We now move from Paul’s Christology that *combined* an incarnational view with an exaltation view, to a Christology that is incarnational through and through — still in the New Testament, in the final Gospel to be written (possibly 30 years or so after Paul’s death?)
In it we find what is arguably the best known and most influential passage dealing with Christology in the New Testament: the Prologue of the Gospel of John, 1:1-18. It is also probably the most studied and discussed passage – even more than the Christ poem in Philippians 2:6-11. The first eighteen verses of John are typically called the “Prologue” because they are clearly set apart from the rest of the Gospel as a kind of celebration of the main character of the book; these verses are written in a different writing style from the rest of the Gospel (lofty poetry), they contain key concepts not found in the rest of the Gospel (Christ as “the Word” made flesh), and yet they introduce well some of the most important views of the Gospel (the high view of Christ generally). And so it is widely thought that the author of the Fourth Gospel appended these verses as a Prologue, possibly after the rest of the book was written. It is widely thought, in fact, that the Gospel went through multiple editions, so that 1:1-18 is a later addition and the final chapter, ch. 21, is an even later addition. Whether the same author was responsible for all the editions is a matter of dispute.
The prologue presents an unusually exalted view of Christ, and one that is highly complex and nuanced. I won’t be able to give a complete exegesis on the blog – that would take a book. But I will point out a few of the main points, first here in this post and then in one or two more.
[
mepr-show rules=”674″] The first thing to stress is that we are not dealing with a prose narrative here, but with something that looks like a poem. Whether the author of the rest of the Gospel composed the poem, or if someone else in his community did, is hard to say. There are good arguments on both sides. But I tend to think it was someone else, for one main reason: the major theological term that is the focus of the prologue never occurs elsewhere in John (Jesus as the “Word”).
But as I said, the first thing to stress is that this seems to be a poem. One of its most interesting features is how it uses a technique that you might call “staircase parallelism,” where each line builds on the one that precedes it, and does so in some of its key lines by repeating the last word of the preceding line as the first word of its own. You can see this better in the Greek. Literally translated, the opening goes like this (notice the repeated words at the end and beginning of lines, here underlined):
In the beginning was the word;
And the word was with God;
And God was the word….
In him was life;
And the life was the light of humans
And the light shines in the darkness
And the darkness has not over come it.
The dominant theme of the poem is a being known as the “word” – which in Greek is the term “logos.” The word “logos” is highly complex and nuanced. In brief terms, it means something like “word” or “reason.” It was a term that was widely used in philosophical discourse to mean very deep and important things. Stoic philosophers thought that the Logos was the “reason” that infuses all of reality, the divine “reason” that is what makes the world make sense. All of us have Logos inside of us – reason – and when we live in accordance with the Logos (for these philosophers) we live in concord with the world, which is infused with this divine Logos. That’s a good thing to do.
In Platonic circles it was thought that the Logos was a kind of mediator between the divine realm and the human, that it was the way humans have access to the divine because of a divine bestowal of logos (divine reason) within humans.
And of course the term “Logos” had deep resonances with Jews, as the philosophical connotations widely held also could be transposed into a biblical key. This is seen nowhere more than in the philosophical speculations of the great Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, who thought that Logos was a divine being, a god, who mediates between God and humans.
The Prologue to John has been thought to be invested in all of these views, by one scholar or another. It is important to recognize what is said about the Logos in these eighteen verses:
- The Logos was in the beginning with God
- The Logos was therefore a separate being from God
- And yet the Logos was God.
- The Logos created the entire universe (“all things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that came into being – v. 3) (you should be thinking Genesis at this point. Recall how “God” created the world: “And God SAID ‘Let there be light’” — in other words, he created by speaking his WORD)
- The Logos came to his own (world) but his own (people) rejected him (vv. 10-11)
- Those who acted with the Logos, though, were made children of God (v. 12)
- And most important: the Logos “became flesh and dwelt among us” (v. 14)
- In other words, the Logos became a human being, a glorious one.
- And it was the human who was predicted by John the Baptist (v. 15)
- And in fact, that human that the Logos became was Jesus Christ (v. 17)
- He is the one who explains who God really is, as his unique Son (v. 18)
It is important to realize how this Prologue is imagining Christ. It is not saying that Jesus pre-existed and then was born of a virgin. Not at all. Not only is there no virgin birth here (explicit or implicit): for this author Jesus did not even exist until the Logos became flesh. When and only when the Logos became flesh is when Jesus came into existence. But Jesus was the fleshly being that the Logos became. This Logos that became Jesus was in the very beginning with God. And this Logos was God. And the Logos became a human, Jesus. Jesus then is the incarnation (literally, the “enfleshment”) of the divine Logos.
This is a very high Christology indeed. Unlike the Philippians Christ-poem, Jesus is not made equal with God at the exaltation that came at the resurrection. Jesus was the incarnated Logos that was equal with God in the beginning, before the universe existed; he was the one who created the universe. And that one became a human. It’s an amazing poem. I’ll say more about it in subsequent posts.[/mepr-show]
Dear Bart,
I recently re-read How Jesus became God and was struck again by the parallels between Jewish wisdom literature, Philo, and the Johannine poem.
As you point out, the theology rises to a similar level in the rest of the gospel where Jesus is equated with God, so whoever the authors were, they seemed to share a similar high Christology.
Are you aware of any evidence that links this high Christology to contest against 1st-century groups who were arguing the opposite? Ebionites perhaps?
Or do you think the influence of Jewish wisdom literature and Philo are more responsible for this theological innovation?
I think this kind of Christology was certanily used later in debates with those of alternative views, but I don’t see it in the Gospel of John. Christological polemic does begin to be part of the community’s discourse, however, by the time of 1 John, which combats a christology that is *too* high.
Jehova’s Witnesses (who have an incarnationist christology) translates the first part
“In the beginning was the word;
And the word was with God;
And the word was *a* God….”
Does that translation make sense?
It does to an extent, yes, becuase “God” does not have the definite article in the Greek line. But there is a rather complicated grammatical reason that shows it is definite anyway.
Thank you for this. Is the grammatical reason related to the Granville Sharp rule?
It seems that the parallelism would favour a definite understanding of theos.
It’s actually called the Colwell rule. Granville Sharp has to do with two words that are connected with an “and” and whether both are definite if only one has the article.
Thank you for providing more detail/background on Logos and how it fits with the Gospel of John. My understanding is that the Greeks’ perception of Logos predates the time of Christ. Do you have any idea when it was introduced or reached its pinnacle?
It had been around for centuries. It is very important in both Platonic and Stoic thought.
Prof,
do you interpret verses 10-11 (‘He was in the world, … . He came to that which was his own …’) as a reference to the divine Logos’ preincarnate activities in the OT, the Logos’ activities amongst humans in general, or as an explanation of the rest of the chapter 1, or something else?
I think it is a reference to Christ becoming human (the incarnation) before teh express statement of the idea in v. 14. Christ came into the world and his own people rejected him.
I bet no amount of adult schooling could transform an illiterate Aramaic-speaking fisherman from backwaters of Galilee into a composer of lofty Greek poetry 😉
Is there any precedent in pre-Christian Jewish or Greek thought concerning a pre-existent deity becoming a human baby? The Greek gods of course gave birth to divine babies but their offspring didn’t pre-exist. I take it that Philo never speculated to the extent of imagining his Logos could become a human baby. Plato did hold to a view of reincarnation of normal mortals, but I don’t think he talked about deities reincarnating to humans (a common idea in Buddhist and Hindu religions).
Even worse, there was no such thing as adult education in the ancient world. Pre-existent beings being born as a baby. That’s a good question. None comes to mind.
Dr bart you said if two thing two thing contadict tahts mean the other happen and the other one is not or simply its just didnt happen at all, dont you think since you already debunk christianity tahts mean islam is right, becuase we meed religion and truth ,bcause devil are exist and we can only repell them by god truth, its been regognize by science
https://youtu.be/1FVkoPqAU7g
Please watch this short video you will see spirit
If I debunk Christianity then Islam is necessarily right? I do hope you see there is no logic in that statement.
How do verses that say Jesus was worshipped(Mathew 28:9, 2:11, 14:33, etc…) not show that he is divine, especially that he accepts it, and no one is worshipped like that in the OT? I am not a Christian but I am curious.
Specifically, how could this have made its way into the manuscripts, or how could Christians be misinterpreting it?
Because the words used for worshipping Jesus are the same words used for worshipping kings and other rulers. They typically mean just bowing down before someone in reverence for their superiority.
Do you think there is a consistent Christology across the entire gospel of John?
thanks
Not at all. Different stories come from different sources teh author used, and these have very different christological views from very low to very high (because the sources were written in different periods of teh community’s history)
Is it reasonable to assume that the author didn’t mention that Christ was born of a virgin because people already knew this since it was told in the another previous gospel?
Some people probably do think that. My view is that the rest of John’s Gospel actually works against the idea of a virgin birth, since a virgin birth would suggest the person came into existence at thetime of conception (at least that’s the implication of Matthew and especially Luke)
“The Logos came to his own (world) but his own (people) rejected him (vv. 10-11)”
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you explain how you translate “τα ιδια” as “his own world” and “οι ιδιοι” as “his own people?” I can see the difference in the gender and plurality, but I’d like to know if that’s an uncontroversial (or widely excepted) translation?
Thank you!
Yes, I think that’s right, something like “his own things” (because he created it) and “his own people.
Dr bart i really scared to go to hell can you convince me that bible is not innerant as convincing and insighful as you could ?
With contadiction, forgery and those jesus exlatation ?
Read my book Heaven and Hell. And trust me, you ain’t goin’ there.
Professor , if judas account is contradict could we say it didnt happen , and it was fake ,so what if i said jesus is not crucified amd judas is cursed by god to be look like jesus and he is the one that is crucified as punishment to spill the secret about jesus , and jesus is saved by god to the heaven and he will comeback to the earth 2nd time, is that make sense , because that was islamic naration, and the jesus atonement story is just later development , is that make sense what do you think please say something about this
I’m not sure I understand the question.
Prof Ehrman,
One of the highlights of Heaven and Hell is how the Greek understanding of the immortality of the soul or the soul living apart from the body upon death influenced what became the later Christian understanding.
Q1. Please are there any verses in the New Testament that corroborate this later Greek understanding of the nature of the soul?
Q2. If so, can you kindly cite some of these verses in support of this view?
I’d say 2 Cor. 5:1-5 probably do. I talk about it in my book.
Prof Ehrman,
Please, do you think Paul may have had some Greek influence for him to have made some assertions like what he does in 2 Cor 5:1-5. I further checked up other verses like Phil 1:21-24, 2 Cor 5:6-8 and they all seem to pre-suppose a soul that can live apart from the body?
Q1. Could Paul himself have been influenced by the Greek understanding of the soul?
Yes, I think so. I don’t know if you’ve read my book, but I talk about this directly there. It wouldn’t be surprising that Paul was influence by Greek understandings of the soul since almost everyone in his native environment would have as well; only the Jews would be different, but his education must have been Greek I would think.
I agree with you!
Your answer is really and in fact a tool combating suffering in one of its sincere cores, fear.
It reminds me of the beautiful message at the moment where Siddhartha met the point of enlightenment, and at the end of his period of extreme deprivation and his ascetic path, in a quest to find the source of suffering. At this point, he experienced this exceeding grace through the village girl who offerered him a bowl of rice, showing him it comes from within.
Well, as Van Morrison sings in his beautiful son, “Enlightenment” ,,, Enlightenment don’t know what it is.
Thanks!
Early during the lockdown I came across a book entitled “The Dionysian Gospel: The Fourth Gospel and Euripides.” I was happy to read it as it sort of combined two interests of mine – ancient Greek literature and theater and the New Testament. In the book the author suggests that John went through multiple versions (as you suggest above) and that one of the early versions – maybe even the first version – utilized “The Bacchae” and structured the Gospels like the play with lots of allusions to the play. Jesus was in essence the new Dionysius, though at the passion he takes on the form of Pentheus as well. It was interesting since I knew the play and the author also attempts to reconstruct the early version of the Gospel in Greek which was really interesting (I read Greek, but not without needing a lexicon). Anyway, in the end he brought up some very interesting parallels but ultimately I wasn’t convinced, though I have to say the book was certainly kind of fun to read (you have to know the play though). Have you heard of this and do you have an opinion? The author is Dennis MacDonald.
Yes, I’ve heard it. I don’t think it can be right. Dennis MacDonald is a very smart fellow (and a friend). He’s written two books claiming Mark’s Gospel is based on Homer. I would say there is not good evidence of that either; quite the contrary.
Prof, It is interesting to know that both rabbis in Youtube and you more or less share the same views when it comes to Jesus, NT, bible, Christianity, etc.
Dear Bart, I noticed that the Greek term for ‘he’ and ’him’ in the prologue seems to be ‘autos’, which I understand can equally mean ‘it’. Is it possible that John was simply referring to the logos as something like the spirit of God which then became flesh in the form of Jesus, and that he did not mean to equate the son with the father?
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was with God in the beginning. Through *It* all things were made; without *It* nothing was made that has been made. In *It* was life, and that life was the light of all mankind..[ ]…..The Word became flesh and made *It’s* dwelling among us. We have seen *his* glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ “Out of his fullness we have all received grace ….
Autos is a masculine form of the pronoun; the neuter form (“it”) is auto, when used in the nominative (i.e a subject). In the genitive case they both are autou, but when a personal pronoun is used adjectivally it has the gender of its antecedent, so in this case it has to be “through him.”
The relevant fragment from Heraclitus reads as follows: “This logos holds always but humans always prove unable to ever understand it, both before hearing it and when they have first heard it. For though all things come to be in accordance with this logos, humans are like the inexperienced when they experience such words and deeds as I set out”
You can certainly see where John got some of his prologue verses from!
Thank you, Bart! That put me straight.
Sorry, John (or whoever you were), I did try to get you off the hook, but I’ll have to accept that you really did write nonsense – how could you ever even think, let alone write in a Gospel, that the infinite God became a man. You also slipped up when you quoted what Jesus really did say about himself in Chapter 10 v 36 “Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am *a* son of God”. So this ‘only begotten’ stuff is also a pile of made up nonsense.