer who so employs the already conventionalized symbols of ecclesiastical imagery, surely had no mean idea of the apostles.h.i.+p of Peter. In at least as high degree as the author of Acts he conceives of Peter as commissioned in a special sense to be the great director and leader of all missionary activity, to Gentiles as well as Jews (Acts xv. 7), and to have been the saviour of the unity of the church in the hour of its threatened disruption. When in addition he is invested by Jesus with the insignia and office of chief under-shepherd of the flock of G.o.d, the stain of his threefold denial wiped out by a threefold opportunity to prove his special love by special service, and the ignominy of his previous failure to ”follow” (xiii. 36-38) atoned for by the promise that in old age he shall have opportunity to follow Jesus in martyrdom (xxi. 18 f.), there remains nothing that the most exacting friend of 'catholic' apostolicity could demand in the way of tribute to its great representative.
Footnote 33: The addition in ver. 10_a_ and the plural ”they” in ver. 11, are mere editorial adaptations of the story to Mark i.
16-20.
And yet the main object of the Epilogue has not yet been touched. It was not written, we may be sure, merely to glorify Peter; though it is, of course, insupposable that the Gospel in its primitive form simply left Peter in the att.i.tude of a renegade after xviii. 27, to reappear quite as if nothing had happened in xx. 1 ff.[34] It pays its tribute to Peter as chief witness to the resurrection, chief apostle, chief saviour of the unity of the church, chief under-shepherd of the flock of G.o.d, in the interest of that catholic apostolic unity which all churchmen were so earnestly labouring to achieve in the writer's time, and for which the name of Peter was increasingly significant. But the chief object of the Epilogue is something else. It was written primarily to commend and find room for another authority, the authority of the Gospel to which it is appended, and which repeatedly sets over against Peter a mysterious unnamed figure, who always sees when Peter is blind, believes when Peter is unbelieving, is faithful when Peter and all the rest have fled in cowardly desertion. The object of the Epilogue is to find room alongside the growing and salutary authority of Peter for the authority and message of ”the disciple whom Jesus loved.” Its purpose appears in its conclusion, ”This (the disciple whom Jesus loved) is the disciple which beareth witness of these things, and wrote these things, and we (the church which cherishes and gives forth this 'spiritual' Gospel) know that his witness is true.”
Footnote 34: We must conclude that _both_ these data from Synoptic tradition, the denial (xiii. 36-38; xviii. 15-18, 25-27) _and_ the restoration (ch. xxi.) are supplements to the original form of the Gospel.
The writer does not explicitly say that he means the Apostle John (reputed in Ephesus the author of Revelation); for such direct identification might well endanger his own object. But he makes it clear in two ways that John is really intended, as, indeed, subsequent writers immediately infer.[35] (1) ”The sons of Zebedee” are introduced for the first time in the entire work in xxi. 2, among the group who are present with Peter. An easy process of elimination,[36] then, leaves open to identification as ”the disciple whom Jesus loved” (ver. 7) only John, or else one of the two unnamed ”other disciples,” who could hardly be reckoned among Jesus' closest intimates.
Footnote 35: The _Muratorianum_ bases its legendary account of the writing of the Fourth gospel by ”John” with the endors.e.m.e.nt of ”his fellow-disciples and bishops” on John xxi. 24.
Footnote 36: The early death of James the son of Zebedee (Acts xii.
1) excludes him from consideration.
(2) The scene of the prediction of Peter's martyrdom (xxi. 18 f.) is followed immediately (ver. 20-23) by a reference to traditions which we know to have been current before the close of the first century regarding the martyrdom of the two sons of Zebedee, in particular regarding John. Peter in xxi. 21 raises the question as to the _fate_ of ”the disciple whom Jesus loved” (literally, ”and as to this man, what?”). The pregnant command of Jesus to Peter, ”Follow me,” is clearly intended to have reference to martyrdom (_cf._ xiii. 36 f.), and it is obeyed by ”the disciple whom Jesus loved” as well as Peter. Peter's inquiry and the Lord's reply had given rise ”among the brethren” to the belief that this disciple would ”tarry” till the Coming. Now it is of John, son of Zebedee, and only of him, that we have a curious vacillation of ancient tradition between belief in his martyrdom in the same sense as his brother James (Mark x. 39), and a belief (probably based on Mark ix. 1) that he would tarry as an abiding witness until the Coming ('white martyrdom'). The writer of the Epilogue has manifestly these traditions about the fate of John in mind. He would have his readers understand that the enigmatic prophecy of Jesus neither promised the permanent survival of John, nor his violent death, but was at least capable of an interpretation which set John alongside of Peter, not as a rival of his leaders.h.i.+p, or directive control, but simply as a witness ('martyr') to the truth. Peter is willingly granted the office of 'ruling elder' in the church, if only ”the disciple whom Jesus loved”
may have the function of the prophet and teacher 'in the Spirit,' the man of faith and insight, whose function it is to interpret 'the mind of Christ.'
Few things could be more significant of the conditions of Christian life and thought in the earlier years of the second century than this Epilogue, appended to the 'spiritual' Gospel to commend it to general acceptance in the church. It is not vitally important whether the cautiously suggested identification of the Beloved Disciple with John, the son of Zebedee, be correct or not. It is important to a historical appreciation of the great literary contribution of the churches of Paul to the 'catholic' Christianity of the second century, that we realize what Petrine catholicity had then come to mean, and how the Pauline spiritual gospel came half-way to meet it. On this point a study of the epilogues is rewarding, but especially of the great Epilogue to the Gospel of John.
We have reached the period for our own concluding words. The process of combination and canonization of the New Testament writings, which followed upon the consolidation of the churches in the second century falls outside our province. We have sought only to give some insight into the origins, considering the Making of the New Testament to apply rather to the creations of the formative period, when conscious inspiration was still in its full glow, than to the period of collection into an official canon. As we look back over the two leading types of Christian thought, Pauline and 'Apostolic,' the Greek-Christian gospel _about_ Jesus, and the Jewish-Christian gospel _of_ Jesus, the gospel of the Spirit and the gospel of authority, we cannot fail to realize how deep and broad and ancient are the two great currents of religious thought and life that here are mingling, contending, coming to new expression and clearer definition. Each has its various subdivisions and modifications, Pauline Christianity in the Greek world has its problems of resistance to h.e.l.lenistic perversion on the one side, to reaction toward Jewish external authority on the other. Apostolic Christianity whether in its more conservative form at Jerusalem, or in broader a.s.similation to Pauline doctrine at Antioch and Rome, has also its divergent streams, its more primitive and its more developed stages. The literature, as we slowly come to appreciate it against the background of the times, more and more reveals itself as an index to the life. Not to the mere idiosyncrasies of individuals, but to the great Gulf-stream of the human instinct for social Righteousness and for individual Redemption, as it sweeps onward in its mighty tide.
The literature of the New Testament must be understood historically if understood at all. It must be understood as the product, we might almost say the precipitate, of the greatest period in the history of religion.
It represents the meeting and mutual adjustment of two fundamental and complementary conceptions of religion. The ant.i.thesis is not merely that between the particularism of the Jew and the universalism of the Gentile. It is an ant.i.thesis of the social ideal of Law and Prophets against the individual ideal of personal redemption through union with the divine Spirit, which lay at the heart of all vital h.e.l.lenistic religious thought in this period of the Empire. Christianity as we know it, the religion of humanity as it has come to be, the ultimate world-religion as we believe it destined to become, is a resultant of these two factors, Semitic and Aryan, the social and the individual ideal. Its canonized literature represents the combination. On the one side the social ideal is predominant. It perpetuates the gospel _of_ Jesus in the form of Matthaean and Petrine tradition, supplemented by apocalypse, which tradition attaches conjecturally to the name of John.
The goal it seeks is the Kingdom of G.o.d, righteousness and peace on earth as in heaven. On the other side the individual ideal predominates.
It perpetuates the gospel _about_ Jesus in the form of the Pauline and Johannine doctrine of his person, regarded as the norm and type of spiritual life. The goal it seeks is personal immortality by moral fellows.h.i.+p with G.o.d. Its faith is Son s.h.i.+p, by partic.i.p.ation in the divine nature, without limitation in time, without loss of individual ident.i.ty. Both types of gospel are justified in claiming to emanate from Jesus of Nazareth; but neither without the other can claim to fully represent the significance of his spirit and life.
The unity of the New Testament is a unity in diversity. Just because it presents so widely divergent conceptions of what the gospel is, it gives promise of perennial fecundity. Studied not after the manner of the scribes, who think that in their book of precept and prophecy they have a pa.s.sport to rewards in a magical world to come, but studied as a ”manifestation of the life, even the eternal life” of the Spirit of G.o.d in man, it will continue to reproduce the spirit and mind of Christ.
Studied as a reflection at various times and in divers manners of that redemptive Wisdom of G.o.d, which ”in every generation entering into holy souls makes men to be prophets and friends of G.o.d” (Sap. vii. 27), and which the Greeks, considering it, unfortunately, in its intellectual rather than its moral aspect, call the Logos of G.o.d, it will prove, as in so many generations past it has proved, an ”incorruptible seed,” a ”word of good tidings preached unto” the world, a ”word of the Lord that abideth for ever.”
<script>