Archive for category John
Paul N. Anderson – Johannine Studies and the Historical Jesus
Many congregations simply hand out John-Romans as tracts (which I find a bit incomprehensible, but…) focusing on the recognizable deity of Christ found in John and the Gospel of Grace demanded in Romans. For a very long time, the Gospel of John has been seen as a work which couldn’t contribute to the History Jesus (although, I reckon, to the Christ of Faith). It is, as many of the early readers of the Gospel said, a ‘spiritual Gospel’. Easily seen the differences between John and the Synoptic. In the essay recently published on the Bible and Interpretation site, Anderson argues that the Gospel should still be used as Johannine lens is demanded by critical concerns, regardless of what the outcome might be.
Think of it! What would happen if the National Geographic Channel ran a special on a recently discovered gospel text from the late first century, which was different from the Synoptics but also developed an alternative rendering of Jesus and his ministry? If the third-century Gospel of Judas created a stir, with virtually no historical-Jesus tradition within it, imagine what sort of a ruckus would emerge if John were taken seriously as an independent Jesus tradition, differing from the Markan gospels with at least some knowing intentionality. That’s what I believe will happen if the Fourth Gospel’s historical features come out from being eclipsed by its theological ones.
Read the rest here,
The Bible and Interpretation.
And then, when you do, check out Dr. McGrath’s take, as he has done more than considerable work in this field.
I have to admit, John is a favorite among the Four Gospels for me, right next to Matthew, Mark and Luke, and in no particular order either.
Larry Hurtado has a piece up, which sort of fits into this discussion.
Thoughts on Rhetoric and Theology, Figural Reading of John 9, William M. Wright (2)
Posted by Joel in Book Review, John on July 6, 2010
This is a multi-part series, taking each section at a time. Some of my conclusions will no doubt change as I get deeper into the book. I will post the final review at my other site when it is complete.
Click to Order
While I cannot readily critique Martyn’s theory, as it would be difficult to do while reading his work and that much more so reading only a brief synopsis, Wright’s work is shaping up to provide a self-contained rebuttal. After his first chapter, in which he lays out, crudely, Martyn’s attempt at contextualizing John’s Gospel, the author moves into the second chapter by reframing allegory as a figural reading. He is correct, that the one large gulf between the Alexandrian school of interpretation and the Antiochian method is closer now, he doesn’t make use of it to buffet Martyn, but uses it to move forward to criticizing the move away from allegorical interpretations of modern theologians.
After analyzing, crudely, Augustine’s method of interpreting Scripture, which is the highlight of the first two chapters, Wright concludes,
To be sure, the reading strategies of Martyn and Augustine are not identical, and they do differ in some key respects. (emphasis mine, p92)
The some differences (p93) which Wright correctly highlights are hardly ‘some’, as Martyn and Augustine are going in different directions. Martyn is attempting to find the Sitz im Leben while Augustine is looking for a modern application. Augustine is doing theology, Martyn resides in the biblical studies framework. They only thing which units both Augustine and Martyn is both authors, instead of relying on the literal sense of the text, seeks to expand the meaning based on (perceived, in Martyn’s case) application. By not allowing Martyn’s work to remain within the older author’s setting, Wright is not only theologizing John 9 but Martyn as well. While Write is correct that a two-level reading of the Gospel is figural, Martyn was not attempting to read it figuratively, only to show that the first audience understood it to be so. Wright eventually acknowledges that Martyn may be incorrect (p96), but, as his work is shaping up to be, reframes Martyn’s previous reframing of John’s Gospel as a two-level reading as a theological allowance in the footsteps of Augustine, Chrysostom and others to be examined in the next chapter.
Thoughts on Rhetoric and Theology, Figural Reading of John 9, William M. Wright (1)
Posted by Joel in Book Review, John on June 28, 2010
This is a multi-part series, taking each section at a time. Some of my conclusions will no doubt change as I get deeper into the book.I will post the final review at my other site when it is complete.
Click to Order
William M. Wright’s book, Rhetoric and Theology, Figural Reading of John 9, attempts to view the scene contained within the said chapter as a two level drama, based in two points of history, both on an action by Christ and, primarily, on the action of the community, later excommunicated from the synagogue.
Wright introduces Martyn’s groundbreaking reading, that the Gospel of John is an allegorical reading focused on the community rather than the historical Christ, as authoritative and while the author does this well, he fails to give Martyn’s reasoning which is detrimental to Martyn as Wright examines the view’s critique.
Wright, in trying to decipher a proper understanding of allegory, in support of Martyn against the allegorical critique of his opponents, uses three sources which only aides the opponents – Cornutus, Heraclitus, and Dante (p48). Martyn’s opponents, as Wright points out, criticizes the theologian on the grounds that his theology is more 20th century than 1st century, in that it appears that Martyn’s hypothesis was developed in the radical change in society away from the harsh views of the past, and in doing so attempted to make the Gospel of John, seen as an anti-Semitic diatribe, more palatable to academic studies (p40). However, but using Cornutus and Heraclitus who both saw Homer as allegorical, but in different respects, can to conclusion on the ancient poet and his intentions which not surprisingly suited their own positions. With Dante, Wright makes the error of using the 14th century Italian poet to build to a definition of allegory. In doing so, Wright solidifies Martyn’s critical opponents by showing that interpretation of ancients texts is more often than not politically motivated.
While the author has a solid hand on the critiques of Martyn’s position, he doesn’t do so in support of it, which is odd given that he is intimately familiar with the allegorical position and supports it. While he lists Martyn’s influences on such side studies as contextual, historical, social oriented, and literary critical studies, he provides very little in the way of those who agree, even in a round about way such as Dr. Maurice Casey and Dr. James McGrath. If his intent was only to set himself apart while standing upon Martyn’s theory by offering both support and critique, Wright only accomplishes this haphazardly to the rest of his theory. He may have helped his case, and thus Martyn’s, had he rather used Clement of Alexandria, and other notable 2nd and 3rd century Christian philosophers who regularly made use of allegory instead of criticizing the Reformers for their break with the medieval trend of Catholic theologians (he notes that the celebrated Erasmus preferred allegory to that of Luther and Calvin’s literalism, p53).
His goal, stated in the conclusion to the first part, is to answer modern critiques to Martyn’s hypothesis, which itself is a modern invention, that it and thus John 9 can be taken in a variety of ways, including allegory, if, seemingly, allegory is redefined to allow Martyn’s theory to be seen as such.
A Figural Reading of John 9?
Currently, I am reading a book which explores a figural, rather than allegorical reading of the 9th chapter of John. It is a form of rhetorical criticism, as opposed to other criticisms – such as narrative, which (I think) explores of what what is being said and left unsaid than the community which is speaking. Modern critical scholarship places John very post-70ce, as a Gentile (or more Gentile than Jewish) response to expulsion from the synagogue.
Anyone who has spent time reading the Gospels, comparatively, should be able to accept that John stands apart from the other three. The other three are more ‘earthly’ while John is more ‘spiritual.’ Commentators since the beginning of Christian exegesis have noted the stark differences and come up with interesting ways of describing the union with the other gospels but the uniqueness of itself. I’ll most likely get into that later. (Two books you may want to check out are by Dr. Maurice Casey and Dr. James McGrath)
Today, I just wanted to post John 9 to solicit opinions about what either the author is trying to say, what you think a community such as that listed above may be trying to say, and more especially, just to discuss a favorite gospel (John is one of my four favorite gospels).
As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. “Rabbi,” his disciples asked him, “why was this man born blind? Was it because of his own sins or his parents’ sins?”
“It was not because of his sins or his parents’ sins,” Jesus answered. “This happened so the power of God could be seen in him. We must quickly carry out the tasks assigned us by the one who sent us. The night is coming, and then no one can work. But while I am here in the world, I am the light of the world.”
Then he spit on the ground, made mud with the saliva, and spread the mud over the blind man’s eyes. He told him, “Go wash yourself in the pool of Siloam” (Siloam means “sent”). So the man went and washed and came back seeing! His neighbors and others who knew him as a blind beggar asked each other, “Isn’t this the man who used to sit and beg?”
Some said he was, and others said, “No, he just looks like him!” But the beggar kept saying, “Yes, I am the same one!” They asked, “Who healed you? What happened?” He told them, “The man they call Jesus made mud and spread it over my eyes and told me, ‘Go to the pool of Siloam and wash yourself.’ So I went and washed, and now I can see!”
“Where is he now?” they asked.”I don’t know,” he replied. Then they took the man who had been blind to the Pharisees, because it was on the Sabbath that Jesus had made the mud and healed him. The Pharisees asked the man all about it. So he told them, “He put the mud over my eyes, and when I washed it away, I could see!”
Some of the Pharisees said, “This man Jesus is not from God, for he is working on the Sabbath.” Others said, “But how could an ordinary sinner do such miraculous signs?” So there was a deep division of opinion among them. Then the Pharisees again questioned the man who had been blind and demanded, “What’s your opinion about this man who healed you?” The man replied, “I think he must be a prophet.” The Jewish leaders still refused to believe the man had been blind and could now see, so they called in his parents.
They asked them, “Is this your son? Was he born blind? If so, how can he now see?” His parents replied, “We know this is our son and that he was born blind, but we don’t know how he can see or who healed him. Ask him. He is old enough to speak for himself.” His parents said this because they were afraid of the Jewish leaders, who had announced that anyone saying Jesus was the Messiah would be expelled from the synagogue.
That’s why they said, “He is old enough. Ask him.” So for the second time they called in the man who had been blind and told him, “God should get the glory for this, because we know this man Jesus is a sinner.”
“I don’t know whether he is a sinner,” the man replied. “But I know this: I was blind, and now I can see!”
“But what did he do?” they asked. “How did he heal you?”
“Look!” the man exclaimed. “I told you once. Didn’t you listen? Why do you want to hear it again? Do you want to become his disciples, too?” Then they cursed him and said, “You are his disciple, but we are disciples of Moses! We know God spoke to Moses, but we don’t even know where this man comes from.”
“Why, that’s very strange!” the man replied. “He healed my eyes, and yet you don’t know where he comes from? We know that God doesn’t listen to sinners, but he is ready to hear those who worship him and do his will. Ever since the world began, no one has been able to open the eyes of someone born blind. If this man were not from God, he couldn’t have done it.”
“You were born a total sinner!” they answered. “Are you trying to teach us?” And they threw him out of the synagogue. When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and asked, “Do you believe in the Son of Man? ” The man answered, “Who is he, sir? I want to believe in him.”
“You have seen him,” Jesus said, “and he is speaking to you!”
“Yes, Lord, I believe!” the man said. And he worshiped Jesus.
Then Jesus told him, “I entered this world to render judgment- to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.” Some Pharisees who were standing nearby heard him and asked, “Are you saying we’re blind?”
“If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty,” Jesus replied. “But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.
Review: Opening John’s Gospel and Epistles
Posted by Joel in Book Review, John on June 7, 2010
Written by Philip W. Comfort and Wendell C. Hawley initially as two separate works, one devoted to the Gospel of John and the other to the Epistles (In Tyndale’s Cornerstone Commentary series), Tyndale as republished the works together, allowing the reader access to Johannine
Theology. They are conservative, but not stodgy or predictable; evangelical, but not light weight. Written to any reader, the commentary covers a wide range of points, including textual criticism as well as the often unspoken canonical history.
The entire work begins with a thorough introduction, not only to the commentary, but to John as well. The authors highlight commonly used words, giving an entry worthy of a lexicon. Each section begins with an Exposition, which summarizes and highlights important points, highlights key words and phrases, and ends with an examination, line by line examination of the passage under scrutiny. They are highly respectful of the text and tradition, but not to the point of merely rehashing what other commentators have said throughout the centuries.
They recognize and speak to current criticism over authorship and initial audience. They arrive at a conservative viewpoint. Their notes are not highly scholarly, forgoing the use of Greek generally, trying to bring, what the title implies, an opening to what of the New Testament’s much debated Gospels. In doing so, they do not diminish the depth and breadth of the Gospel. While engaging the Church Fathers, they don’t take them as the end of the conversation, such as in 19.9-11 where the authors highlight the text over the conclusions drawn by Augustine and Chrysostom. Some of their conclusions are those that I have not been introduced to, such as their explanation of John 14.1-4. While using the NLT for John’s Epistles (which is what the Cornerstone Commentary is based upon), they aren’t hesitant about suggesting a different reading, such as in 1st John 4.20.
This commentary should be made use of in personal studying, no doubt, but so too in group settings. A bibliography is provided for further reading, as is a listing of Greek manuscripts. It is important to study the Gospel of John, for no less reason than it is the single work written to prove the deity of Christ. It is a testament to an early community’s contention that Christ was no mere mortal, prophet or teacher, but that He was the ‘I Am.’ Comfort and Hawley do not disappoint in opening John’s work to this understanding.
You may find another review here.
John’s Jesus’ Violent Path to Non-Violence
John’s prologue begins by telling us of the Logos which was with God in the beginning, of the violence of creation (bringing order to Chaos), the passivity of the light shining and the violent reaction of darkness to that light. Winding the literary path to John the Baptizer, John writes of massive tale of the Word Become Flesh which came to earth unknown but attempted to make Himself known. We are finally introduced to this Light of the World as the Lamb of God which had come to take away the sins of the world. Suddenly, the man had disciples and we find him attending a wedding feast, sitting in a corner. It was after that wedding that Jesus attended the Passover Celebration at the Temple (John 2.13-17).
During this celebration, this man who claimed to be the Son of God, made a whip out of some ropes and proceeded to demonstrate the holiness of His Father’s Temple. He met the merchants who were abusing the Temple worshipers with violence and anger, citing Scripture:
His disciples remembered that it was written, “ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.” John 2:17 NASB
Then his disciples remembered this prophecy from the Scriptures: “Passion for God’s house will consume me.” John 2:17 NLT
Quoting Psalm 69.9, we find that the thought contained therein is not a good one, but one in which the speaker is undone, losing his family and the respect of his compatriots because of his zeal for God. Immediately, John’s Jesus issues the challenge to the Jewish leaders to kill him, telling them that he could do what no man, or even God, had done, and that was to rebuild the destroyed temple in three days. John later interprets Jesus to mean that he was speaking about his death, burial and resurrection. (John 2.18-25) But, to Jesus had challenged them to destroy the temple, rather, to kill him in order to prove that he could return.
We then find him meeting with a Jewish leader in the dark, hiding the conversation from both the Romans and the Jews, a conversation which again promotes the idea that Jesus must die for the world to be healed. The Jewish leader knew the vileness of humanity, surely, and had to have understood John’s Jesus as saying that just as the bronze serpent was strapped to a pole and lifted up for the world to see, so too must Jesus. Only crucifixion could accomplish this. And while you may live a bit on the stake, it was expected that one couldn’t do so for long.
Then, after a crowd had gathered on the shore, looking for Jesus. The disciples finding him, was confronted with the fact that Jesus was disheartened with them. Telling them that they needed to look for more than just miracles, he said that he was the bread of life, which like the Temple Bread, was broken and sacrificed. He must be considered the same way. He gives what we would understand as an eucharistic sermon, describing his body and blood as something once broken and spilled, could restore (John 6.22-59).
During another Jewish feast, Jesus – in the middle of a controversy of just who he really was – went up to the Temple (John 7.1-15) and begin to openly preach, telling them among other things, that people were trying to kill him (John 7.19-20). Later, he began to preach that he was greater than Moses and Abraham and that the Jewish leaders in the crowd were no better than the Gentiles. Pressing the issue was no problem for John’s Jesus, until the Pharisees started to pick up stones (John 8.58-59). He was hidden, but during the Festival of Lights, he was confronted again, when he began to speak of his divine heritage. The Jewish leaders corned him, picking up stones, was confronted themselves with the idea that the Jewish believed in a sort of divine council. The arrest and murder plot had failed (John 10.22-42).
Another plot nearly came to fruition when John’s Jesus healed Lazarus. (John 11.45-57) This time, however, the High Priest knew that it might become necessary to have Jesus killed to satisfy the Roman authorities, no doubt to prevent a power struggle from happening again between the Pharisees and the Sadducees. When he found this out, Jesus stopped his public ministry (John 11.54). Later, privately, Jesus said that in order for the Kingdom of God to come, he must depart, meaning to die, that his death would produce life for all. Finally, what Jesus had asked for was going to be given to him.
He was arrested and brought before Pilate (John 18.28-40). He had pushed the Jews and the Romans into a frenzy. He had reacted violently to the merchants in the Temple, his Father’s Temple, beating them and destroying their booths. This no doubt upset the tax collectors and the Temple authorities. He had challenged the authority of the Pharisees, and pushed away the crowds and his disciples. Further, nearly everywhere he went, he begged for death by promising that his death would bring about victory. Now, he had his moment to bring everything to a head, to force violence to usher in the Kingdom, but he refused to do so. Matthew’s Jesus had said that the Kingdom of God need to be taken by violent men (Matthew 11.12) but John’s Jesus refused to order his disciples into action, instead merely commenting that his kingdom was not earthly, so there was no need to fight. He also taunted Pilate that his powerless was meaningless in the face of the Son of God, unless God gave that power.
God did. And Jesus died. Violently. As He had sometimes lived.
Was Judas The Beloved Disciple?
I’ve flirted with Judas as well, but this? Of course, some think that it is Lazarus:
The Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic gospel purported to document conversations between the apostle Judas Iscariot and Jesus Christ. The document is not claimed to have been written by Judas himself, but rather by Gnostic followers of Jesus. It exists in an early fourth-century Coptic text, though it has been proposed, but not proven, that the text is a translation of an earlier Greek version. The Gospel of Judas is probably from no earlier than the second century, since it contains theology that is not represented before the second half of the second century, and since its introduction and epilogue assume the reader is familiar with the canonical Gospels. The oldest Coptic document has been carbon dated to AD 280, plus or minus 50 years.
Read the rest here:
