Loading...Here I continue showing how a literary-historical method can be applied to the Gospel of John, before (in later posts) showing how it can be studied following the other methods as well.
**************************************************
Since ancient biographies typically established the character traits of the protagonist at the outset of the narrative, it is perhaps best to assume that an ancient reader, once he or she realized that this book is a biography of Jesus, would be inclined to read the rest of the story in light of what is stated about him here in the mystical reflection at the outset. This is no biography of a mere mortal. Its subject is one who was with God in eternity past, who was himself divine, who created the universe, who was God’s self-revelation to the world, who came to earth to bring light out of darkness and truth out of error, a divine being who became human to dwell here and reveal the truth about God. This Gospel will present a view of Jesus that is far and away the most exalted among our New Testament narratives.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
The Holy Spirit. Now, that’s one weird concept. Professor, I’m going to reiterate my request for a book – length explanation of the origin & development of The Ghost.
Ah, that would be interesting….
Professor, I’d like to hope it WILL be interesting! I’ll be attending your all-day seminar at The Smithsonian next month–really looking forward to it. I promise not to bring up the Holy Ghost, though.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.(King James version)
i have 2 question Sir, what is the Greek word for Comforter and what does it mean specifically ?
is the word holy ghost above considered as a mistranslation by the KJV translators ? i mean it should have been translated as holy spirit instead or not?.
i raise these questions because there was a debate between Christians and Muslims over that verse in particular and whether Jesus was speaking about the holy ghost or about another person
Comforter is the translation of the Greek word PARAKLHTOS, which literally means “one who is called alongside,” often taken to mean someone/something who is beside you with his/her arm around your shoulder to support, encourage, or comfort you. “Ghost” is simply a word not used much in English except in ways that John certainly didn’t mean (I saw a ghost in my house last night); the Greek word is what we usually mena by Spirit.
In other words, the gospel of John is, in effect, a novel — along with the fictional trilogy known at the synoptics. I admire the writing in John, especially the grandiose beginning. It has to be appreciated as a magnificent tall tale, comparable to Greek myths about demigods, such as Hercules. Since there was no stenographer to write down Jesus’ words about 60 years earlier, his long articulate speeches in John are obviously works of fantasy, as are the miracles. The gospel of John consists mostly of fabricated speeches and far-fetched miracles. It’s a fable.
Maybe, the mythical Jesus was based on a real man, sort of like Robin Hood might have started with a real person. People throughout history have invented heroes to believe in. The Jews were no different. They were apt to make up mythical heroes, such as David, that were consistent with their religious beliefs. No one can know for sure, but Jesus may have been a legendary Jewish miracle worker (who may or may not have derived from a real person) who was idolized by some Jews. Over time, this mythical miracle worker was conflated with the Jewish belief in the messiah.
Members of the ancient Jesus sect searched through Jewish scriptures for evidence that the legendary Jesus could have been the messiah. Many gospels stories are reconstructions of stories from the Old Testament. In the ancient world, myth and religion were the same thing. The Jews were no different than pagans who made up fabulous stories which were accepted as true. In any case, since the gospel stories are improbable or impossible, they have to be treated as myths.
The Last Supper had to have been a well known story at the time and sharing the bread and wine must have been common practice. How come it didn’t make it into John?
Because John wants to emphasize that Jesus died on the day of *Preparation* for the Passover. His last meal with the disciples, in that Gospel, is therefore not a passover meal with the symbolic foods of unleavened bread and wine.
Bart, what you can you tell us about your upcoming debate with Kyle Butt (that’s quite a last name. Ha!)
I don’t know much of *anything* about him! I’ll be explaining why the problem of suffering in the world led me to leave my faith in a Creator-God who is Sovereign over the world and then became an agnostic, and he will be arguing that I was an idiot to do so!
The John of Gospel is a product of the imagination. John’s gospel should be classified as an apocryphal gospel. Water cannot be turned into wine. It’s impossible to raise a person (Lazarus) from the dead. Jesus’ speeches are obviously made up (no stenographer was taking verbatim notes as he spoke). A man cannot come back to life after crucifixion. None of these things are real. Like the fake apocryphal gospels that were written later, the author(s) of John’s gospel had no compunction about fabricating a story out of whole cloth.
Actually, there is no clear dividing line to separate the four canonical gospels from the apocryphal / non-canonical gospels. The first four gospels aren’t more credible than the later non-canonical gospels. All the gospels — canonical and non-canonical — are fantastical. In John’s gospel, Pilate asks “What is truth?” How cynical for the author to write about truth while making up a big lie.
Is the passion story in John completely independent of Mark, in the sense that the Gospel of Mark was unknown to John?
Yes, probably.
Probably? No, not probably. The author of John’s gospel was familiar with some or all of the synoptic gospels, as evidenced by John’s rehash of spurious stories from the synoptics, such as Jesus walking on water, Jesus feeding 5000 people (with baskets of food left over, as in the synoptics), his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and the two angels (a combination from Luke and Matthew) at the empty tomb. However, the author(s) of John’s gospel changed some stories, such as the day of the crucifixion and Jesus’ supposed encounter with John the Baptist. The author fabricated and manipulated the story as he saw fit in order to make the points that he wanted to make.
The author of John’s gospel was a creative writer who wanted to make up his own version of Jesus’ life, so the gospel is quite different than the synoptics . The whole gospel is bogus — unless, of course, you believe that water can be turned into wine, dead men can some back to life and Jesus’ speeches were preserved verbatim for 60 years, even though they were never quoted in the synoptics.
John’s gospel is similar to Mark’s gospel in that both gospels try to connect Jesus with John the Baptist who dutifully explains (as in the synoptics) that John the Baptist is merely preparing the way for a greater one who is to come. Like Mark, John’s gospel begins abruptly without any account of Jesus’ earlier years. Like Mark, John’s gospel has no virgin birth. As in Mark, John’s gospel states that Jesus’ family, including his own brothers, didn’t accept his mission. As in Mark, John’s gospel states that Jesus lamented that a prophet isn’t recognized by own countrymen. John’s account of Jesus’ messianic entry into Jerusalem seems to be a holdover from the synoptics’ account, even though it doesn’t fit John’s revised concept of Jesus.
John’s gospel is very different than the synoptics because by the time John was written, the kingdom of god had obviously failed to appear, so Jesus could no longer be quoted about an imminent apocalypse (even though he still let himself be called a king). By the John’s gospel was written, Jesus had to be revised, updated and turned into a different kind of godman. In John’s gospel, Jesus’ kingdom is no longer of this world. The author(s) and/or editors of John’s gospel put together long speeches for Jesus to speak which reflected a new higher conception of Jesus.
But that doesn’t mean that the author(s) of John’s gospel didn’t use the synoptics as a rough guide. In John’s gospel, Jesus is still a miracle worker who accepted his own crucifixion and who rose from the dead. John tweaked the myth considerably, but the synoptics’ mythical Jesus still shows through in many synoptic stories and details that are similar or the same in John.
The Gospel of John seems like a hybrid of conventional and Gnostic ideas about Jesus. In John it is not obedience to the Law that makes one righteous, but knowing the inside truth about Jesus. Jesus is an other-worldly being and the disciples must also be born “from above.” But then at the end you have the story of Thomas wanting to touch the risen Jesus, and chapter 21 with Jesus eating with the disciples, to prove Jesus was a physical being, as if to counter the Gnostic leanings of the gospel. Any chance the original source of John was a Gnostic-sort of gospel that was modified to make it conform to more conventional beliefs? Or does it just represent the evolution of beliefs about Jesus since the earlier gospels?
I wouldn’t call John’s views Gnostic, just because we don’t have evidence of full-blown Gnosticism this early. I would say that hte views of John were open to a Gnostic understanding later, and may represent a perspective that eventually led, in some circles, to what we know of as Gnosticism.
John’s gospel doesn’t include Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist. Apparently, the author(s) of the gospel realized that Jesus’ submission to baptism implied that John the Baptist was in a superior position over Jesus. Besides, why would Jesus need a baptism since he was already perfect? So, John’s gospel skipped the baptism. John’s gospel presents no confirmation for Mark’s claim (which Matthew and Luke borrowed) that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.
New Testament scholars believe that Jesus’ baptism by John is one of the most secure facts about Jesus’ life. But John’s gospel doesn’t substantiate it. Matthew and Luke, who merely rehashed what they took from Mark about the baptism, don’t offer any more evidence. So there is no “multiply attested” story to confirm Jesus’ baptism. The only basis for this story is one brief sentence in the gospel of Mark (1:9) which offers no realistic details. The baptism story in Mark includes fabrications, such as a voice from the sky and a description of John the Baptist that was lifted from 2 Kings. Mark’s fantastical unconfirmed account isn’t credible.
And yet, New Testament scholars are sure that Jesus was baptized by John — simply on the basis of a single brief sentence which isn’t substantiated anywhere else. On top of that, the disciples of John the Baptist are later portrayed as not knowing who Jesus is. (Luke 7:20 & Acts 19) These embarrassing passages contradict the notion that Jesus might have been a disciple of John the Baptist or that John recognized Jesus as the messiah — or that they ever even met.
Scholars’ gullible acceptance of Jesus’ baptism as a true event shows the slipshod nature of New Testament scholarship. New Testament scholarship needs stricter standards and less naïveté. But that’s probably too much to expect from a group of people who are mostly true believers. They’ve been steeped in this fiction from childhood, so they are too invested in it to abandon the myth now.
i agree with you yes. good point!