Religion
Eye witness
Martin Sullivan
It has been the business of Biblical scholars to help us to examine in detail the narrative which is before us and tease out its separate elements. A good illustration is to hand in St Mark's Gospel. One school of thought suggests that the author was Peter's interpreter, who, taking what the apostle remembered, wrote it down, and in effect produced an account of Christ's preaching and teaching as it came direct from one who heard and witnessed for himself. In recent years this theory has been severely criticised and an alternative view has been advanced. The suggestion is made that the Gospel material 'bears all the signs of having been community tradition' and cannot, therefore, be derived from St Peter or rely on the evidence of any eye-witness.
If this be true, are we then to believe that there are no ipsissima verba of Jesus available to us? As we read the Parables or the Sermon on the Mount are we sitting at the feet of Christ or are we studying discourses modified by early community debates or influenced by the liturgical needs and practices of the early church? Moderate opinion would incline to the view that both schools of thought are right. But, without notes or transcript or tapes, is it possible for people to remember and retain accurately what they hear? I believe it is, on certain occasions, but that such moments are special and rare. It is only the odd brilliant flash which floods the mind with light and leaves an indelible impression. Whether we can locate such passages in the New Testamant with certainty no one can say, but the probability of their existence cannot be ruled out. I say this with some assurance for two reasons. In the first century people relied greatly on memory and the oral tradition was an important part of their historical knowledge. Furthermore, for what it is worth, I, for one, and I am sure there are many like me, retain verbatim the utterances of teachers and preachers many years after I had heard the original discourses. As evidence I take leave to reproduce one such; I took no notes at the time or later, but after a lapse of several years I wrote down what I had heard, sent it to the preacher to whom I had been listening. He checked it with his manuscript and declared it to be exact. He had been dealing with the visit of Peter and John to the Temple, and of their healing of a lame man. (Acts
vv 1-7). Suddenly in the midst of a somewhat pedestrian passage, this is what he said: "Thirty years ago, when I was assistant curate and in deacon's orders, I went out, one afternoon to do some parochial visiting. I began at 2 pm and called on several homes. I knocked at doors and was not answered, had some shut in my 'face, met a few people and found generally that nobody seemed to want what I had to offer. I finished about 5 pm and went back to the church, tired and unhappy and dispirited and disappointed. As I stood in the vestry of the church, I heard a noise at the west door. In those days, the vestry was divided from the nave by a thin three-ply partition, in the corner of which the choir boys had bored a hole, after the manner of their kind. I applied my eye to the hole in the wall and saw two elderly men, both regular parishioners, come into the church and walk up the aisle. They sat down in the front seat and then knelt to pray. The elder prayed out aloud. He prayed for the Vicar, by name, for his ministry and his work; for the sick and lonely in the parish, for the careless and fallen; and then he prayed for me, that, as I was beginning my ministry, I should not too early feel dispirited or despondent. Then he ceased and together the two old men, one supporting the other, got up and went down the nave. Suddenly they stopped and the elder spoke again and said, 'Well, Peter and John have been up to the Temple again' to pray, but there was no lame man to heal.' 'Oh, yes there was,' said the preacher. 'A young one, with his eye to the hole in the wall!'"
That is a passage worth remembering. I testify it has been.
Previous page
