The Gospel of John is decidedly different from the other three, which we call the Synoptics. The Gospel of John is different both in terms of its content and the style of writing. As I have mentioned before, most historical critical scholars believe the Gospel of John has no historical value and only makes sense when seen as a theological treatise in narrative form. Indeed, concerns for doctrine can be seen right from the beginning with the introduction, which most scholars call the Prologue (1:1-18). This introduction sets the scene for the entire Gospel because it straightforwardly provides Jesus with pre-existent divine status before becoming human, but also affirms that Jesus is both divine and human (1:1 & 1:14) (Christian theology later used this passage as the basis of the doctrine that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine).
This represents a much more "developed" view of the divine nature of Jesus. The other Gospels may present Jesus as having divine status (some scholars question whether or not the authors of the Synoptic Gospels really believed Jesus was fully divine during his time on earth but maybe only became divine after his resurrection), but John's Gospel insists on an essentially divine nature to the person of Jesus. With this in mind, we will see over and over again how the stories of Jesus in this Gospel reinforce this understanding of the divine nature of Jesus.
An Aside on Ehrman's Method - Once again Ehrman offers us a particular nuance on his methodological approach to a Gospel, this time calling it "Literary-Historical Perspective." But his approach in analyzing John is really only different in degree from the others. Calling it "historical" is a misleading label, since we know Ehrman believes there is no historical value in the Gospel of John. It will definitely be a literary approach, but one that is attune to the theological nuances of the narrative. What we find in the Gospel of John is a narrative presentation of the divine nature of Jesus in human form. The purpose of the Gospel is blatantly evangelistic: "That you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God . . . " (John 20:31). So the purpose of this Gospel is not so much to tell a story or provide a biography as to effect a conversion upon the reader/hearer.
There is also a curiosity about this Gospel concerning its style of Greek. It is extremely easy to read. The Gospel of John and the Letters of John are the only writings in the New Testament in which the word order would seem to us to follow what we would consider the sense order of the sentence. In most Greek writings, the word order is based on order of importance of thought, in which the most important clause might be placed first in the sentence, but contain neither the subject nor verb, but rather a subordinate clause containing the thought or idea the author wishes to emphasize. In Greek, the endings on the words tell you what is the subject, the object and the indirect object, and the verbs can be used in ways much more nuanced than is possible in English. But in John, the sentences read a lot like what what we would expect in English, which means that simplicity is emphasized for purposes of clarity and getting the basic point across to the reader.
Of particular interest in John is the emphasis on the miracles that Jesus performs, but they are always called "Signs." Which is a blatant way of saying that the miracle itself is not what is most important, but rather how that miracle points to a greater truth about Jesus. In most cases that "great truth" is in some way related to the divine nature of Jesus and his role as Messiah and the Divine Son of God.
The big scheme of the divine plan of salvation in John is that the the divine son comes down from heaven and returns to heaven. This is well illustrated in the subsequent story that follows the feeding of the 5,000 in chapter 6. Jesus uses that occasion to say that the true bread from heaven is not the manna that Moses provided, but Jesus himself (6:35-38 & 6:51). It is a little curious that Jesus refers to himself here as the "Son of Man" (John 6:27 & 6:62), and it is difficult to know exactly how John intends this title to be understood. The apocalyptic Jesus is not a major part of John's Gospel, perhaps just the opposite. John 5:25 makes it sound like the eternal life begins when a person believes in Jesus, and John 3:18 makes it sound like the divine judgment is pronounced when a person refuses to believe in Jesus. But John 5:26-29 refers to a future judgment for unbelievers, and John 6:39-40 speaks of a future resurrection for believers.
Many historical critical scholars believe the conflicting views on judgment and resurrection can be explained by saying that an original version of the Gospel did not have any future eschatology in it, but was added in a later addition. It is hard to know for sure. But many scholars are also quite sure that the Gospel of John as we have it now is not the only version that ever existed.
Ehrman's discussion on the "sources in John" (see pages 115-118) is a fine presentation of this theory. No historical critical scholar today questions that there are awkward transitions in the narrative in numerous places, that scholars like to refer to as "literary seams" (see page 116). However, there is another approach to this issue that postulates an evolutionary model for the development of this Gospel, on the supposition that the Gospel of John is the product of an evolving tradition about Jesus that developed over decades in a particular (otherwise unknown) faith community, in which the views about Jesus changed (developed, were refined) over time and additions were made to the Gospel that reflect those changes/development of belief and perspective. For instance, on page 117 at the bottom, Ehrman proposes that (within the very lengthy "Farewell Discourse" chapters 13-14 and 18 come from one source and chapters 15-17 come from another source. The developmental theory of the Gospel's composition (what I call an evolutionary model) says that chapters 15-17 represent a later addition to the Gospel. According to this theory, the reason for the literary awkwardness is that the tradition about Jesus in chapters 13-14 and 18 were already revered by the community and could not be altered without doing violence to the community's accepted story about Jesus. Therefore, chapters 15-17 are added as a lump of material rather than woven into the already existing text. If chapters 15-17 represent an addition to an existing Gospel tradition, were these chapters seen by their faith community as a "lost" piece of tradition? Were they a new revelation? We really do not know. However, there is some reason (in my personal opinion) for going with the latter (new revelation, given the emphasis on the Holy Spirit providing missing information in chapter 14:26 & 16:13).
If we look carefully at the Gospel of John, we find a very obvious peculiarity (in comparison with the synoptics), which is the long theological discourses that Jesus engages in. We find these in almost every chapter. Indeed, chapters 13, 14, 15, 16, & 17 are all part of one long extended speech which scholars refer to as the "Farewell Discourse" where Jesus is preparing his disciples for his departure and what to expect after that. The question is, what degree of historical truth was ascribed to these discourses by the faith community that produced this Gospel? Undoubtedly, they were embraced as theologically true. But if they cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus, where did they come from? Some New Testament scholars are of the opinion that for the people who produced John's Gospel these discourses arose from prophetic pronouncements in which "prophets" within that faith community claimed to speak for the risen Jesus and brought to their fellow Christians the truths that Jesus, now the Risen Jesus, was teaching them. The basis for this is taken from John 14:26, "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have said to you." It would seem that these Christians believed that the Risen Jesus still spoke to the faith community just as clearly as he spoke to his disciples during his time on earth.
Ehrman mentions the primary proponent of the evolutionary theory of the Gospel in his "Suggestions for Further Reading," which is Raymond Brown and his, The Community of the Beloved Disciple. Curiously, Ehrman does not even mention the primary proponent of the multiple sources theory (Robert Fortna). Perhaps that is because Ehrman wants to present it as his own approach.
Be sure to read over "Jesus and the 'I Am' Sayings" discussion in Box 8.5 (page 123). This is a feature that is unique to John but very clearly emphasizes the divine nature of Jesus. The frequency of these sayings in John makes it clear that this is a literary device intended to emphasize a theological point that is central to John's portrayal of Jesus in this Gospel.
There is one more peculiarity of the Gospel of John I wish to mention. The death of Jesus is never straightforwardly presented as an atoning sacrifice for sins. However, the combination of the statement of John the Baptist at the beginning, "Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29) and the fact that in John Jesus is crucified at the same time as the Passover lambs are being slaughtered makes an implicit connection between the two. However, there is a nuance to this we easily overlook. When John the Baptist makes that pronouncement in 1:29, the word sin is in the singular. There is only one sin that Jesus comes to take away: the sin of unbelief. Just as the Gospel of Matthew is never about believing, the Gospel of John is only and always about believing. Which means that maybe for the author(s) of John's Gospel, Jesus' death on the cross might not be an atoning sacrifice after all? But the death of Jesus may be for the author of the Gospel of John a submission to the will and plan of the father in which Jesus knows that his glorification and exaltation are already assured. There is no wavering on the part of John's Jesus. In a strange way, his lifting up on the cross for crucifixion is also his exaltation because the one guarantees the other. This is quite clear in John 12:27-28 and 12:32, in which there is a direct connection between the plan of God, the crucifixion of Jesus and the glorious exaltation of Jesus after his resurrection. The "lifting up" always has a double meaning in John for both crucifixion and exaltation (so as in John 3:14-15).
Overall, Ehrman's chapter on the Gospel of John is an excellent presentation of the basic features of the Gospel of John in terms of the accepted interpretation of most historical critical scholars.
No comments:
Post a Comment