Introduction
This essay aims to examine the Synoptic problem. We begin by defining the problem, and looking at some of the evidence for the peculiarities that exist among the Synoptic Gospels. Flowing on from this we look at the development of the problem in church history, as well as the major theoretical approaches to its solution.
The search for the best solution is analogous to solving a crime. While the objective is clear, the evidence at times may point down two very different paths. The one may place emphasis on witness and testimony of people close to the case; the second may be primarily concerned with forensic evidence. As time progresses and further evidence is uncovered, new light is shed and the existing evidence reexamined and reweighted.
We conclude by giving our assessment of which solution fits the evidence best and offer some grounds upon which such a judgment has been made.
The Nature of the Synoptic problem
The synoptic problem refers to the similarities found in the three Gospels; Matthew, Mark and Luke. Much of Mark is reproduced in the other two, and there is a high degree of agreement between the three when it comes to the order of events and how they are presented, including the wording and quotations used.
“Now to be sure, the Gospels must not be forced, anachronistically, to measure up to conventions for writing history or biography. Instead they must be evaluated by the standards of their day.”
Solving the Synoptic problem has proved something akin in theological circles to untying the Gordian knot. At the heart of Synoptic problem lies the issue of primacy. How did the Gospels come to be written? Which gospel came first?
The need for clarity became all the more apparent after the production of a Gospel synopsis. . This highlighted the close relationship between the Gospels. Sanders and Davies state;
“Matthew Mark and Luke are remarkably alike. There are examples from medieval literature of works which agree as closely, but from ancient literature no other examples of such close similarity are known.”
“Only 30 verses in Mark lack a parallel in Matthew or Luke.”
The very fact that there are four Gospels begs the question; “How do we account for both the similarities and the differences between them?”
Figure 1
Comparing the Gospels: Similarities and Differences
Gospel Peculiarities Coincidences
Mark 7% 93%
Matthew 4% 58%
Luke 59% 41%
John 92% 8%
Figure one gives rough percentages of the similarities and peculiarities of each Gospel. At the two extremes are the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Mark, with Matthew and Luke sharing more of the middle ground.
As to Chronology Luke deviates from the chronology of Mark only four times, while Matthew diverts from Marks order only in a “twofold way”
A brief history of the problem
Early exploration: Origen, Papias and Augustine
The testimony of the early church fathers is one of the keenest sources of academic discussion, with theologians giving either more or less weight to their role.
Origen, the first to truly confront the full weight of the synoptic problem adds two noteworthy comments relevant to this discussion. He maintains that Matthew was written first and that Mark was written second as a record of the Simon Peter’s experiences.
Carmignac, one of those responsible for the translation of the Dead Sea scrolls states of Origen;
“We cannot absolutely reject a tradition so ancient (from the time of the hearers of the Apostles), so stable (no discordant voice) and so universal (from the Indies to Gaul).”
As Carmignac alluded to Origen was not alone in viewing Matthew as the first gospel written. Augustine was one of the first to be struck by the similarities as he attempted to produce a harmony of Gospel accounts.
They “are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John”
“However the evangelists may each have reported some matters which are not recorded by the others, it would be hard to prove that any question involving a real discrepancy arises out of these.”
Of Augustine Blomberg writes; “The priority of the Gospel of Matthew for Augustine seems to have been based at least as much on its greater popularity in the church, which in turn stemmed from its fuller accounts of Jesus’ teaching, than to any historical information he had about the order of writing.”
Yet another ancient source, “Papias states that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and regards his Gospel as based on the witness of Peter.” Papias is also quoted as saying that Marks primary concern was not chronological order. This links the Markan account directly with the Apostles, and bodes well for any theories which would place it as an early account. It also gives credence to the fact that both Matthew and Luke’s chronology varies slightly from Mark’s. (Luke 1:13)
Oral tradition
There are few theologians today who would not accept that there was a period of time in which stories of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection were spread by word of mouth, through the teaching of the apostles, and from discussions of the events of his life.(Mk 16:20,Matt 28:19)
Paul Barnett writes; “In response to the critical question, how do we span the forty or so years between Jesus and Mark’s written text? We note various theories of memorized oral transmission.”
Dunn argues that the prevailing emphasis on Q tends to limit and narrow the work being done in synoptic study, and argues for the merits of an oral based approach to reenergize Biblical scholarship.
Historically, and certainly in the middle ages, adherents to the oral tradition went a step further however and declared that the gospel accounts themselves were all independent accounts based solely on the oral tradition. Form criticism and later source criticism as well as a close analysis of Gospel synopses have shown this hypothesis to be false.
Modern Criticism
Following the Renaissance in Italy and the continued momentum of scientific discovery, the modern approach to the synoptic problem emphasized the literary interdependence of the Gospels upon each other.
“ that this parallelism , of varying degrees of closeness , must be accounted for by their literary interdependence is nowadays almost universally accepted by scholars.”
The Griesbach Hypothesis
The theory which gave Matthew priority, followed by Luke and then reduced by Mark was advocated by J.J. Griesbach in 1789, but “was first proposed by H. Owen in 1764.”
This theory has seen resurgence in more modern times through the eloquent argumentation of Farmer.
“He has maintained that when the evidence is set out against the background of a careful examination the text, together with a careful examination of internal structures, the proposition that the order of the gospels was Matthew-Luke-Mark becomes persuasive.”
The theory has as its advantage that it agrees with both tradition and early Church fathers. It also offers some explanation of the redundancies found in Mark’s account. It maintains that the redundancies are as a result of copying from more than one source, and leaving both descriptions in.
As a theory Griesbach’s hypothesis is the most serious contender of the prevailing two source hypothesis.
Ur-gospel
Lessing (1788) believed that the Gospels had originated from more primitive sources, which he called Urevangelum, which no longer exist He believed that a shorter version of this was used by Mark to write his Gospel. There is some evidence that Mark’s Gospel went through stages in its composition and later redaction.
Fragmentary Theory
Schleiermacher (1817) hypothesised that the disciples “had taken notes of Jesus’ words and deeds” these were collected together and collated and from these the Gospel accounts are to have arisen. Stein continues “This “fragmentary hypothesis” never received much support.”
It would not adequately explain the extent of collaboration among the Synoptics, nor account for their distinctives.
Holtzmann’s two source hypothesis
Holtzmann, picking up on work done by Weisse hypothesizes that Mark produces his Gospel from the eyewitness account of Simon Peter. The other synoptic evangelists then used Mark as the basis for their own accounts, together with a document which relates the teachings of Jesus. This hypothetical document was at first called “Quelle”, German for source, later abbreviated to Q.
At first impression, one is struck by the shortness of Marks Gospel. It contains significantly fewer verses than Luke or Mark, this alone tends to make one think that Marks gospel may have been the forerunner of the others.
Additionally when Matthew and Luke differ from Mark there is marked similarity between them. Redditt writes that while Mathew and Mark may differ from Luke, and Luke and Mark differ from Matthew, it is very rare if ever that Luke and Mathew differ against Mark. This lends itself to the suggestion that Mark is primary and the others secondary.
The very fact of Matthew and Luke agreeing against Mark has been seized upon by proponents of Griesbach, however Stein points out that there may be several explanations which would fit the evidence from a Markan perspective.
Mark’s Gospel, while being the shortest is noted for its detail, which is more what one would expect had one of the other Gospel accounts copied him
Mark’s gospel is notable for its poorer Greek. Scholars hypothesize that it is far more likely that Mark’s poorer Greek be changed than for the better Greek in Matthew and Luke than for them to have been copied and exchanged for the poorer Greek of Mark.
Weisse upon whom Holtzmann based much of his work stated; “The very Hebraisms of our gospel [of Mark] are...a tell-tale indication of his independence & originality. On the one hand, it is possible to label this characteristic as awkwardness and clumsiness.... On the other hand, ...[it] conveys the impression of a fresh naturalness and an unpretentious spontaneity, which distinguishes Mark's presentation most markedly from all other gospel accounts...”
This would also explain the lack of Mark’s characteristic redundancies appearing in the other two Gospels. Such errors are more likely to be removed than copied.
This “documentary theory, while plausible, has one or two weaknesses…One may say with regard to Q that no trace of this hypothetical document has ever been recovered. Even those who advocate the documentary hypothesis admit that it was not a Gospel.”
While acknowledging the skepticism some interpreters feel at working with reconstructed source documents such as Q, Benjamin Sommer argues that to not examine these documents is being disrespectful to the text.
The two source hypothesis was expanded by Streeter to include M for those documents unique to Matthew and L for those unique to Luke. It is seldom considered as anything more than an expansion “modification of the two source theory”. What Streeter’s “The four Gospels, a study of Origins” did accomplish was galvanize support for the two source theory.
The two source theory has received some criticism lately principally from two camps, those advocating the Griesbach hypothesis and those who are concerned that claims about Q have become “extravagant.”
Redaction Criticism
Redaction criticism is “the branch of study which seeks to identify earlier traditions in a writer’s text.”
The very fact that there are four Gospels begs the question; “How do we account for differences between them?” It is this question which drives redaction criticism.
Following a general (albeit not unanimous) consensus on the Markan priority of the two source hypothesis redaction criticism (redactiongeschichte) emerged. This focused primarily on the distinctives each evangelist brought to the text, how it was modified, what was included or excluded.
By its nature redaction criticism of the gospels is significantly influenced by the nuances of the synoptic debate. Guthrie draws attention to this when he states;
“The majority of work in this field has been conducted on the assumption that Matthew and Luke used Mark and Q…Yet recent questions about the validity of the theory of Markan priority must cast some doubts about the results of much redaction criticism.”
“The Gospels were seen as unsophisticated writings…but this perception changed with the rise of redaction criticism, which rediscovered the evangelists as theological interpreters of the Jesus tradition.”
Conclusion: The clearest solution
We began by examining the nature of the problem. Following this we have examined the course of the debate over the synoptic problem, beginning at early observations of the church fathers, and paying closer attention to modern theories concerning the formulation of the Gospel.We conclude now by asserting that the two source hypothesis, given the evidence, while the worst solution except for all the others that have been tried is the most credible.
“The two source hypothesis provides the best overall explanation for the relationships among the Synoptic Gospels.” Cason et al go on to caution that we should approach Holtzmann’s work as a working theory rather than a fait accompli. While there is broad agreement within theological circles concerning the two source hypothesis, there is by no means consensus.
“The foregoing considerations have been regarded by the great majority of scholars as sufficient to establish the theory. In fact it is generally treated as one assured result of criticism. Hypotheses regarding Matthew and Luke’s gospels almost invariably proceed from the assumption that both have used Mark as a source.”
Bultmann points to the influence of Wredes work on the messianic secret in Mark as proof that the optimism of the supposed unraveling of the synoptic problem can blind us to the rich tapestry of the gospel we are critiquing.
There is still much to be done, and caution in our approach to the scriptures is prudent. If we are to appreciate the scriptures as we study over it, we must recognize that we are simultaneously under it.
Bibliography
Alston, William. Historical criticism and the Synoptic Gospels. Scripture and hermeneutics series.Volume 4 Behind the Text; History and Biblical Interpretation. Ed Bartholemew, Craig, Evans, Stephen, Healy, Mary, Murray, Rae.(2003. Grand Rapids. Paternoster).
Augustine Harmony of the Gospels, Book 1 Chapter two http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1602102.htm accessed 04/10/2010
Augustine. Harmony of the Evangelists, Book IV, X.II quoted in Ewell, Walther and Yarbrough, Robert. Encountering the New Testament, A Historical and Theological Survey.(1998. Grand Rapids. Michigan. Baker.)
Barnett, Paul Finding the Historical Christ. (2009. Cambridge. Eerdmans) pg 107
Blomberg, Craig.The Historical Reliability of the Gospels.(1987 Leicester Inter-Varsity Press)
Bock, Darrell. Studying the Historical Jesus; a guide to sources and methods (Grand Rapids, Michigan. Apollos/Baker Academic.2002.)
Bultmann, Rudolf. History of the Synoptic Tradition. (1963 Peabody Massachusetts. Hendrickson Publishers)
Carmingnac, Jean. The Birth of the Synoptics.(1987. Chicago.Franciscan herald press) translated from the French La naisance des evangiles Synoptiques OEIL Paris by Wrenn, Michael.
Carson, D.A. Moo, Douglas and Morris, Leon An Introduction to the New Testament (Leicester, Apollos,1999)
Cross. A.R. Genres of the New Testament. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Ed Evans, Craig and Porter, Stanley. (2000. Downers Grove, Illinois. Inter-Varsity Press)
Dungan, David. A History of the Synoptic Problem; The canon, the text, the composition and the interpretation of the Gospels. ( 1999. New York. Random House)
Dungan, David. A History of the Synoptic Problem; The canon, the text, the composition and the interpretation of the Gospels. (1999. New York. Random House)
Dunn, James Altering the default setting: Re-envisaging the Early transmission of the Jesus Tradition New Testament Studies. (Volume 49. Number 2. April 2003. Cambridge University Press)
Enns, Paul.The Moody Hanbook of Theology, revised and expanded edition. (2008.Chicago. Moody publishers)
Farmer, William. The Synoptic Gospel. http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hdQqF-9hZ00C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=synoptic+problem&ots=hreW8PdYO-&sig=zoOKlTRu5XSHW6z2c_f14qbBu7s#v=onepage&q&f=false pg 2
Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction, revised edition. (1990. Downers Grove, Illinois Apollos.)
Kümmel, Werner. Introduction to the New Testament, revised edition. (1975 London. Abingdon press).
Reddit, Paul, Source Criticism Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible ed Vanhoozer, K. (2005 Grand rapids , Michigan Baker/SPCK)
Sanders, E. and Davies, Margaret. Studying the Synoptic Gospels. (1989.London SCM) pg 51.
Sommer, Benjamin.The source critic and the religious interpreter.(Interpretation, A journal of Bible and Theology. The ministry of Exegesis.Volume 60. Number 1. January 2006.Richmond Virginia) pg 9-20.
Soulen, Richard and Soulen R.Kendall. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Third edition. (Louisville Kentucky Westminster John Knox.2001).
Soulen, Richard and Soulen R.Kendall. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Third edition. (Louisville Kentucky Westminster John Knox.2001).
Source unknown attributed to the London Institute of Contemporary Christianity.
Stein, R. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. ed Green, Joel, Mcnight, Scot, Marshall, Howard. (1992.Downers Grove. InterVarsity Press)
Tenney, Merril New Testament Survey (1961 London. Eerdmans/IVF)
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church second edition ed Cross. F.L and Livingstone E.A.(1974. London. Oxford University Press)
Tuckett, Christopher. Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation.( Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987)
Weisse, Chrisitian accessed electronically 10/10/2010 http://virtualreligion.net/primer/weisse.html
Westacott, F in Enns, Paul.The Moody Handbook of Theology, revised and expanded edition. (2008.Chicago. Moody publishers)
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology. Show all posts
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Narrative Criticism; Text into Story
Introduction
This essay seeks to introduce the discipline of narrative criticism and the place and significance of its use in the study of the New Testament. Narrative criticism is a relatively recent development, largely in the latter part of the last century, with significant work being done in the 1980’s and 1990’s.[i] The brevity of its existence belies the volume of academic enquiry, interest and influence it has generated since its inception.
This essay examines firstly the development of the discipline. We examine in brief the main schools of thought in biblical criticism, in order to establish narrative criticism’s place and posture. We allude to major influences in the formation of narrative critical practice as well as works which have either influenced or changed the course of narrative criticism.
Having established an understanding of the ebb and flow of enquiry, we look at the distinctives of this critical form. Firstly; we examine key concepts, including an examination of the methodology and models used.
Finally we conclude with an assessment of the significance of narrative criticism as a distinct discipline within the wider range of competing methodologies. This calls for a value judgment as to how narrative criticism fares when compared with the smorgasbord of exegetical methods available. It asks the question, “What are the strengths and weaknesses of this method of enquiry?”
Development
We begin with form criticism, which flourished between 1920 and 1950.[ii] It is conceded that form critics, in trying to establish the oral history behind the Gospels, have added to the broader understanding of the gospel narratives. It is felt by some that form criticism’s lines of enquiry have been largely exhausted[iii]. Carson et al also concede;
“The historical skepticism that characterises many of the most prominent form critics has given form criticism itself the reputation of attacking the historicity of the gospels. ... this need not be the case.”[iv]
Source criticism developed in parallel to efforts to solve the synoptic problem.[v] Christopher Tuckett defines source criticism as;
“the branch of study which seeks to identify earlier traditions in a writer’s text.”[vi]
Following a general (albeit not unanimous) consensus on the Markan priority of the two source hypothesis redaction criticism (redactiongeschichte) emerged. This focused primarily on the distinctives each evangelist brought to the text, how it was modified, what was included or excluded.[vii]
Narrative criticism, one of the youngest forms of biblical analysis owes its formation to developments in literary criticism being applied to the study of the Bible.[viii]In particular the work of Russian academic Vladimir Propp led to an initial emphasis on the study of structure.[ix] [x]. This coincided among biblical scholars with a movement away from the dominant paradigms in biblical criticism, particularly the perceived antisupernaturalism of Bultmann and later Funk.
“In place of barren studies of tradition history, modern literary critics want to look at the text as it is.”[xi]
Narrative criticism can be seen as a movement towards the dominance of the text in its final form. This is in contrast to the focus which was previously on the source, whether oral or written[xii]. It “views story as fundamental to human experience”[xiii].
“Although focused for some years on structuralist work, it yet contrived to give voice to a plurality of alternatives to conventional historical criticism”[xiv]
Narrative Criticism Distinctives
While the focus of narrative criticism has traditionally been centered on the Gospels and the book of Acts[xv], and in particular the synoptic gospels; Matthew, Mark and Luke, in the past four decades a considerable amount of work has also been done on Old Testament texts.[xvi]
What follows is a broad outline for examining the peculiar features of narrative criticism and is largely based on the six elements identified in Achtemeier, Green and Thompson[xvii] (hereafter referred to as AGT); Fundamental aim; Sequence of events; Timing; Characters; Point of view and Presuppositions[xviii]. Other works identify similar subdivisions Burkett states;
“A narrative critic analyses the various aspects of a story, such as the narrator, the characters, the settings, the events or plot, and the literary techniques the author employs”[xix]
“Of particular value for works of Narrative genre, this approach analyses plot, theme, motifs, characterization, style, figures of speech, symbolism, foreshadowing, repetition, speed of time in narrative, point of view, and the like.”[xx]
Fundamental Aim
The fundamental aim or intention of the narrative is linked in narrative criticism to the implied author.[xxi] Soulen and Soulen state that rather than the real (historical) author, the implied author can also be defined as the point of view from which the narrative is told.[xxii]
Sequence of Events (dramatic flow) and Timing
Bock points out the variety of dramatic devices available to the narrator in moving the story along; Timing within a narrative can vary from greatly accelerated (fast moving with broad brush strokes) to greatly decelerated (emphasizing the detail) may involve flashbacks[xxiii] or retelling (such as Steven’s account in Acts 7)[xxiv].
Callahan alludes to Fackre’s work as; “an account of character and events in a plot moving in time, through conflict to resolution”[xxv]
Characters
According to Gunn, “questions of plot and of character are staples of the study of narrative”[xxvi]. Plot allows for character development. AGT point out the variety of options open to the evangelists to give the reader greater insight into gospel characters.[xxvii]
Griemas emphasises that in order for plots to move forward in a meaningful way, six major components or “actants” are required.[xxviii] Parry gives a more detailed discussion of Griemas’ model as well as a brief outline of how this would apply to Johns Gospel.[xxix]
Sender Object Receiver
Helper Subject Opponent
In the model above it is the sender who initiates an object communicated via a subject to the receiver. This process may be facilitated by the helper or hindered the opponent.[xxx]
Point of view (perspective)
Much has been made in literary theory the covenant between author and reader, creating shared expectations and mutual understanding.[xxxi]This intersubjectivity (shared meaning) between the implied author and implied reader provides an opportunity for drawing meaning from the text.
“However unlike reader response theory”, according to Peter Llewellyn “it is the text and therefore the authors’ intent which supercedes the readers’ interpretation in narrative criticism.”[xxxii]
Presuppositions (assumptions)
The text contains assumptions concerning its audience, how they will read, comprehend and respond to its message.[xxxiii]This is related subtly to the covenant alluded to in the previous section.
“…the implied reader is an imaginary reader who is envisaged to respond appropriately to the values and concerns expressed by the ‘implied author.’”[xxxiv]
Assessment
What then does narrative criticism bring to the field of Biblical study?
Firstly, in narrative criticism’s favour is the ability to approach the Gospels as a whole[xxxv]
Klein, Blumberg and Hubbard point to the value of focusing on such features as theme, plot and the like in showing the text as a unified whole.[xxxvi] Their study cites in particular David Clines’ groundbreaking study of the Pentateuch, a key text in the development of Biblical narrative criticism.[xxxvii]
Secondly, its emphasis on structuralism lends itself to critical enquiry.[xxxviii]
“Narrative criticism highlights the importance of intertextual allusions in stories, allowing theological and ethical points to be made in subtle ways”[xxxix]
Thirdly, in this form of biblical criticism we see a return to the supremacy of the text in its final form.
On the flip side Carson and Moo[xl] point out that some charge narrative critics with ignoring the value history can bring to Biblical exegesis. It is apparent from the research done that narrative criticism is a profitable tool in the arsenal of critics, but its value is enhanced when it does not altogether dismiss other forms of enquiry.
“Narrative criticism works on its own in theory, but very seldom, if ever in practice, is it used in isolation from other critical methods.”[xli]
J.P.Callahan points to the dual nature of narrative criticism’s strengths also being its weaknesses when he writes;
“The use of narrative in theology tends to blur the distinctions between strictly historical, literary and theological disciplines, as well as provide an alternative to dualistic accounts of story and fiction, history and truth.”[xlii]
Conclusion
In this essay we began by examining narrative criticism in very broad terms. We have examined its distinct nature and some of its more salient unique features. We also alluded to its development in contrast to the historical critical methods. Finally we gave an appraisal of its contribution to our study of the Bible and concluded that it was a valuable tool particularly when used in conjunction with other exegetical methods.
[i] Gunn, David. To Each Its Own Meaning; Biblical Criticism and its Application, ed Steven Mckenzie and Stephen Haynes. (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999) pg 201-209
[ii][ii] Neville, David, THL409 Study Guide (Charles Sturt University 2010)(hereafter referred to as SG) pg 14
[iii] Carson, D.A. Moo, Douglas and Morris, Leon An Introduction to the New Testament (Leicester, Apollos,1999) pg 221
[iv] Carson, Moo and Morris Introduction pg 23
[v] Bock, Darrell. Studying the Historical Jesus; a guide to sources and methods (Grand Rapids, Michigan. Apollos/Baker Academic.2002.) Pg 162-168
[vi] Tuckett, Christopher. Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation.( Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1987) pg 78
[vii] Bock, Studying pg 192-193
[viii] Parry, Robin. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. ed.Kevin J. VanHoozer. (Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books.2005.) pg 530
[ix] A reasonable overview of the impact of Propp and Griemas’ work on Biblical criticism is found in the chapter “The New Testament and Structuralism” in Christopher Tucketts’ Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation
[x] Parry, Dictionary pg 530
[xi] Carson, Moo and Moriss Introduction Pg48
[xii] Parry, Dictionary pg 530
[xiii] Patzia, Arthur and. Petrotta, Anthony. Pocket Dictionary of Biblical Studies. (Leicester.Intervarsity Press.2002.) pg
[xiv] Gunn, To Each Its Own pg 205
[xv] SG pg 18
[xvi] For a comprehensive overview of the major Old Testament work consult David Gunns chapter in “To each Its own meaning”.
[xvii] Achtemeier, Paul and Green, Joel, and Thompson, Marianne. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology (Grand Rapids 2001. Eerdmans.) pg 84-86 hereafter referred to as AGT.
[xviii] AGT p 84,85
[xix] Berkett, Delbert An introduction to the New Testament and origins of Christianity. (Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 2002) Pg135
[xx] Klein, William and Blomberg, Craig and Hubbard Robert JR. Introduction to Biblical interpretation. (Nashville W publishing group.Thomas Nelson. 1993) pg 432-433
[xxi] Source unknown
[xxii] Soulen, Richard and Soulen R.Kendall. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Third edition. (Louisville Kentucky Westminster John Knox.2001). PG 119
[xxiii] For example Luke 24 6-8 or Luke 24:32
[xxiv] Bock. Studying pg 208-209
[xxv] Callahan. J.P. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Edition. ed. (Elwell, Walther. Grand Rapids Michigan.2009) pg 813
[xxvi] Gunn To each Its Own Meaning pg 213
[xxvii] AGT pg 85
[xxviii]. Klein and Blomberg, and Hubbard Introduction pg 429-430
[xxix] Parry,Dictionary pg 530
[xxx] Klein,and Blomberg, and Hubbard Introduction pg 429-430
[xxxi] Van Schoor, M. What is communication? (Pretoria J.L.van Schaaik. 1988)..pg.29
[xxxii]Lewellyn, Peter Narrative criticism. Paper presented for students completing Introduction to New Testament at Charles Sturt University residential St Marks National Theological Centre Canberra, 2-3 September 2010
[xxxiii] AGT pg 85&86
[xxxiv] SG pg 18
[xxxv] SG pg18
[xxxvi] Klein and Blomberg, and Hubbard Introduction pg 435
[xxxvii] Clines, DJA. The theme of the Pentateuch (JSOT sup 10 Sheffield:JSOT, 1978) as quoted in Klein Blomberg et al
[xxxviii] Source Unknown
[xxxix] Parry, Dictionary pg 529
[xl] Carson, Moo and Moriss Introduction pg 49
[xli] Lewellyn, Narrative
[xlii] Callahan. Evangelical pg 813
Exegesis: John 1:1-14
Sources consulted
| Achtemeier, Paul and Green, Joel, and Thompson, Marianne. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology (2001. Grand Rapids Eerdmans.). |
| Adeney. W.F. The Theology of the New Testament fifth edition. (undated. Hodder and Stoughton. London ) |
| [1] Barnes, Albert Notes on the Bible Electronic edition |
| Barnett Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, A History of New Testament Times.(1999 Downers Grove. Inter-Varsity Press) |
| Barnett, Paul. The Truth about Jesus; the challenge of the evidence.(1994 Sydney.Aquila press.) |
| Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to John; An introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek text (1975.London. SPCK.) |
| Blomber Craig. The Historical reliability of Johns Gospel ; Issues and Commentary. (2001 Leicester, England. Inter-Varsity Press) |
| Brown, Raymond The Gospel According to John. The Anchor Bible. (1982. New York. Geoffrey Chapman) |
| Bultmann,Rudolf. The Gospel of John, a Commentary.(1971 Oxford. Western Printing services.) |
| Burge, Garry. Baker Commentary on the Bible ed Elwell. Walther.(1989. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books). |
| Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion book 1, Chapter 13 section 11 pg 74 (2009 Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson). and electronic edition |
| Carson, D.A. Moo, Douglas and Morris, Leon An Introduction to the New Testament (,1999, Leicester, Apollos) |
| Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (1991. Apollos. Grand Rapids. Michigan). |
| Carter, Warren. John, Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2006 Peabody, Massachusetts Hendrickson) (pg 101) |
| Cummins. S.A. Book of John. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible |
| Gordley Matthew JBL 128, no4 (2009) |
| Henry, Matthew; Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible (1991. Hendrickson Publishers. Peabody. Massachusets) and electronic edition |
| Keener. Craig. The IVP Bible Background Commentary.(1993. Downers grove, Illinois.IVP academic) |
| Köstenberger. Andreas. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Fourth edition ed Beale. G.K. Carson. D.A. (2009.Grand Rapids Michigan. Baker Academic). |
| Lee. Dorothy. The Gospel of John and the Five Senses. (JBL 129, no1 (2010):115-127 |
| Lewellyn, Peter Exegesis. Paper presented for students completing Introduction to New Testament at Charles Sturt University residential St Marks National Theological Centre Canberra, 2-3 September 2010 |
| Macleod A.J The New Bible Commentary, Second edition. ed Davidson, F.( 1959.London. IVP.). |
| Morris L. The Gospel According to John Revised edition. The New international Commentary on the New Testament (1995.Grand Rapids Michigan. Eerdmans) |
| Morris. Leon Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Edition. ed. Elwell, Walther.(2009 Grand Rapids Michigan) |
| Neville, David.Study Guide THL409.(2010.Charles Sturt University) |
| Newman, Kevin. Certain Old Testament Parallels in St John’s Gospel. (Downside review no 424 July 2003 pg 211-224) |
| Nielsen Jesper. The Narrative structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel. (New Testament Studies .Volume 56.number 3. July 2010.Cambridge University Press). |
| O’Day. Gail. Toward a Narrative Critical Study of John. (Interpretation. April 1995 The Gospel of John). |
| Pawson. David. Sermon Series: John’s Gospel date unknown. |
| Piper, John. Sermon: John1:1-3.In the beginning was the word. September 21 2008. Accessed from http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/in-the-beginning-was-the-word |
| Raymond Brown The Gospel According to John.(The Anchor Bible. Geoffrey Chapman London 1982) |
| Tenney, Merrill C. “A. The Preincarnate Word (1:1-5)” The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9. 28. (1981.Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,). Electronic edition |
Introduction
John’s Gospel begins with a magnificent declaration of the Deity of the Son of God. It has profound implications for our theology of the trinity, and significantly focuses our attention on the splendor of the incarnation. Not only is it Doxology, it is also didactic in nature, emphasizing the distinctive Sitz im Leben of the fourth Gospel.
The Gospel of John’s primary concern is ontological,[1] and secondly didactic. At the heart of the Christian message is a God who reveals and a God who relates through love. (Prov 25:2, 1 John 4:8,16) Carson picks up this theme but emphasises Johns account as God being self revelatory in the person of Jesus. Jesper Tang Nielsen identifies a core structure at the heart of the Johanine narrative which “is the recognition of God through Jesus”[2]
I am indebted in particular to David Pawson, who presented a sermon series on John’s Gospel in the latter part of the last century, for many of the insights presented in this exegesis.
Contextual Analysis
This pericope occurs at the beginning of John’s Gospel. In many ways it functions much like an overture, setting the tone for what is to come and introducing themes to be expanded upon and explored later.[3] Many of the key words which feature strongly in John occur in this first chapter.[4]
John’s Gospel is distinctive enough to be analyzed quite differently from the Synoptic Gospels.[5][6] Commentators have said that it is more theological[7]. “St John, as we have seen, does not hesitate to insert his own reflections in the course of the narrative, and that with considerable freedom.”[8]
“It must be remembered that the gospels were presentations of Christ; not “biographies” in the modern sense of the term.”[9]
Much of the interpretation of John’s Gospel depends upon when the exegete believes the gospel was written. Scholars of Bultmann’s ilk and era tended to emphasise Gnostic influences in John’s Gospel, believing the Gospel to have a late composition date. Subsequent archaeological and textual evidence has pointed to an earlier composition, which lends itself to read the Gospel with a strongly Jewish subtext.[10] Broad consensus does suggest that John was written not only by an individual recalling an event in isolation. A close reading suggests it is the product of a collaborative effort produced in the context of community. [11]
“Today it is often argued that the earliest interpretations of the book of John are now embedded within the final form of the text, having occurred after several stages of its composition within a rather isolated and evolving late first century “Johannine community”[12]
In contrast Carson et al states “To think of the Johannine community as isolated and sectarian is to miss the grand vision of John 17, not to mention the fact that Johns Christology finds its closest parallels in the New Testament in the so called hymns (e.g. Phil 2:5-11; Col. 1:15-20) which suggests that the evangelist is more thoroughly in touch with the wider church.”[13]
Formal Analysis
A mixed pericope,[14] while Johns Gospel falls into the broad biographical genre, this pericope points to the poetic nature of the book, as well as to its didactic purpose. Many scholars have identified it as an early Christian hymn[15]. It also points to the liturgical function intended by the evangelist.[16] While following some biographical conventions, it forms a bridge between poetry[17] and narrative with strong Old Testament (and therefore Jewish) allusions.
“The shift toward a focus on the community revealed by the text was accompanied by a parallel shift away from emphasis on a predominantly Gnostic provenance and milieu of the fourth Gospel and toward a revitalized sense of Jewish provenance and milieu.”[18]
“The Gospel reflects Jewish and Palestinian origins It is steeped in Jewish scriptures and shows an extensive knowledge of the climate and topography of Judea and Jerusalem… as well as the religious, social and historical circumstances of the time it narrates.”[19]
Detailed analysis
The first verse sets the groundwork and tone for the next twelve verses. Due to its importance we will spend more time teasing out this one verse. “In the Hebrew Bible the first book Genesis is named by its opening words; therefore the parallel between the prologue and Genesis can easily be seen.”[20] “John evidently has allusion here to that place, and he means to apply to “the Word” an expression which is there applied “to God.” In both places it clearly means before creation, before the world was made, when as yet there was nothing.”[21]
Simultaneously it recalls relationship; “with” in the first verse is implicit of two individuals face to face, the underlying meaning here being a God who has in all eternity been relational in nature.[22]
This relational nature is continued through John’s description of Jesus as “Logos”.
“"Word" is the Greek logos, which has several meanings. Ordinarily it refers to a spoken word, with emphasis on the meaning conveyed, not just the sound. Logos, therefore, is an expression of personality in communication.”[23]
In contrast to modern conventions where words are viewed in a more passive light, eastern conceptions and particularly Jewish conceptions see words as active having not only a representative, but also a causative effect. It was by Gods Word that the universe was created in Genesis, this thread is continued in the New Testament.(Hebrew 4:12-13).
“Beginning with the use of the wisdom motif, the prologue is full of imagery having to do with revelation, instruction, wisdom, guidance, seeing and understanding.”[24]
“In short, God’s ‘Word’ in the Old Testament is His powerful self-expression in creation, revelation and salvation, and the personification of that “Word” makes it suitable for John to apply it as a title to God’s ultimate self-disclosure, the purpose of his own Son.”[25]
Several commentators have linked John’s use of Logos to Philo and having roots deeper in Greek philosophy.[26]“John did not superimpose the philosophical concept on the person of Christ, but he adopted the Greek term as the best medium of expressing the nature of Christ.”[27]While in many ways there are parallels with Philo’s logos, Carson points out several ways in which Philo’s Logos falls short, particularly with regard the Logos’ distinctive personality.[28]“We might say that Jesus is the narration of God”[29].
Of the phrase ‘and the Word was God’ C.K. Barrett writes; “John intends the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God.”[30]
The Gospel goes on to say that all things were created both by Christ and for Him, that the Logos is life and light.[31] “Light is a common metaphor in the Hebrew Bible for God’s life-giving creative power (Gen1:1-5, 14-19) salvation (Psalm 27:1) and deliverance from oppressive powers (Isa 9:1-2).”[32]
While other Gospel writers take as their genesis the nativity narratives, or links to prophecy concerning His birth, or genealogies linking Him to Abraham or Adam, John takes one step further back, into the time before time.[33]
Following on from the first two verses, the passage continues to tease out the revelation of the word and its glory in the context of four specific relationships over eight verses.[34]
(1:3,4) We see the creator and his relationship to the creation. It echoes the Genesis account of the separation of light from dark (Gen 1v3,4) and harkens back to the three words beginning the chapter.[35]
Light is contrasted with the darkness which has not grasped it – the Greek word here has a similar double meaning to the word in English [36] This also parallels ‘Manifest’ (2:11).
“Prominent at the beginning of each Gospel is John the Baptist, the long awaited forerunner prophesied in the Old Testament who points to Jesus as the greater one who is to come, who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.”[37]
(1:6-9) Pick up a Johannine distinctive, paying special attention to the relationship between John the Baptist and the Light. John is seen as a witness to the light. Later pressed by the authorities to reveal who he was he described himself as a “voice”.
Ephesus, has been suggested as the place of the writing of John’s Gospel[38], and is believed to have been home to “disciples of John the Baptist who made too much of Him and too little of Christ”[39]. There is some suggestion that John’s gospel may have been written to address in part this practice.
Burge writes; “The fourth Gospel contains a polemic aimed at the followers of John the Baptist (see1-19-28; 35-42; 3:22-36; 10:40-42). Elsewhere in the book of Acts we learn about Paul encountering followers of John with deficient beliefs. Surprisingly, they too are located in Ephesus.”[40]
Jesus and John are contrasted and juxtaposed throughout John.[41]
(1:9) gives us a foretaste of the incarnational nature of the Christ spelled out clearly in (1:14).
The relationship between the Christ and humanity is under the microscope (1:10-13). Here there appears to be a distinction drawn between those who were his “own” who did not receive him and to those who did receive him. On this point Blomberg writes, John “speaks of Christ’s rejection by “his own” (1:11) which may derivatively apply to the majority of humanity but first of all refers to the general response of the Jewish people (Pryor 1990)”[42]
“The reference to believer’s right to become “children of God” in 1:12 clearly builds on the OT characterization of Israel as God’s children.”[43]
Throughout these verses there are strong indications of God’s instigation in all these relationships.
(1:14) is something of a climax which had its beginnings in (1:9).The tone here changes to emphasise not Christ’s divinity so much as his humanity pointing to the mystery of the incarnation.
“After the incarnation, only the privileged group of believers is able to see his glory. In the fundamental verse of incarnation (1:14) this particular group is marked out as ‘we’. The mark of identity is that they, unlike everybody else perceived his glory…One group did not receive him, another believed in his name. The latter were privileged in becoming God’s children.”[44]
“He dwelt among us, here in this lower world. Having taken upon him the nature of man, he put himself into the place and condition of other men.”[45]“‘Dwelt’ here is literally “tabernacled” which means that as God tabernacle with His people in the wilderness, so had the Word tabernacled among His people in Jesus.”[46]
Conclusion
We have examined this pericope in some detail and have noted that it is primarily concerned with Gods revelation of Himself in context of relationship. L.L. Morris, one of the greatest authorities on John’s Gospel summarized his Christology in this pericope as follows; “it is clear that God has taken action in Christ for revelation and for salvation”[47].
Essentially this pericope imputes to Christ the glory due to God. Matthew Henry defends the boldness of John when he writes;
“And why should John have hesitated to ascribe the Majesty of God to Christ, after saying in his preface that the Word was God?”[48]
Perhaps the final word should be left to Raymond Brown;
“In many ways John’s Gospel is the best example of realized eschatology. God has revealed himself in a definitive form, and seemingly no more can be asked.”[49]
Endnotes.
[1] Both Carson and Bultmann use revelation (or self-revelation) as the primary purpose and overall feature of the Gospel.
[1] Nielsen Jesper. The Narrative structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel. (Journal of New Testament Studies .Volume 56.number 3. July 2010.Cambridge university Press).
[1] Blomeberg, Craig. The Historical reliability of John’s Gospel; Issues and Commentary. (2001. Apollos. Grand Rapids, Michigan) pg 72
[1] (As with the didactic traditions of Jewish books such as Proverbs and Psalms, and mirrored in Hellenistic erudition these are frequently in dialectical opposition); darkness light; life, death; glory, grace, water, bread.
[1] Neville, David.Study Guide THL409. (2010.Charles Sturt University) pg 31.
[1] Although there is broad agreement that John was written subsequent to the synoptics, and with at least some direct dependence upon Mark. Morris L. The Gospel According to John Revised edition. The New international Commentary on the New Testament ( 1995.Grand Rapids Michigan. Eerdmans) pg 43-44.
[1] And therefore some have argued, less historical.
[1] Adeney. W.F. The Theology of the New Testament fifth edition.( Undated. Hodder and Stoughton London)
pg 235-236
[1] The New Bible Commentary, Second edition. ed Davidson,F.( 1959.London. IVP.).pg 865 One illustration on this point is that the Gospels place very little emphasis on the Christ’s internal motivations and thought life when compared with the modern obsession with psychology in biography.
[1] Lewellyn, Peter Exegesis. Paper presented for students completing Introduction to New Testament at Charles Sturt University residential St Marks National Theological Centre Canberra, 2-3 September 2010
[1] Brown in particular pays close attention to the layers and theories of compositon.(pg 87-103)
[1] Cummins. S.A. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. ed.Kevin J. VanHoozer. (Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books.2005.) (pg 394)
[1]Carson, D.A. Moo, Douglas and Morris, Leon An Introduction to the New Testament (Leicester, Apollos,1999)
[1] Brown takes the first 18 verses to be a hymn, interjected by commentary (with interjections at verses 6-9; 12b-13;15; 17-18) the case for this is persuasively argued by Gordley (JBL Vol 128 no 4 2009).
[1] Gordley Matthew JBL 128, no4 (2009) pg 781 Carson (pg112) warns “the term poem can only be applied to the prologue with hesitation.
[1] Similarly John’s Revelation was intended to be performed and sung (Llewelyn, Peter, CSU )
[1] Raymond Brown writes “The prologue is written in a carefully constructed, interlocking poetic pattern”(pg . xxiv) in his commentary The Gospel According to John.(The Anchor Bible. Geoffrey Chapman London 1982)
[1] O’Day. Gail. Toward a Narrative Critical Study of John. (Interpretation.April 1995 The Gospel of John).
[1] Paul Barnett. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times.(1999. Downers Grove Illinois. Inter-Varsity Press) Pg 313
[1] Brown, Raymond The Gospel According to John. (The Anchor Bible. Geoffrey Chapman London 1982)pg 4
[1] Barnes, Albert Notes on the Bible Electronic edition
[1] Pawson extrapolates the theological implications of this by pointing out that God is revealed as Love (1John 4:8;16). This also alludes obtusely to Christ’s humanity in that the Hebrew of Genesis two talks of the face to face relationship between God and man in the creation of mankind; God breathed His “ruach” into man’s nostrils.
[1] Tenney, Merrill C. “A. The Preincarnate Word (1:1-5)” The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9. 28. (1981. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), Electronic edition
[1]Achtemeier, Paul and Green, Joel, and Thompson, Marianne. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology (2001. Grand Rapids Eerdmans.).
[1]Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (1991. Apollos. Grand Rapids. Michigan). Pg 116
[1][1] In particular Heraclitus
[1] Tenney, Merrill C. “D. The Incarnation of the Word (1:14, 16-18)” The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9. 33. (1981Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), Electronic Edition
[1] Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (1991. Apollos. Grand Rapids. Michigan).
[1] Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (1991. Apollos. Grand Rapids. Michigan).
[1] Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to John; An introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek text (1975.London. SPCK.)( Pg 130)
[1]see Col 1: 15-17
[1] Carter, Warren. John, Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2006 Peabody, Massachusetts Hendrickson) (pg 101)
[1] Pawson. David. John’s et al
[1] The major commentators tend to group the verses (1-2), (3-5), (6-8), (9-14).
[1][1] Kostenberg ditto.
[1] Piper, John. Sermon: John1:1-3.In the beginning was the word. September 21 2008. Accessed from http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/in-the-beginning-was-the-word
[1] Barnett, Paul. The Truth about Jesus; the challenge of the evidence.(1994 Sydney.Aquila press.) (Pg 75)
[1] Barnett Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, A history of New Testament Times.(1999 Downers Grove.Inter-Varsity Press) (pg 311)
[1] Pawson. David, John et al
[1] Burge, Garry. Baker Commentary on the Bible ed Elwell. Walther.1989. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books. (Pg 843-844)
[1] Commentators point out the relationship of the interpolations into the hymn and their focus on John the Baptist. Commentators have picked up on the reluctance of John to describe himself (the I am nots) and Jesus’ “I am’s”
[1]Blomber Craig. The Historical reliability of Johns Gospel (2001 Leicester, England. Inter-Varsity Press) (Pg 72) quoting Pryor (1990)
[1] Köstenberger. Andreas. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Fourth edition ed Beale. G.K. Carson. D.A. 2009.Grand Rapids Michigan. Baker Academic. Pg421.
[1] Nielsen Jesper. The Narrative structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel. (New Testament Studies .Volume 56.number 3. July 2010.Cambridge University Press). pg 355-356
[1]Henry, Matthew; Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible 991. Hendrickson Publishers. Peabody. Massachusets Pg 688 and electronic edition
[1] Keener. Craig. The IVP Bible Background Commentary.1993. Downers grove, Illinois.IVP academic
[1] Morris. Leon Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Edition. ed. (Elwell, Walther. Grand Rapids Michigan.2009) pg 634
[1] Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion book 1, Chapter 13 section 11 pg 74 (2009 Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson). and electronic edition
[1]Brown, Raymond The Gospel According to John. The Anchor Bible. (1982. New York. Geoffrey Chapman) (introduction pg cxvii)
[1] Both Carson and Bultmann use revelation (or self-revelation) as the primary purpose and overall feature of the Gospel.
[2] Nielsen Jesper. The Narrative structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel. (Journal of New Testament Studies .Volume 56.number 3. July 2010.Cambridge university Press).
[3] Blomeberg, Craig. The Historical reliability of John’s Gospel; Issues and Commentary. (2001. Apollos. Grand Rapids, Michigan) pg 72
[4] (As with the didactic traditions of Jewish books such as Proverbs and Psalms, and mirrored in Hellenistic erudition these are frequently in dialectical opposition); darkness light; life, death; glory, grace, water, bread.
[5] Neville, David.Study Guide THL409. (2010.Charles Sturt University) pg 31.
[6] Although there is broad agreement that John was written subsequent to the synoptics, and with at least some direct dependence upon Mark. Morris L. The Gospel According to John Revised edition. The New international Commentary on the New Testament ( 1995.Grand Rapids Michigan. Eerdmans) pg 43-44.
[7] And therefore some have argued, less historical.
[8] Adeney. W.F. The Theology of the New Testament fifth edition.( Undated. Hodder and Stoughton London)
pg 235-236
[9] The New Bible Commentary, Second edition. ed Davidson,F.( 1959.London. IVP.).pg 865 One illustration on this point is that the Gospels place very little emphasis on the Christ’s internal motivations and thought life when compared with the modern obsession with psychology in biography.
[10] Lewellyn, Peter Exegesis. Paper presented for students completing Introduction to New Testament at Charles Sturt University residential St Marks National Theological Centre Canberra, 2-3 September 2010
[11] Brown in particular pays close attention to the layers and theories of compositon.(pg 87-103)
[12] Cummins. S.A. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. ed.Kevin J. VanHoozer. (Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books.2005.) (pg 394)
[13]Carson, D.A. Moo, Douglas and Morris, Leon An Introduction to the New Testament (Leicester, Apollos,1999)
[14] Brown takes the first 18 verses to be a hymn, interjected by commentary (with interjections at verses 6-9; 12b-13;15; 17-18) the case for this is persuasively argued by Gordley (JBL Vol 128 no 4 2009).
[15] Gordley Matthew JBL 128, no4 (2009) pg 781 Carson (pg112) warns “the term poem can only be applied to the prologue with hesitation.
[16] Similarly John’s Revelation was intended to be performed and sung (Llewelyn, Peter, CSU )
[17] Raymond Brown writes “The prologue is written in a carefully constructed, interlocking poetic pattern”(pg . xxiv) in his commentary The Gospel According to John.(The Anchor Bible. Geoffrey Chapman London 1982)
[18] O’Day. Gail. Toward a Narrative Critical Study of John. (Interpretation.April 1995 The Gospel of John).
[19] Paul Barnett. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times.(1999. Downers Grove Illinois. Inter-Varsity Press) Pg 313
[20] Brown, Raymond The Gospel According to John. (The Anchor Bible. Geoffrey Chapman London 1982)pg 4
[21] Barnes, Albert Notes on the Bible Electronic edition
[22] Pawson extrapolates the theological implications of this by pointing out that God is revealed as Love (1John 4:8;16). This also alludes obtusely to Christ’s humanity in that the Hebrew of Genesis two talks of the face to face relationship between God and man in the creation of mankind; God breathed His “ruach” into man’s nostrils.
[23] Tenney, Merrill C. “A. The Preincarnate Word (1:1-5)” The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9. 28. (1981. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), Electronic edition
[24]Achtemeier, Paul and Green, Joel, and Thompson, Marianne. Introducing the New Testament: Its literature and theology (2001. Grand Rapids Eerdmans.).
[25]Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (1991. Apollos. Grand Rapids. Michigan). Pg 116
[26][26] In particular Heraclitus
[27] Tenney, Merrill C. “D. The Incarnation of the Word (1:14, 16-18)” The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 9. 33. (1981Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House), Electronic Edition
[28] Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (1991. Apollos. Grand Rapids. Michigan).
[29] Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. (1991. Apollos. Grand Rapids. Michigan).
[30] Barrett, C.K. The Gospel According to John; An introduction with commentary and notes on the Greek text (1975.London. SPCK.)( Pg 130)
[31]see Col 1: 15-17
[32] Carter, Warren. John, Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (2006 Peabody, Massachusetts Hendrickson) (pg 101)
[33] Pawson. David. John’s et al
[34] The major commentators tend to group the verses (1-2), (3-5), (6-8), (9-14).
[35][35] Kostenberg ditto.
[36] Piper, John. Sermon: John1:1-3.In the beginning was the word. September 21 2008. Accessed from http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/sermons/in-the-beginning-was-the-word
[37] Barnett, Paul. The Truth about Jesus; the challenge of the evidence.(1994 Sydney.Aquila press.) (Pg 75)
[38] Barnett Paul. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, A history of New Testament Times.(1999 Downers Grove.Inter-Varsity Press) (pg 311)
[39] Pawson. David, John et al
[40] Burge, Garry. Baker Commentary on the Bible ed Elwell. Walther.1989. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Baker Books. (Pg 843-844)
[41] Commentators point out the relationship of the interpolations into the hymn and their focus on John the Baptist. Commentators have picked up on the reluctance of John to describe himself (the I am nots) and Jesus’ “I am’s”
[42]Blomber Craig. The Historical reliability of Johns Gospel (2001 Leicester, England. Inter-Varsity Press) (Pg 72) quoting Pryor (1990)
[43] Köstenberger. Andreas. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Fourth edition ed Beale. G.K. Carson. D.A. 2009.Grand Rapids Michigan. Baker Academic. Pg421.
[44] Nielsen Jesper. The Narrative structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel. (New Testament Studies .Volume 56.number 3. July 2010.Cambridge University Press). pg 355-356
[45]Henry, Matthew; Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible 991. Hendrickson Publishers. Peabody. Massachusets Pg 688 and electronic edition
[46] Keener. Craig. The IVP Bible Background Commentary.1993. Downers grove, Illinois.IVP academic
[47] Morris. Leon Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2nd Edition. ed. (Elwell, Walther. Grand Rapids Michigan.2009) pg 634
[48] Calvin, Jean. Institutes of the Christian Religion book 1, Chapter 13 section 11 pg 74 (2009 Peabody, Massachusetts. Hendrickson). and electronic edition
[49]Brown, Raymond The Gospel According to John. The Anchor Bible. (1982. New York. Geoffrey Chapman) (introduction pg cxvii)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)