Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The rejohannification of Jesus

Expand Messages
  • frideslameris
    Dear friends, A few years ago I asked a layman with some interest in gospel studies: Which gospel you like most? He said: Gospel of John, it is the most clear
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 15, 2004
      Dear friends,

      A few years ago I asked a layman with some interest in gospel
      studies:

      Which gospel you like most? He said: Gospel of John, it is the
      most clear of all of them.

      Then he added:

      But some say that they have put John on the throne over Jesus!
      (implying he was aware of discussions that the words
      of Jesus in GJ were not from Jesus himself, but attributed
      by him by the evangelist, making John as it it were a greater
      'theologian' than Jesus himself).

      I must say I was impressed by this utterance, which I found
      (and still find) quite to the point.

      (Re)reading these days an (1973) article from R.J. Campbell, 'Evidence for
      the historicity of the Fourth Gospel in John 2:13-22', I am drawn
      to the following sentences (for simplification reasons I let out
      the context of these words):

      "Jesus himself was the originator of the forms. If Jesus could not
      have taught as the Johannine Christ did, where could such teachings
      have arisen? Such an unfamiliar picture could never have received
      authentication if it did not really exist in common tradition.
      It is prepostorous to suppose that the originator of Johannine
      stories was even greater than Jesus himself " (and Campbell refers
      her in a note to D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 208).

      Now,

      It seems the dejohannification and rejohannification hangs
      very much around this insight.

      What Benedict Spinoza did for the OT (questioning the old
      source theory) Brettschneider (inspired by Reimarus) has done
      for Gospel of John. He was one of the first (or the first) to disconnect
      the spiritual dimension from historical evaluation(s).

      Here seems to be the very questionable start of the dehistorisation
      of John.

      I was happy to read Paul Andersons article on

      "John, Jesus, and History- Why This Study Is Needed,
      And Why It Is Needed Now" (its on the Johannine website).

      From reading his article I conclude:

      The whole critical approach of John and the start of it, seems to have
      not been really genuinely critical at all, because on critical scrutiny
      NOW it seems fallacies abound everywhere, up till today, in the
      arguments that are (still) given by many to put Johns historicity low!

      I also appreciate an article from Paul Anderson where he refers to the
      state of archeological research on geographical and topological issues
      in John. Evidence is greater year by year that in John we have many
      exact descriptions of pre-70 realities.

      Best wishes

      Frides Laméris
      Zuidlaren (Home)
      Netherlands
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.