[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
written by an eyewitness. He says: John's claim to give evidence as an eyewitness whilst the others are
only compiling history is supported by a certain verisimilitude which appeals to me as one who has
preached a new doctrine and argued about it, as well as written stories. This verisimilitude may be
dramatic art backed {70} up by knowledge of public life; but even at that we must not forget that the best
dramatic art is the operation of a divinatory instinct for truth. Would it be too much to ask Mr. Shaw to
trouble himself to dream the Derby Winner three times running? This remark may seem unduly indignant,
but there is really little to choose.
Browning asks how we are to distinguish between Washington's oracle and Sludge's itch O' the elbow
when at whist he ought to trump. How are we to distinguish between the story of an eyewitness and that
of a clever literary artist, who is trying to persuade us that he is an eyewitness? How many war stories
have been written in Fleet Street and in New York City by men who have never heard a shot fired? As a
general rule 'fake' stories read more convincingly than genuine ones because the liar is naturally at great
pains to appear plausible. The 'impression' of a literary critic is the very least argument that ought to be
brought forward.
But we may go a little further than this. It may easily appear to some that the passage of which Mr. Shaw
makes so much is to be interpreted in a precisely opposite sense. Let us quote it in full. (John XXI, 21 to
23) Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he
tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. It is at least possible to interpret this passage as an
attempt to avoid the very consequences which Mr. Shaw fears. I therefore assume as a matter of common
sense that, interpolations apart, the gospels are derived from narratives written in the first century A.D. I
include John, because though it may be claimed that he hedged his position by claiming that Christ, who
specially {71} loved him, endowed him with a miraculous life until the Second Coming, the conclusion
being that John is live at this moment, I cannot believe that a literary forger could hope to save the
situation by so outrageous a pretension.
It may appear to some that all this is beating the air. Let us put up a perfectly simple and natural scene and
look whether this is not almost inevitable. The scene is laid, let us suppose, in one of the Seven Churches
that are in Asia, probably Ephesus. A fishing boat has come in from Patmos, and one of the sailors, who
is a Christian, comes to the house of the 'angel' of the church, stupefied and heartbroken. I bring the most
terrible news, he says to the 'angel'. John is dead; and Christ has not yet returned! All present are
thunderstruck. Jesus has not fulfilled his promise. The whole of their faith has broken away from under
them. It is a spiritual earthquake. Falsus in uno, falsus in omni. The entire theory of Christianity has
broken down. The hope in which they have all been living, for the sake of which they have endured
ostracism and even martyrdom, is annihilated with a single blow. Fortunately there is a young man
present, who in his worldly life has been trained by the sophists in the School of Retoric. Be of good
cheer, Brethren, he exclaims. Jesus never said that John would tarry until he came again. Jesus said not
unto him; 'he shall not die' but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Much virtue in If! The
Brethren immediately cheer up. Instructions are given that the matter be explained on these lines to the
whole church, and all goes merrily as before. Is not this an adequate explanation?{72}
Agree with the paleographers that John is a composite document of late date, and all the difficulty
disappears. On the other hand, what adversary is there but Mr. Shaw's 'hunch' that the gospel was written
by an eyewitness?
Not but that Mr. Shaw at his initiation was taught to be cautious! I therefore assume as a matter of
common sense that, interpolations apart, the gospels are derived from narratives written in the first century
A.D. Remove the interpolations, which may mean removing nearly everything, and it remains 'common
sense' to suppose that there was some sort of contemporary document used in the compilation.
Let us do the same thing with 'Macbeth'. Macbeth and Banquo must obviously be discarded because they
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]