LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR] THE GOSPELS RE-READ [To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR] SR,—Professor Joad in his article in your paper may have re-read the Gospels, but I am inclined to doubt if he has really marked and inwardly digested them. As one who has escaped out of darkness into the sunlight, he seems to regard with a withering contempt the Church and all its works, what- ever that may mean, and, like most pious agnostics, he pro- ceeds to patronise the Founder of the Christian faith. He then goes on to criticise the sayings and doings of Jesus Christ as contained in the Synoptic Gospels ; of these sayings and doings the Professor gives us a new impression divorced from theology and related to the twentieth century.
Whether it is possible to divorce the person of Christ from theology is extremely doubtful. But in any case I should like to be permitted to make a short answer to his criticisms.
First, Professor Joad finds fault with the naively episodic character of the Gospel record—most of us imagined that this was one of the special beauties of this narrative ; it represents the way in which people used to write in those days, and we have to remember that the Gospels were simple, unvarnished records compiled by plain, liberal-minded men, or, at any rate, based on their notes and other memoirs of Christ's life. We should hardly look for systematic biographies such as we possess in this twentieth century, and would even regard such with natural suspicion as the product of a later age.
Professor Joad finds the sayings of Jesus cryptic and mean- ingless. I am not surprised at this. If we want to understand them we need to remember (r) that Jesus spoke as an Oriental teacher in proverbs or parables, and (2) He often insisted (e.g., Matt. xiii, 13) that only those can understand who have the vision to see, i.e., faith. The parabolic method implies the use of irony, deliberate hyberbole, glaring contrasts. Proverbs, says Dr. Gore, are principles stated in extremes often requiring to be balanced by their seeming contraries—such sayings are complementary, not contradictory.
Many of the sayings which puzzle Professor Joad can be explained in this way, e.g., His command to His disciples to provide themseles with swords or to buy ones are plainly not literal, but ironical. The parable of the Unjust Steward is certainly a difficult one, and the ordinary explanations of the commentators seem only to add to the difficulties.
I am inclined to think that the parable was mainly addressed to the Disciples, and particularly to Judas Iscariot, who held the bag, and that Jesus was speaking ironically when He told them to make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness. This was exactly what Judas was doing in making use of his privileged position of trust to secure an advantage for himself. But in his way he had shown greater acumen than the rest of the Disciples in the pursuit of his worldly interest than they had in that of their spiritual interest. But it is useless to practise the principle of accommodation in spiritual matters— we cannot serve God and mammon.
Professor Joad's objection to the statement that God will take care of those who trust in Him seems to me to be childish. Jesus Christ is speaking in parables, which are not exact and logical statements. He is seeking to establish faith in his hearers, and, after all, those who act on Christian principles will not generally suffer for want of food and drink.
In regard to Christ's statement about the immediacy of the end of the world, this is a well-known difficulty. The usual explanation is that His knowledge was limited by His true manhood. We may say also that our Lord did come again in the person of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by the marvels of Pentecost.
In regard to the character of Jesus, I cannot give serious weight to Professor Joad's assertion. The picture of the meek and mild Jesus is not warranted by the Gospels nor approved by thinking Christians: it is the creation largely of sentimental hymn-writers. Jesus was certainly gentle and tolerant, but could be severe and undeniably stem toward pretenders and blasphemers like the Pharisees. Mr. Joad is wrong in saying
that when the people asked Him for a sign He called them a generation of vipers. He called the Pharisees vipers because they turned good into evil and evil into good, attributing His beneficent work to the influence of Satan. Surely this asser- tion was a proof of the poisonous spirit of these men (Matt. xii, 31). Mr. Joad finds fault with Jesus for promising a reward to His hearers for believing His word, and for threaten- ing penalties against unbelievers. But, as Dr. Gore says, we cannot separate love of God from a desire to find our happi- ness in God. All depends on what reward we are seeking. It is certain that Jesus taught eternal or aeonian punishment, and it is also certain that whatsoever a man soweth that shall he reap.
Professor Joad finally complains that Jesus never or hardly ever practised the virtue of loving. Surely His whole life was a demonstration of the love of others and of devoted service on their behalf. Mr. Joad's complaint of His harsh- ness to His mother is no doubt chiefly derived from the Gospel of St. John ii., 4, of which the correct rendering is : Lady, what is there between Me and thee. When Jesus bids His followers to hate their relations He is again using the language of Eastern hyperbole. We should speak of the duty of put- ting God in the first place in cur hearts.
Might I say, finally, that a good modern translation of the Gospels, such as Moffatt or Weymouth, would save Mr. Joad from many mistakes and misunderstandings. But I have made this letter already too long.—Yours faithfully,
Previous page
