ii. 19: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'

vi. 51: 'I am the living bread which came down out of heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.'

vi. 53-7: 'Verily, verily I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father; so he that eateth me, he also shall live because of me.'

vii. 6: 'My time is not yet come.'

vii. 8: 'My time is not yet fulfilled.'

viii. 28: 'When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things.'

x. 11: 'I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep.'

x. 15f.: 'And I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.'

x. 17f.: 'Therefore doth the Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I 246 have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father.'

xii. 7: 'Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying.'

xii. 23-5: 'The hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a grain of wheat fall into the earth and die, it abideth by itself alone; but if it die, it beareth much fruit. He that loveth his life loseth it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.'

xii. 27f.: *Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? But for this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name.'

xii. 31f.: 'Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'

xiii. 21: 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.'

xiv. 2: 'I go to prepare a place for you.'

xv. 13: 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'

xvi. 7: 'Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you.'

xvii. 1f.: 'Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that the Son may glorify thee; even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life.'

xvii. 19: 'And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.'

xix. 26f: 'Woman, behold thy son!'; 'Behold, thy mother'.

xix. 28: 'I thirst'.

xix. 30: 'It is finished.'

Some of the passages in this list have little or no importance for the inquiry. vii. 6 and 8 probably do not refer to the death of Jesus at all: in view of the words of His brothers in vii. 3f. it is clear that the 'time' of which He speaks 247 is that of His manifestation as the Messiah, xii. 7 and xiii. 21 are secondary versions of sayings of Jesus connected, respectively, with the Synoptic stories of the Anointing and the Prophecy of the Betrayal.11   See the earlier discussion of Mk. xiv. 8 and 17-21 on pp. 108-14. The saying: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up' (ii. 19); need not detain us; for, whatever these enigmatic words may imply, 22   In the opinion of Goguel Mk. xv. 29 proves the existence of a tradition according to which Jesus was said to have been condemned because He proclaimed that He would destroy the Temple. According to Mk. and Mt., the charge was recognized as inconsistent and abandoned, while in Jn. the saying is given an allegorical meaning. Cf. The Life of Jesus, 508. it is not probable that they refer to 'the temple of his body' (ii. 21), unless the Evangelist is thinking of the 'spiritual house' of Christian believers.33   Cf. Bernard, 97. In this case, the main interest of the saying is the further light it throws on the Evangelist's theology; it would imply the belief that the death of Jesus is the seed of the Church.

Other passages reveal the want of any distinctive theory in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus goes 'to prepare a place' for His own (xiv. 2). He lays down His life that He may take it again (x. 17). His departure is His glorification (xii. 23, xvii. 1). Most significant of all is the statement of xvi. 7. When Jesus says that it is expedient that He should go away, we seem to be near an explanation of the purpose of His death; but the reason given is not any explanation of what the death is to achieve, but the observation that, if He does not go away, 'the Paraclete will not come.' Jesus, that is to say, is represented as preoccupied with the thought of what will follow His death, not with the death itself. Apart from the sayings in vi. 51, 53-7, the only positive implications of purpose are that He lays down His life on behalf of (uper) His followers and others (x. 11, 15f.), that His action is a proof of love (xv. 13) and 248 will provide a centre of universal attraction (xii. 32), that it is bound up with the judgment of the world (xii. 31), and that by means of it He Himself is glorified (xii. 23, 28, xvii. 1) and revealed (viii. 28).

The sayings in vi. 51, 53-7 demand fuller consideration. There can be little doubt that they are sacramental passages.11   Cf. Bernard, clxvii.-xxii.; Howard, op. cit., 211-4. The connexion in thought with Mk. xiv. 22, 24: 'Take ye: this is my body;' 'This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many,' is unmistakable. Why they appear in chapter vi, after the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand, and not in xiii, in association with the account of the Supper, is one of the most difficult questions connected with the Fourth Gospel.22   Cf. Howard, op. cit., 213f. 'The Upper Room was no place for doctrinal polemic,' p. 214. One of the most notable features in the sayings is the use of the term 'flesh' instead of 'body', but Bernard gives the true explanation when he says that the Evangelist 'prefers sarx (cf. i. 14), probably because he wishes to emphasize the fact of the Incarnation, as against the nascent Docetism of the age'.33   Op cit., clxx. The meaning of the sayings is that by participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, received in the Eucharist, the believer obtains 'eternal life' in the Johannine sense of the term (cf. vi. 54) and mystical fellowship with Christ (cf. vi. 56). This startling assertion is protected against the obvious perils of a materialistic interpretation by the further saying: 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life' (vi. 63). The question of the historical basis of this teaching is pointedly raised by these sayings, but for the moment it is necessary to observe its relation to what is said concerning Christ's self-giving. This connexion 249 is indicated in the words: 'Yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world' (vi. 51). Once again, it is the universality of Christ's sacrifice which is the undertone of these words and the belief that it makes possible the communication of life.

It is at once apparent that, substantially, the sayings attributed to Jesus express the same ideas as in the passages where the Evangelist speaks in his own person. Here, as there, it is implied that the issue of His life is under the power and control of Jesus Himself: 'No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from my Father' (x. 18). The Evangelist speaks of the 'hour' of Jesus, and Jesus does the same (xii. 23, 27, xvii. 1). The Evangelist sees God's gift of love in the Only-begotten (iii. 16) and Jesus interprets His death as a proof of love (xv. 13). In each series of passages the universality of Christ's work is asserted (xi. 52, cf. x. 16, xii. 32, xvii. 2); and in each it is described as communicating life (iii. 14f., 16; cf. vi. 51, 53-7). The terminology is also the same, for the phrase 'lifted up' appears both in iii. 14 and in the words of Jesus in viii. 28 and xii. 32. If also we are justified in finding a sacrificial content in the words ascribed to the Baptist in i. 29: 'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world!', it is interesting to find a similar passage in the saying: 'For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth' (xvii. 19; cf. also xii. 24).

The principal differences are that Jesus does not describe His death as an expression of God's love (cf. iii. 1 6), or as a fulfilment of Scripture (cf. ii. 22, xix. 24, 28, 36), while in His sayings there is a greater emphasis upon the ideas of the sacramental gift of life (vi. 51, 53-7) and of sacrifice (xii. 24), As in Pauline thought, there is also a 250 reference to the shaking effect of His death upon hostile world-powers: 'Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out' (xii, 31).

The question must now be considered: In what sense are the sayings historical? How far can they be relied upon as a basis of knowledge in seeking to understand the attitude of Jesus to His suffering and death? The similarity already noted does not necessarily mean that they are simply the Evangelist's composition, for it is possible that he has assimilated observations of his own to genuine sayings of Jesus, reflected upon and expressed in a new idiom. The difference between the references to the Atonement in 1 John and the Gospel supports this contention. The Fourth Evangelist is not a writer who forces his soteriology upon his material; he is not a theologian bereft of a historical conscience. It is reasonable therefore to infer that, however freely he may reproduce sayings of Jesus, he is controlled by a genuine tradition. This inference, however, does not mean that we can take the Johannine sayings at their face value, and still less that they can be used to discredit sayings of a different kind in the Synoptic Gospels. The Synoptic sayings stand in their own right and cannot be compromised by anything we find in the Fourth Gospel. The Johannine sayings need to be considered in the light of the stylistic peculiarities of the Gospel, the Evangelist's individuality, and the fact that he chooses his material with a purpose.

All the speakers in the Fourth Gospel express themselves in the same style. Thus, it is only the subject-matter of the speech of the Baptist in iii. 27-30 which distinguishes it from a discourse of Jesus; and if, as many critics think, iii. 31-6 no longer stands in its original context, it is significant that the possibility of displacement was unsuspected until modern times. The speech of Jesus in reply 251 to Nicodemus in iii. 10ff. drifts almost imperceptibly into the Evangelist's soliloquy; and the syntax and forms of expression in the Gospel and the Johannine Epistles are surprisingly alike. Despite the inference, already drawn, that the Evangelist's thought is controlled by a genuine tradition, it is beyond question that the sayings are translated into his own idiom.

The Evangelist's individuality is an important factor, not only because he does not hesitate to express the thoughts of Jesus in his own language, but also because he has first passed them through the intellectual moulds of his time. In the Fourth Gospel Jesus speaks as a Jew, but as a Jew of the Dispersion sensitive to Hellenistic influences. At the moment there is a marked tendency to emphasize the Judaic elements in the Gospel. As a corrective to views which treat it as if it were written by a disciple of Philo, this contention is all to the good. Nothing, however, can ever displace the conviction that a Greek air pervades the Gospel. This influence is the work of the Evangelist; it is seen also unmistakably in the way in which he selects, recasts, and employs his material in his endeavour to present Jesus to his Hellenistic readers. The writer's personality is that of a strong, cultured, and sensitive spirit, and to determine its influence in the composition of the Gospel is the most delicate task undertaken by criticism. It is described best as interpretative, and this means that something is brought out of his material and that something is interfused into it; no one can tell where the thoughts of Jesus begin and end. The result of this is that in a historical inquiry we cannot use the Gospel with immediate confidence, and that, just as certainly, we cannot afford to neglect it. The resolution of this dilemma is the problem of the Fourth Gospel.

The method followed by the Evangelist is an added 252 complication. All recent study of the Gospel emphasizes the fact that from first to last his method is selective. Throughout he is dominated by his desire to present Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and the Word made flesh, and the giver of life (cf. i. 14, xx. 31). For this end he chooses his material. The idea that he merely writes to supplement the Synoptic Gospels belongs to the primary department of Gospel criticism. It is not for this purpose that he omits some elements from Christian tradition and supplies others. His supreme motive is dogmatic and religious. What bearing has this fact upon his work?

In the selective method itself there is nothing in the least reprehensible; it is the kind of literary procedure commonly followed by writers who use history as the servant of religion. In their own measure the Synoptists do the same thing; and only the persistent delusion that the Gospels are biographies leads us to think that we must choose between the first three and the fourth. Every writing of the kind must be judged on its own merits.

It is obvious that those who think, from their study of early Christianity, Christian history, and religious experience, that the Fourth Evangelist has correctly interpreted the Person of Christ, will estimate his work at the highest; and that those who do not believe this will remain suspicious. It is therefore vain to imagine that dogmatic interests can be eliminated in the study of the Fourth Gospel. As well cry for the moon! But if such bias cannot be escaped, it can be allowed for by the honest student, and the effort made to apply every objective test before the scales fall. Such objective tests include a careful comparison between the ideas of the Gospel and those of primitive Christianity and contemporary Judaism, and between the Johannine and the Synoptic sayings. An estimate of the 253 amount of agreement between the sayings in the Fourth Gospel and the mind and figure of Jesus as He is known to us from other historical sources, is a less objective, but still not entirely subjective criterion. These tests do not exclude elements which are peculiar to the Fourth Gospel. Moreover, an estimate of sayings capable of direct comparison creates a presumption regarding the value of those which have no close parallel.

An investigation of the relation of the contents of the Fourth Gospel to the thought-world of the first century cannot be undertaken here; and it must be enough to say that such a study has been made in modern times in a series of learned works, 11   E. F. Scott, op. cit., passim; W. F. Howard, op. cit., 142-244; J. E. Carpenter, The Johannine Writings, 254-356; G. H. C. Macgregor, Jew and Greek, passim; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T. aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. ii.; H. Odeberg, The Fourth Gospel Interpreted in its Relation to Contemporaneous Religious Currents. For further information see the Bibliography in Howard, op. cit., 273-82. with results which strengthen confidence in the broad historical value of the Gospel.

Comparison with the sayings in the Synoptics, or at least with the Synoptic Passion-sayings, is a task of smaller compass. Both in the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics there is undoubtedly a close connexion between the ideas of death and resurrection. Just as Jesus says that the Son of Man must suffer and rise again (Mk. viii. 31 and parallels), so He declares that He lays down His life that He may take it again (Jn. x. 17) and speaks of His death as His glorifying (Jn. xii. 23, 28, xvii. 1). The language is different but the emphasis on triumph is the same. In the Fourth Gospel, however, the triumph is immediate; there is no reference in the sayings to 'three days', except in the difficult passage: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up' (ii. 19). Common also to all the Gospels is the thought of the Passion as 'the hour' of 254 Jesus (Jn. xii. 23, 27, xvii. 1; cf. Mk. xiv. 35, 41; Mt. xxvi. 45; Lk. xxii. 53). The saying about His life: 'No one taketh it away from me, but I lay it down of myself (Jn. x. 18), is only a fuller expression of that sense of destiny which has impressed all the Evangelists. Common also is the idea that Jesus dies for others. In John He lays down His life 'for the sheep' (x. 11); in Mark He gives His life a ransom 'for many' (x. 45). Sacrificial language is also found both in Jn. xii. 24, xvii. 19 and in Mk. x. 45, xiv. 24, although the sayings are entirely different in content. Finally, in all the Gospels eucharistic ideas stand in the closest association with the sacrifice of Christ (Jn. vi. 51-8; Mk. xiv. 22, 24).

Other sayings remain to be considered; but of those already noticed it may be said that, substantially, the ideas are the same in all the Gospels, although in the Fourth Gospel some of them are more strongly emphasized or are given a somewhat different turn. The latter is especially true of the sayings in Jn. vi. 51-8. In Mk. xiv. 22 and 24 the bread and the wine are spoken of as having a certain value and significance: spiritually, they are the body and blood of Christ, and are means of participating in the sacrificial offering of Christ. In the Johannine sayings, the teaching contained in the words: 'This is my body,' 'This is my blood,' is assumed, but the significance of the actions of eating and drinking is differently expressed. 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day' (vi. 54). 'He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him' (vi. 56). In these words the imparted gift is not that of a share in Christ's self-offering; it is eternal life and communion with Christ Himself. How is this difference to be explained?

One explanation of the difference is that the Evangelist 255 has transposed sayings originally spoken at the Supper to their present position in chapter vi. This hypothesis enables us to account for their character. It is not in the least probable that the Synoptic sayings include all that was said at the Supper. Mk. xiv. 22, 24 would hardly have been intelligible to the disciples without further explanation. It is significant, therefore, that the sayings in Jn. vi. 51-8 supply a further unfolding of at least one aspect of the thought of Jesus. Participation in His sacrifice and communion with Himself are not contradictory ideas, but thoughts intimately related to each other, and it is a natural transition to pass from one to the other. The Johannine sayings, then, may represent the interpretative teachings of Jesus Himself. A second possibility is that the sayings stand in their historical place in Jn. vi, in connexion with the eschatological sacramental meal which probably lies behind the account of the Feeding of the Five Thousand.11   See earlier, p. 185. In this case, however, it is necessary to suppose that the content of the sayings has been influenced by other sayings associated with the Last Supper, since in Jn. vi. 51-8 the suffering and triumph of Jesus are implied. Such a fusion is by no means unintelligible in a mind like that of the Evangelist who is far more interested in the significance of Jesus than in the precise succession of events. Either of these views is preferable to a third possibility, namely, that the sayings have no historical relation to anything that Jesus said and taught; for to say that the sayings are merely the Evangelist's inventions is not even a plausible explanation of the nature and worth of the Fourth Gospel.

Between the first two explanations it is not possible to decide. In either case we must conclude that, to an extent incapable of precise determination, the sayings are expressed in the Evangelist's language and are influenced 256 by his experience and that of the Church of Ephesus. The use of the term 'flesh' (sarx), and perhaps also the use of trwgw instead of the Synoptic esthiw are peculiarities of the Evangelist's vocabulary; the emphasis on 'eternal life' and communion with Christ illustrates his spiritual interests and those of the Ephesian community. This conclusion means that in the sayings there is an element of interpretation as well as of recollection. The interpretation, however, begins with words and thoughts of Jesus, and for this reason the results of the process are gain, and not loss, for the historian as well as for the Christian believer.

These sayings have been considered in detail because they represent the point of maximum difficulty. If our conclusion in respect of them is sound, it is reasonable to infer that, as a class, the Johannine Passion-sayings which have Synoptic parallels possess real historical value, not the value of a verbatim report but that of a later version which brings out their meaning in terms of life and Christian experience.

Can this conclusion be extended to those sayings which have no parallel, or no close parallel, in the Synoptic tradition? The examination already made, it may be claimed, sets up a presumption in favour of an affirmative answer, but beyond this point only broad statements of probability are possible. The sayings which invite attention in this connexion are the two which contain sacrificial ideas or images, xii. 24 and xvii. 19; the sayings: 'Greater love' (xv. 13), and: 'Now is the judgement of this world' (xii. 31); the words about the revelation of the Son of Man in viii. 28 ; and, finally, those which imply the universality of the benefits of Christ's death x. 11   What has been said already concerning vi. 51-8, x. 11, 15f., 17f., xii. 23, 27f., may perhaps be regarded as sufficient. 6, in xii, 32, and xvii. 2. 11   What has been said already concerning vi. 51-8, x. 11, 15f., 17f., xii. 23, 27f., may perhaps be regarded as sufficient.


It was Renan who remarked that the whole of xii. 20-6 is 'exempt from any dogmatical or symbolical design',11   Life of Jesus, 13th ed., 297. and only those who doubt the genuineness of all the Johannine sayings will question the originality of the words: 'Except a grain of wheat . . .' (xii. 24). It is less easy to feel certain about the character of the saying: For their sakes I sanctify myself (xvii. 19) because it appears in the long high-priestly prayer, but it is in no way unsuitable to the situation of Jesus or out of harmony with His thoughts. For most people the saying: 'Greater love' (xv. 13), bears its own signature, and Dibelius has ably contended that its form and content suggest that it already formed part of the Evangelist's 'tradition'.22   Festgabe fur Adolf Deissmann, 168-86. The caution of the critic appears when he adds that it cannot be said with certainty that it is a case of the reproduction or recasting of a genuine 'Jesus-word'.33   Op.cit.,* 183. The same hesitation must naturally arise in connexion with the saying:'Now is the judgement of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out' (xii. 31). The thought at least is harmonious with the idea of deliverance in the 'ransom-passage'(Mk. x. 45) and with the saying in the L tradition: 'This is your hour, and the power of darkness' (Lk. xxii. 53). Jesus undoubtedly regarded His Passion, in one of its aspects, as a conflict with the powers of evil; and the expectation of victory, voiced in the Johannine saying, agrees with the confident hope with which He approached Jerusalem.44   See p. 186. If this is so, critical hesitation about the precise terms of the Johannine passage is a matter of secondary importance. The same view may also be taken of the saying: 'When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am 258 he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as the Father taught me, I speak these things' (viii. 28). While there is no express parallel in the Synoptic Gospels, the idea that after His death Jesus will be seen as the Son of Man is found in Mk. xiv. 62: Ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power.' Jesus also may well have said that the future would vindicate His claim to speak in accordance with the Father's revelation to Himself. There is therefore no legitimate objection to the saying as a genuine word of Jesus. Even if the saying is a creation of the Evangelist, it is still true that it represents the mind and thought of Jesus.

In a class by themselves stand the sayings which imply the universality of the effects of the sacrifice of Jesus:

x. 16: 'And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd.'

xii. 32: 'And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.'

xvii. 2: 'Even as thou gavest him authority over all flesh, that whatsoever thou hast given him, to them he should give eternal life.'

To many readers of the Gospel it is a pointed example of the futility of criticism that any one should question the genuineness of sayings so dear to the Christian heart. In reality, the problem cannot be dismissed if the Gospel is read intelligently. The point in debate is not the truth of the sayings, but whether, as they stand, they are likely to have been the words of Jesus. The question might be answered easily were it not for the fact that no saying of Jesus in the Synoptic tradition asserts the universality of the effects of His Passion. Jesus speaks of giving His life and of shedding His covenant-blood 'for many', but He does not say expressly that He dies for all or for the 259 world. It would, of course, be entirely erroneous to infer that He had in mind a limited circle of believers who should be blessed by His sacrifice. Such an idea has only to be stated to be rejected, for it is wholly out of harmony with His spirit. The Johannine sayings under consideration are certainly nearer the truth. It is less evident, however, that they are His actual words.

The silence of the Synoptists on this point of universality is remarkable, when it is remembered how strongly it is emphasized in the Acts and the Pauline Epistles. It is an inescapable inference that, had words of Jesus been known which asserted that He would give His life for the world, they would have been included in the Synoptic Gospels, and in Mark and Luke in particular. As it is, they are not found, except as universalism appears in the outlook and teaching of Jesus.11   See the important articles of C. J. Cadoux, 'Judaism and Universalism in the Gospels,' Expository Times, xxxviii., 55-60, 136-140. This fact is one of the strongest proofs of the essential trustworthiness of the Synoptic tradition; it is also the justification of the critical view that the Johannine sayings under consideration are the Evangelist's interpretations and not directly the words of Jesus Himself. Why He did not explicitly speak of dying for the world is not difficult to understand. Jesus did not use concepts like 'mankind' or 'humanity', nor does He appear to have dwelt, after the manner of a theologian, upon the more ultimate aspects of His Passion. His interests, as revealed by the Gospels, are supremely personal and religious, and are intimately related to the immediate circumstances of daily life. He speaks of His Passion within the framework presented by Old Testament thought and in relation to His disciples and His immediate followers. Wider horizons are constantly suggested in His teaching, but they are hinted and implied 260 rather than expressed directly. What He says stands against a Judaic background and is directed to the needs of present hearers. Thus, on occasion He speaks of 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel', and of 'the twelve tribes of Israel', and uses language which, if pressed, might suggest, in contradiction to other utterances of His, an attitude of Jewish particularism. It is entirely in harmony with such a habit of mind and of speech that references to the world or to men in general are wanting. The reverse is true of the mind and outlook of the Fourth Evangelist. His standpoint and the circumstances of his Hellenistic environment throw into relief this very question of universalism. In consequence, when he comes to record sayings of Jesus regarding His Passion, he inevitably expresses them in accordance with his own beliefs, without realising, it may even be, that in the form he gives to them he is going beyond what was actually said. In recording such sayings he does not reproduce spoken words of Jesus, but unfolds the ultimate implications of His teaching, and for this reason he is an invaluable interpreter of His mind and thought.

Our conclusion, then, is the same in respect of the sayings without parallel in the Synoptic Gospels as in the case of those already examined, although naturally it cannot be presented as strongly and cogently. An element of interpretation, manifest in some more than in others, enters into all the Johannine Passion-sayings. None the less, contact with original utterances of Jesus is close, with the result that the Evangelist's 'coloured' version, rightly understood, is one that the historian cannot afford to neglect or dismiss.

In the end the difference between the common and the critical view of these sayings is much less than might be supposed. The common view reaches its results at a leap; 261 the critical method climbs with painful steps and many hesitations. If it be said; 'Why, then, not leap?' the answer is that a blind leap is not possible for any one who has once perceived the nature of the Johannine problem. Henceforward, he must either lose all confidence in the Fourth Gospel, or win his way by struggle and search. If he reaches solid ground, as indeed he may, his reward is the consciousness that in his long journey he has not divided intelligence and faith. His treasure is not a gift passively received, but a possession he has been privileged to win, understood and prized the more because at times he seemed to be within an ace of losing it altogether, but most of all because he now perceives its true nature and value.


| Define | Popups: Login | Register | Prev Next | Help |