|
Denker -> John's Gospel, History or Aretalogy? (7/29/2008 11:22:46 AM)
|
Is the work known as the “Gospel of John” to be regarded as a contemporary factual account describing the life of Jesus of Nazareth or rather a late 1st century theological composition, specifically a sophisticated Hellenistic Christian aretalogy?
The underlying sources for the basic ideas comprising the author’s theological position are rooted in Hellenistic Judaism and in particular the religious concepts developed in the writings of Philo of Alexandria.
The gospel of John was probably composed around the year 100, possibly at Ephesus in the Roman province of Asia.
The work is consistently and virulently anti-Jewish, and depicts an enigmatic and hostile Jesus who vociferously criticizes the ‘Jews’ for not recognizing that their own scriptures have the function of testifying to him. (5.39) The ‘Jews’ are also blamed elsewhere for refusing to recognize Jesus despite the signs (σημεια) and wonders (τερατα) testifying to his abilities and status. (12.37, 15.24) Such preternatural goetic motifs are consistent and typical features within aretalogical writings.
John also has to explain to his readers that ‘Messiah’ means ‘Christ’ (1.41) and that Jews do not associate with Samaritans. (4.9) Clearly, this work was not written for any Jewish community, as Jesus himself is depicted as being totally dissociated from his own Jewish background, talking to the ‘Jews’ about "your law" (8.17).
It would seem that John belonged to some school of religious thought on the margins of Christian theology. He appears to have leaned towards Gnosticism, but also drew on other ideas intelligible to Hellenistic/Roman society. His work employs much deliberate interpretation and is far more theologically sophisticated than the synoptic gospels. It is also very different in style from them, and even more self-consciously arranged. It has no birth or infancy narratives, but starts with John the baptiser.
This figure is not depicted as a realistic or independent historical character (as in the Synoptics), but as being utterly subordinated to Jesus and defining himself purely in terms of being a witness to Jesus as the ‘Christ.’
Despite the adroit creativity, the enhanced theology, and all the sophistication of its structure, John's message is extremely simplistic. He is only concerned with ‘faith’ [πιστις - more accurately rendered as trust or allegiance] in Jesus. There is not even any ethical teaching worth speaking of in this entire work.
In Mark’s Gospel story where the rich young man asks Jesus what to do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus tells him firstly to keep the commandments and then to give everything he has to the poor (Mark 10.17-22), should be closely compared with this passage from John:
Then they said to him, 'What must we do if we are to do the works that God wants?' Jesus gave them this answer, 'this is working for God: you must believe in the one he has sent'. (6.28-29)
John regards Jesus as the "Word" (λογος) of god, pre-existent since the beginning of creation, and sent to earth in human form. However he is still subordinated to God: "the father is greater than I" (14.28).
The word of God in Judaism was the expression of the divine will, "By the word of Yahweh were the heavens made" (Ps. 33.6).
Λογος in contemporary Hellenistic thought represented something comparable to the order and meaning of creation.
This concept was ultimately derived from the philosophical system of Heraclitus of Ephesus (c. 500 BCE) and in its original Greek context, λογος encompassed a much broader sense of meanings than the rather pallid rendition, “word.” Statement, principle, law, reason, or proportion, are more precise renditions.
The term signified the cosmic principle that gives order and rationality to the world in a way analogous to that in which human reason orders human action. In Plato and Aristotle a similar function is performed by νους.
The Jesus of John narrates no parables and is virtually separated from the more familiar sayings of wisdom and any ideas of repentance or the coming kingdom of God.
In marked contrast to the Jesus, of the synoptics, this character delivers lengthy, artificial, mystical speeches, about himself and the relationship between him and his [often uncomprehending] followers, and their relationship with God and with each other in their mutual faith.
This Jesus character is always in total control. He is presented as being completely aware, in advance, of any evidence or details about other people: their character or personal history, their situation or subsequent intentions.
(John 1:47, 2:24-25, 4:16-20, 5:6, 6:6, 6:64, 16:30 q.v.)
No doubt this control and awareness theme was an intentional literary device meant to convey the idea of divine power and knowledge. John's Jesus figure may be majestic, but he is also remote rather stilted and somewhat inhuman.
John makes it clear that his Jesus is above and beyond all the mundane concerns of current Jewish political or nationalist ideas. Just like the crowd who, after the miracle of the loaves, wanted to "come and take him by force and make him king" (6.15), the incumbent Roman governor of Judaea Pontius Pilatus also misunderstands his supposed kingship as being earthly and political, but Jesus immediately informs him that, “My kingdom is not of this world” (18.36).
This declaration is totally at variance with any known contemporary Jewish concepts of messianic sovereignty.
The gospel is obviously the result of the reflections and beliefs of John and his community, rather than any deliberate attempt to improve or enhance the historical record. Unfortunately It has the effect of leading to a presentation of a self-obsessed Jesus instead of the man who inspired people to love and follow him.
This Jesus proclaims himself, instead of the nature and demands of the kingdom of God. Instead of challenging his listeners to confront themselves, his message is that you surrender to a belief in him. From this, everything else will follow.
The "I am" sayings, supposedly of Jesus, are a characteristic feature of this gospel writer.
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me.'" (14.6)
This makes the author’s opinion of orthodox belief quite clear. The only way to a relationship with God is through absolute and unquestioning allegiance to Jesus and his mystical pronouncements.
Many of the other "I am" sayings are followed by promises of rewards to the believer in return for this faith.
"I am the gate" (10.9, promising safety).
"I am the resurrection [and the life]" (11.25, promising eternal life).
"Eternal life" itself is defined at 17.3 as knowledge of God and of Jesus.
At 8.12, Jesus is depicted as saying "I am the light of the world."
The promise which follows being,
"he who follows me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the light of life.”
This dualistic, symbolic interaction between darkness and light was a significant feature of Hellenistic Judaism, is to be found in certain writings of the Qumran community, and was later diffused into the various, complex religious systems commonly defined as Gnosticism.
In conclusion, John's Gospel is obviously a work of great religious significance and was a major influence in the development of all subsequent Christian theology. However, its intensely idiosyncratic portrait of Jesus as a semi-remote cosmic entity is not really very attractive or appealing.
The ascetic, peripatetic teacher who healed the sick and delivered the possessed, instead of berating and condemning the Jews, who were in fact his own nation.
The Jewish prophet who expected people to worship not himself, but God alone.
The Galilean preacher who challenged his people to confront the mirror of their own souls and to find endless reserves of love and forgiveness even amidst poverty and social oppression.
These would all appear to present a far more realistic and credible depiction of the actual Jewish personage, known to history as Jesus of Nazareth.
|
|
|
|