← Table of contents
The Historical Jesus

Chapter IX · BLASS AND FLINDERS PETRIE

Reading edition

A very interesting attempt to bring the synoptic problem to a new critical test has latterly been made by Dr. Flinders Petrie in his work, The Growth of the Gospels as shown by Structural Criticism (1910). His starting point is the likelihood that logia, analogous to the non-canonical fragments discovered in recent years, were the original material from which the Gospels were built up. The hypothesis is prima facie quite legitimate, there being nothing to repel it. As he contends, there is now evidence that writing was in much more common use in some periods of antiquity than scholars had formerly supposed; and scraps of writing by non-scholarly persons, he argues, may have been widely current in the environment with which we are concerned. All the while he is founding on data from the Egypt of the third century for a Palestinian environment of the first; and he is obliged to stress the point that Matthew the tax-gatherer was a “professional scribe,” while his argument runs that Matthew used the detached jottings of other people, not his own. But let us follow out his thesis:—

It is not quite clear whether Dr. Petrie meant here to claim not only that the so-called Logia Iesou published in 1897 and 1904 are anterior to and independent of the Gospels (though found only in third-century MSS.), but that they are on the same footing of credibility with the Gospels. This, however, seems inevitably to follow from his position, though it appears to suggest to him no difficulty about the general historicity of the Gospel story, which he too takes for granted. Let us then note the problems raised.

Let us premise that scientific criticism, which has no concern with Unitarian predilections, stands quite impartially towards the question of Gospel dates. The modern tendency to carry down those dates, either for the whole or for any parts of the Gospels, towards or into the second century, is originally part of the general “liberal” inclination to put a Man in place of a God, though some believers in the God acquiesce as to the lateness of the act of writing. Those who have carried on the movement have always presupposed the general historicity of the Teacher, and have been concerned, however unconsciously, to find a historical solution which saved that presupposition. The rational critic, making only the naturalist presupposition, is committed to no set of documentary dates. And he is not at all committed to the denial that an inductive historic prediction, as distinguished from a supernaturalist prophecy, may be made and fulfilled. Many have been. Much has been said of the “marvellous prescience” of Burke in predicting that the anarchy of the French Revolution would end in a tyranny. He was in fact merely inferring, as he well might, that what had happened in the history of ancient Rome and in the history of England would happen in France. By a similar historical method several French and other writers in the eighteenth century reached the forecast of the revolt of the American colonies from Britain without getting any credit for divine inspiration. And so, perhaps, might Savonarola at the end of the fifteenth century predict a sack of Rome, and a Jew in the first century a sack of Jerusalem.

Villari nevertheless is satisfied of it on internal grounds, and we may accept his estimate. The main allegation is that in 1494 Savonarola, who had for years been preaching that national sin would elicit divine chastisement,

in those Lenten discourses, and also in some others, foretold the coming of a new Cyrus, who would march through Italy in triumph, without encountering any obstacles, and without breaking a single lance. We find numerous records of these predictions, and the terrors excited by them, in the historians and biographers of the period; and Fra Benedetto reports his master’s words in the following verses [thus literally translated]:—

Soon shalt thou see each tyrant overthrown,

And all Italy shalt thou see vanquished,

To her shame, disgrace, and harm.

Thou, Rome, shalt soon be captured:

I see the blade of wrath come upon thee;

The time is short, each day flies past:

My Lord will renovate the Church,

And convert every barbarian people.

There will be but one fold and one shepherd.

But first Italy will have to mourn,

And so much of her blood will be shed

That her people shall everywhere be thinned.

Notes in this chapter

Note 1 · Work cited, p. 7. ↑Note 2 · Put in the Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1896, p. 964 sq.; and Philology of the Gospels, 1898, pp. 41–43. Professor Blass has worked this argNote 3 · Villari, Life of Savonarola, Eng. trans. 1-vol. ed. p. 185. ↑Note 4 · Herbert Lucas, S.J., Fra Girolamo Savonarola, 2nd ed. 1906, p. 116. Father Lucas does not deny that such a sermon might possibly have been pNote 5 · Life of Savonarola, as cited, p. 186. ↑Note 6 · Villari, p. 214. ↑Note 7 · See the investigation of Father Lucas, pp. 114–18. ↑Note 8 · I had written this, and the confutation of Villari, before reading the work of Father Lucas. ↑Note 9 · As cited, p. 189. Father Lucas comments more mildly on the misstatement; but it is really a grave departure from historical truth. ↑Note 10 · Cp. Lucas, p. 117 note. ↑Note 11 · Lucas, p. 129 note. ↑Note 12 · This, again, he might well expect, as he avows that he had correspondents in Germany who applauded his attitude towards the Papacy. Villari,Note 13 · Villari, pp. 411–13. Cp. Perrens’s Jérome Savonarole, 1854, ii, 88 sq., 95 sq.; Lucas, p. 201. ↑Note 14 · Manifesto A tutti li Christiani; Lucas, p. 236. ↑Note 15 · Id. p. 256. ↑Note 16 · Id. p. 278. ↑Note 17 · Lucas, p. 70. ↑Note 18 · We cannot doubt [writes Dr. Petrie] that such was the course of growth when we look at the logia. Those collections of brief sayings could hNote 19 · A main feature of Dr. Petrie’s inquiry is that, following Professor Blass, he insists on making the predictions of the fall of Jerusalem parNote 20 · But let us see what Savonarola actually did. He was, so to speak, a professional prophet, and while he predicted not only a sack of Rome butNote 21 · as to have lost almost every characteristic of Savonarola’s style. Their reporter, unable to keep pace with the preacher’s words, only jotteNote 22 · Here there is obvious confusion, apart from the fact that the predicted regeneration and unification of the church never took place. The invNote 23 · To predict the invasion of Italy by Charles VIII of France in Lent of 1494, or even late in 1493, was easy enough.8 The invasion had been fuNote 24 · The fact remains that the invasion was not resisted, and that Rome was “captured” in the sense of being entered by Charles, who did no militNote 25 · It was before the coming of Maximilian12 that Savonarola resumed his prophecy of the coming scourge in a series of sermons, in one of which Note 26 · On the latter head he had abundant reason for his forecast. On the former it is very certain that he was not thinking of something that was Note 27 · Yet again, in 1498, he claims in a sermon that “a part has come to pass,” noting that “in Rome one has lost a son”—a reference to the murderNote 28 · Within two years Savonarola had been put to death, after many tortures; and Alexander died in 1503 (not by poison, as the tradition goes) wiNote 29 · Our business, of course, is not to expose the prophetic miscarriages of Savonarola, but simply to make clear what manner of thing his prophe
Explore with AITake your curiosity a little further.

Reading settings