Abstract This paper assesses the opening five verses of Johns
Gospel, a passage rich with theological statements about the nature
of Jesus Christ. It is the argument of this paper that right from
his opening, John seeks to present Jesus as the foundation of life
for all people, in order that they may know that he is the Christ,
and that by believing they may have life (John 19:35, 20:31). By
adopting a purposive interpretation, assessing the passage through
the lens of the authors purpose, we consider how each statement
about Jesus, the divine !"#"$, contributes to Johns underlying
intent, concluding that John frames his account of Jesus life for
the first century everyman, and that the case for belief in Jesus
is based on the statements John makes about Jesus divinity, and his
life bringing role before, in, and during creation, and before, in,
and after the incarnation.
201017867
1
Introduction The opening five verses of Johns gospel make
perhaps the most significant and direct claims about Jesus identity
in the New Testament. Within Johns prologue, they define the
theology and message of the gospel, and engage the reader.1
Treatments of the prologue tend to focus either on its underlying
form, its structure, 2 its literary message, but rarely all three
at once.3 Studies based on form and structure produce valuable
observations about the level of deliberation involved in the both
the prologue and the gospel, demonstrating that the prologue is a
literary masterpiece, tightly arranged and developed with purpose.
The prologue is best appreciated as a united text, within the
context of a united text. We will interpret the text mindful that
John employs deliberate ambiguities, and intricate structures, to
paint a vivid literary picture. Attempts to reconcile or resolve
these ambiguities as dichotomies result in a monochromatic view of
Johns artistry. We will consider the arrangement of the prologue,
and verses 1-5 within it, and argue that its complex arrangement is
indicative of a single author writing with deliberation and
purpose.4 Furthermore we will argue that the most fruitful reading
comes in the light of the authors stated purpose. To make this
purposive case, we will consider the interpretive context, through
questions of genre, author, date, and implied audience as forming
the literary context by which we assess the authors intent,
alongside the D.A Carson, The Gospel according to John (Grand
Rapids, Eerdman, 1991), 110111, describes the prologue as a foyer
to the rest of the Fourth Gospel, simultaneously drawing the reader
in and introducing the major themes. 2 For example, see M. Coloe,
The Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1, Australian
Biblical Review, 45 (1997), 40-55, and J. L. Staley, The structure
of John's prologue : its implications for the gospel's narrative
structure, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 48(2), (1986). 241-264 3
For an example, see S.S. Kim, The literary and theological
significance of the Johannine prologue, Bibliotheca sacra,
166(664), (2009), 421-435. 4 Where critical scholars, based on form
and style, wanted to cut the prologue loose (cf Bultmann), the
Prologues message is so deeply entwined with the message of the
gospel that this seems an unwarranted decision made on assumptions
arising from questionable methodology. See S.S. Kim, The literary
and theological significance of the Johannine prologue, 422, and
D.A Carson, The Gospel according to John, 111-1121
201017867
2
internal evidence (John 20:30-31).5 We know John wrote the
gospel so that his readers would believe Jesus is the Christ, the
Son of God, and that by believing they may have life in his name.
Speculation is then limited to identifying Johns readers. Does he
write to Christians? Or non-Christians? Jews? Greeks? Or Hellenised
Jews? We argue that Johns statement of purpose is playfully
ambiguous, and the very nature of his gospel leads us to answer yes
to each question. Translation & () & !#"$, ./ !#"$ &
1($ 3& 45&, ./ 45$ & !#"$. "3"$ & & () 1($
3& 45&. 1&3/ 9: /3" #&53", ./ )?($ /3" #&53" "9
& ##"&5& & /3 D? &, ./ D? & 3 G$ 3&
&4(1?& ./ 3 G$ & 3 J."3 G/&5:, ./ J."3/ /3 "
./3!/M5&. In the beginning was the word, and the word was
with/toward God, and the word was God. He was, in the beginning,
from/with God. All things through him were made, and without him
was not one thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life
was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the
darkness has not overcome it.
Greek Source: The Greek New Testament, SBL edition. 6
Translation notes Verses 1-2 The locative dative of time (& ())
places the narrative in the beginning, the imperfect sense of was
suggests that the word has been present since/from the beginning.
The semantic range of () incorporates the idea of first cause.7 W.
Carter, The prologue and John's gospel : function, symbol and the
definitive word, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, (39),
(1990), 35-58, 35, says the prologue makes no sense without first
taking this step. 6 M. W. Holmes, The Greek New Testament: SBL
Edition (2010) (Jn 1:5), Logos Bible Software. 7 J.P Louw, J. P
& E.A Nida, E. A. Vol. 2: Greek-English lexicon of the New
Testament : Based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd
edition.) (35). (New York: United Bible societies,5
201017867
3
There are clear allusions in this verse, and in the subsequent
verses, to the Genesis creation account.8 John is retelling the
creation story with the emphasis on Jesus, who as creator rather
than as part of the created order.9 This idea is developed in the
next sentence the sense cant be that the word was created in this
beginning but rather that the word was with God at this time.10 The
sense of 1("$ is difficult to articulate in English and with is a
compromise.11 It can be understood as the word being face to face
with God, or having a particularly close relationship to him.12
Just how close a relationship this indicates is further developed
in the next sentence, the word wasnt just with God, he was God,
distinct, but the same.13 The word order of this final sentence,
frontending 45"$, emphasises the1996), 89.16, ()c, $ f: one who or
that which constitutes an initial causefirst cause, origin. () 3$
.3J5?$ 3" 45" the origin of what God has created Re 3:14. It is
also possible to understand () in Re 3:14 as meaning ruler, also R.
Kysar, Christology and controversy: the contributions of the
prologue of the gospel of John to New Testament christology and
their historical setting, Currents in Theology and Mission, 5(6),
(1978), 348-364, 351, the author wants the reader to think of
nothing short of that mysterious and supra-temporal first 8 R. B.
Brown, The Prologue of the Gospel of John, Review and Expositor,
62(4), (1965). 429439, 430, P. Borgen, Creation, Logos and the Son
: observations on John 1:1-18 and 5:17-18, Ex auditu, (1987),
88-97, 88, M. Coloe, The Structure of the Johannine Prologue, 40,
52-54, assumes Johns Gospel is written to address tensions within
the first century Christian community, especially with Jewish
Christians, so John starts by retelling the Genesis creation
account. Also, S.S Kim, Literary and Theological Significance, 428
9 R.B, Brown, The Prologue, 431, G.R Beasley-Murray, John, Word
Biblical Commentary, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999), 10, suggests
what is before the beginning is in view. 10 S.S Kim, Literary and
Theological Significance, 429 11 H. C. Waetjen, Logos pros ton
Theon and the objectification of truth in the prologue of the
Fourth Gospel, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 63(2), (2001), 265-286,
268-269, says it is completely inadequate, and the true meaning is
determined by the following clauses, For if the Logos is also
!"#$%, not #$ !"#$% but !"#$%, the motion of &'#% (#) !"#$)
must culminate in a union with God the Creator that results in the
Logos participating in God's essence. 12 D. A. Carson, The Gospel
according to John, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1991), 116117, based on
use of 1("$ as with within the New Testament, demonstrates that its
translation as with depends on a description of relationship
between two parties, P.W Comfort, W.C Hawley, Opening Johns Gospel
and Epistles, (Illinois, Tyndale House Publishers, 2007), 18, also
S. Voorwinde, John's prologue: beyond some impasses of
twentieth-century scholarship, Westminster Theological Journal,
64(1), (2002), 15-44, 32 13 W. Carter, The prologue and John's
gospel, 37 best explained not as an adjectival statement ('divine')
but as establishing this being as both separate from God, while
also guarding against ditheism, S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue:
beyond some impasses, 30-31 "P("$ 3"& 45"Q& points to
Christ's fellowship with the person of the Father; in 45"Q$ R&
"Q !"Q#"$ emphasizes Christ's participation in the essence of the
divine nature," all agree that the !"#"$ is presented as divine,
Whether or not the Word is also to be identified with God will
depend on other than grammatical considerations, so the inclusio of
verse 18 (discussed below) supports this conclusion. Grammatical
arguments from verse one are supportive, but not conclusive, and
certainly do not contradict this conclusion.
201017867
4
divine nature of the word, but translating the sentence as God
was the Word would break cadence. The anarthrous 45$ has been used
to suggest that Jesus is not a Trinitarian subset of the divine,
but rather a separate divine entity. Colwells Rule has long been
relied upon to resolve this dilemma, with the implication that the
lack of article is not indicative of a lack of definiteness.14
Wallace suggests that the anarthrous noun is better understood as
being used in a qualitative sense.15 The lack of article is a
deliberate choice on Johns part,16 and is necessary to avoid a
modal view of the relationship.17 The repetition of key terms &
() and 1($ 3& 45& emphasise and clarify the statement from
verse one, reinforcing the idea that the !"#"$ was not created, but
involved in creation with God. Verses 3-4 The word order of the
first clause, verse three suggests that the relationship between
all things, and the word is significant, then the repetition of the
verb #:&"S/: (#&53" and ##"&5&) puts the act and
outcomes of the creating,18 and its relationship to the word, at
front and centre. The verbal idea of & is contrasted with
#&53", in that the in the beginning the word was, while
creation became. Indeed, creation owes its existence to theE.C
Colwell, A definite rule for use of the article in the Greek New
Testament, Journal of Biblical Literature, 52, (1933), 12-21
establishes Colwells Rule as "In sentences in which the copula is
expressed, a definite predicate nominative has the article when it
follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the
verb," at 20 he suggests context determines definiteness, at 21 he
rules out the idea that it can be treated as qualitative rather
than definite. 15 D. B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics:
An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1996), 256-63. 16 S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some
impasses, 30, Johns word choice is deliberately open,Hence no
amount of grammatical discussion will satisfactorily remove the
ambiguity of the statement in question. D. A. Carson, The Gospel
according to John, 117, There are Greek words purpose built for
expressing alternative meanings to the common English rendering of
the phrase, had John simply been emphasising the divinity of Jesus
he could have chosen the word divine. 17 S. Voorwinde, Johns
prologue: beyond some impasses, 30, It would be pure Sabellianism
to say 'The Word was #$ !"#$%.' No idea of inferiority of nature is
suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true
deity of the Word. D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to John, 117,
had John included the article, not only would this modal view
occur, but it would also contradict the statement that the word was
with God, also, the lack of article should not be indicative of an
indefinite statement. 18 D. A. Carson, The Gospel according to
John, 118, the switch in tense between these ideas moves from the
act of creating to the state of creation.
14
201017867
5
active word (1:3),19 as does humanity, for whom the word brings
life (1:4).20 The life in view in the prologue, as in the rest of
the book, refers to eternal life,21 and the words place in creating
life in the beginning acts is a guarantee for this offer.22 This
verse makes simultaneous statements about Christology, cosmology,
and anthropology.23 Jesus created all, and gives life to all men,
not just Israel.24 There is a text critical issue regarding
punctuation and the appropriate placement of the relative clause
here, which we will discuss below. Verses 4-5 The reference to
light is an apparent reference to the Genesis creation account,27
but also to the revelation of truth, from God.28 The phrase And the
darkness has not overcome it" as an exposition on Genesis 1-3,29
depicts darkness as primordial chaos (Gen 1:2), and sin.30 It
suggests the darkness has an active and intentional role, a
combative role,31 consistent with inter-testamental thought (cf.
Wisd. of Sol. 7:29-30). 32
R.B. Brown, The Prologue, 431 R.B. Brown, The Prologue, 431-32
21 G. L. Miller, Life and the glory : some reflections on the
prologue to John, Brethren Life and Thought, 22(4), (1977),
211-226, 222, also understood that way in the Orthodox tradition,
see T. Stylianopoulos, Jesus Christ The Life of the World,
Ecumenical Review, 35(4), (1983), 364370, 366-367 22 S.S Kim,
Literary and Theological Significance, 429, Kim notes a possible
relationship to the Psalms In joining these significant concepts of
life and light, John may have had Psalm 36:9 in mind. "For with you
is the fountain of life; in your light we see light. 23 T.
Stylianopoulos, Jesus Christ The Life of the World, 366, H. C.
Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 283, suggests #&53" here
expresses cosmological activities, where later in the prologue it
is used to express historical events on earth concluding that the
scope of the prologue (with verse 3 playing a part) is all the
previous activities and interactions of the Logos in creation and
in history. 24 P. Borgen, Creation, Logos and the Son, 95 27 H. C.
Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 271, S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue:
beyond some impasses, 32, This is discussed at some length below.
28 H. C. Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 271 29 Johns emphasis on
creation is discussed at length below. 30 J. G. Van der Watt, The
Composition of the Prologue of Johns Gospel: The Historical Jesus
Introducing Divine Grace, Westminster Theological Journal, 57(2),
(1995), 311-332, 319 31 H. C. Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 274,
suggests the sense is that darkness is both a state, and a power,
J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns
Gospel, 323, This ongoing conflict demonstrates that life and light
were around before incarnation. 32 R.B. Brown, The Prologue, 433,
The blackness which the light encounters is not merely passive. If
it could succeed, it would overpower and defeat the light, which it
understands only as an invader into its own domain.20
19
201017867
6
./3!/M5& could mean either overcome or understand, and
possibly both.33 Overcome seems the best reading in the context of,
and comparison with, 12:35 and 16:33.34 The inability of the
darkness to overcome the light is presented in the aorist
indicative. There is a juxtaposition of verbal ideas in the switch
from the aorist to the present (G/&5:), 35 this may be to show
the permanent continuity of the work of the !"#"$, 36 a reference
to the antecedent idea where the light began shining at creation
and still shines in the present, 37 or a movement in the narrative
from matters of the past, to the post-incarnation state of
affairs.38 Two options for interpretation are open for the aorist,
either it refers to a particular event in the past, where the
darkness attempted to overcome the light and failed,39 or
represents a continuous battle where the triumph of the light is a
single fact.40 The first option seems to require that the present
sense of the light shining include the incarnation, death, and
resurrection of the word. The second speaks to the truth that God
has always been in control, with the word always providing light
and life, emphasising this was the case before the incarnation.41
Some hesitate at A. J. Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle
Location 1115, suggests both the primary and secondary meanings are
in play depending on the readers perspective. 34 A. J.
Kostenberger, Translating Johns Gospel: Challenges and
Opportunities, The Challenge of Bible Translation. In Honor of
Ronald Youngblood, ed. Glen G. Scorgie, Mark L. Strauss, and Steven
Voth, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2003) retrieved online 27 October
2011,
http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/pdf/Translating%20John.pdf, 6 35
H. C. Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 272, is perplexed by the
verbal change 36 H. C. Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 272 37 J. G.
Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of John's Gospel, :
The Historical Jesus Introducing Divine Grace, Westminster
Theological Journal, 57(2), (1995), 311-332, 322, The reference
could just as well be to the period starting with creation, which
is mentioned in the directly preceding context. It can be argued
that the Logos created (v. 3), that life was in him, and that this
life was the light of the world (v. 4). The light has not been
hidden away, but has shone out since creation, when, as the context
affirms, the Logos already had life in him. 38 Given our preference
for allowing deliberate ambiguities to sit unresolved we will
suggest the force of the present is to achieve both ends, G.R
Beasley-Murray, John, 11 suggests the switch is unexpected and
embraces both history, and the present the light shone at creation,
and amongst mankind, and continues to shine in the present (both at
the incarnation and at the time of writing, and reading), J. G, Van
der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns Gospel, 319,
Verses 1:1-5 focus on the period between creation and incarnation.
In 1:4-5 attention is shifted to "life" as the "light" of the
world, which implies further involvement in creation. Although some
interpreters find a reference to the incarnation in *+,$)", (v. 5),
we would argue that these verses still refer to the -#$.#% +$/+'0#%
P.W Comfort, W.C Hawley, Opening Johns Gospel and Epistles,
(Illinois, Tyndale House Publishers, 2007), 15, suggests the force
of the present is to point to the incarnation. 39 R.B, Brown, The
Prologue, 432 40 H. C. Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 275 41 D.A
Carson, The Gospel According to John, 118-119, suggests verse 5 is
a masterpiece of planned ambiguity describing both the
pre-incarnate state of affairs, and the significance of the
incarnation, depending on the background and presuppositions of the
reader, it is possible John, subtle writer that he is, wants his
readers to see in the Word both the light of creation and the light
of the redemption the Word brings in his incarnation,also H. C.
Waetjen, Logos pros33
201017867
7
identifying allusions to the incarnation in these verses,42 but
the ambiguities and secondary meanings are immediately fleshed out
in subsequent verses, so the reader is not left guessing. The
significance of the incarnation is explained by the eternal
existence, nature, and work of the !"#"$ throughout history.43
Textual Criticism There are no textual variants in this passage.
There are, however, text critical issues involving punctuation.44
The lack of punctuation in original manuscripts has resulted in
debate over the transition between verses three and four, in
particular the placement of the relative clause "9 &
##"&5&.45 Placing this phrase at the end of verse three, in
the perfect, extends the work of the !"#"$ from creation through to
the present. 46 The variant translation would read: All things
through him were made, and without him was not one thing made. What
has come into being had its life in him, and the life was the light
of men.47 Beasley-Murray (1999) has argued that this relative
clause belongs at the beginning of verse 4, as part of the
overlapping structure of ideas, or staircase parallelism,48
employed in the first five verses. 49 He sees this verse ton Theon,
275, The pronouncement of v. 5a, therefore, "and the light shines
in the darkness," can be expressed as the prior and dominant
reality. 42 J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of
Johns Gospel, 319-322, 330 suggests the burden of proof for such a
reading rests with those claiming that verses 4-5 represent the
incarnation. A possible argument (322) the words "light and life"
are connected to the incarnation elsewhere in the Gospel, from
which it might be concluded that it should apply to these verses
too. (319) While this is true, it is theologically troublesome to
suggest that Jesus was only involved in bringing light and life to
man subsequent to his incarnation. (330) The Light which shone
during this [pre-incarnational] period had a definite ethical
connotation; this is clear from the confrontation with darkness 43
J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns
Gospel, 330, In both 1:1-2 and 1:18 there is a description of the
relationship between the Father and Son, with a definite
preincarnational emphasis 44 The original manuscripts did not
contain punctuation marks, and thus, the division of sentences and
verses within this passage are a result of interpretation rather
than translation. 45 E.L Miller, Salvation-history in the prologue
of John: the significance of John 1:3-4, (Leiden, Brill, 1989),
17-18, demonstrates that the less natural reading was the
traditional view universally preferred among the earlier fathers
and in the Vulgate, but it was dropped in the 4th century 46 H. C.
Waetjen, Logos pros ton Theon, 270 47 G.R Beasley-Murray, John, 1.
48 A.J Kostenberger, John, 20
201017867
8
operating to distinguish Jesus mediatorial role from a demiurge
type view,50 and suggests the early church preferred the variant
reading, with the current reading developing in the fourth century
as a corrective to the Arian controversy about the creation of the
Holy Spirit.51 Kostenberger suggests the common reading is best in
keeping with Johns style, and theology. John often begins sentences
with & and a demonstrative pronoun (eg 13:35, 15:8), and the
sense of verse four, without the clause is later repeated (eg 5:26,
39, 6:53).52 While Kostenberger is right to suggest that the idea
makes best sense when tied to the previous statement, it is
possible that this is an example of Johns deliberate ambiguity, or
wordplay, where John has both Jesus role before and after the
incarnation in view,53 and an element in the staircase structure of
the passage.54
Historical ContextAuthor and Date Critical scholarship
presuppositionally rejects John as the author of the gospel,55
preferring to treat Johns Gospel, and epistles, as the products of
a second century Johannine School.56 Other suggestions identify the
author of G.R Beasley-Murray, John, 2 G.R Beasley-Murray, John, 11
51 G.R Beasley-Murray, John, 2, this view enjoys strong support
from the earliest manuscript evidence. 52 A. J. Kostenberger,
Translating Johns Gospel: Challenges and Opportunities, 1 53 J. G,
Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns Gospel,
323-324, in an argument about the burden of proof for claims that
1-5 contain reference to the incarnation Van der Watt describes
Millers approach to this text critical issue: Miller reads ..#)")
in v. 3c with v. 4 and then maintains that in this combination
..#)"), as the intransitive use of the verb .,$)#3+, (vv. 3c-4"to
happen"), refers to the incarnation [it] remains syntactically and
semantically a difficult and ambiguous phrase to deal with, which
makes it inconclusive as an argument in favor of incarnation. 54
The structure of verses 1-5 is discussed below. 55 It is the sad
reality of Biblical scholarship since the emergence of critical
scholarship that in order to defend an interpretation of a text
based on the purpose of the author, one must first make the case
for an author acting with purpose. G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel
and its Theological Impact, Review and Expositor 78 (1981),
249-258, 251 suggests the change in scholarly opinion was motivated
by the view that Johns theological sophistication could not have
been a first century development. The critical view is now a begged
question, assumed without being adequately demonstrated, and based
on a now collapsed scholarly house of cards, form criticism. D.A.
Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel: After Dodd,
What? R.T. France & David Wenham, eds., Gospel Perspectives,
Vol. 2: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels.
(Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 83-145, 100-104, Is it possible that
the scholarly consensus regarding a school or circle or community,
and regarding a long series of editorial steps and of redactional
activity, has unwittingly provided a new generation of scholars
with several functional non-negotiables which are rarely tested? 56
L. Morris, John, 19-22, G. L. Miller, Life and the glory, 21250
49
201017867
9
the gospel as Aramaic,57 Essene,58 Egyptian, Hellenistic, or
Mesopotamian.59 These alternative views on the authors identity
were adopted based on presuppositions about the gospels theology,
and anachronistic categories,60 which ran counter to the testimony
of both the early church,61 and the text itself (John 21:24-25, 1
John 1:1-4).62 Critical speculation about Johns theology, and
interpretive context, and purpose falls away if John the disciple
is the author of the gospel.63 Bauckhams (2007, 2008) observations
about the role of eyewitness testimony in the development of both
written and oral traditions turned the scholarly tide,64 he argued
the Johannine school was a scholarly fantasy, and the gospel
57 C.C Torrey, The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John, Harvard
Theological Review 16 (1923), 305-344 58 J.A Charlesworth, The Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Gospel According to John, Exploring the Gospel
of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C
Black, (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 89,
suggests John the Baptist was an Essene. John the Disciple was
already held to be a former disciple of John the Baptist, so both
were imagined as Essenes. For a response to the allegations that
locust eating does one an Essene make, see J.A Kelhoffer, Did John
the Baptist Eat Like a Former Essene? Locust Eating in the Ancient
Near East and Qumran, Dead Sea Discoveries, Nov 2004, Vol. 11 Issue
3, 293-314, it is more likely that John the Baptist represented, or
fulfilled, the role of an Old Testament Prophet, see J.C Hutchison,
Was John the Baptist an Essene from Qumran? Bibliotheca Sacra 159
(April-June 2002), 187-200 59 For a summary of developments on this
front see G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological
Impact, 250-251 60 C. A, Evans, The implications of eyewitness
tradition, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 31(2),
(2008), 211-219, 216, suggests form criticism has created an
anarchy of method, full of anachronistic categories and anything
goes recreations of tradition 61 From the documents of the second
century until the 19th century the consensus was that these books
were the work of John the apostle, see, for example, Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 11,
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xii.html, or as
expressed by M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, Criswell
Theological Review 3.1 (1988) 17-29, 18 one must recognize that the
external evidence attesting to the authorship of John is ancient,
clear, and explicit. 62 D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the
Fourth Gospel, 131, Carson (1981) notes that we are dealing with
essentially the same evidence that the early church used to ascribe
authorship to John, and it is only modern presuppositions and
questionable methodologies that cause questions of authorship, also
M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 18 63 D.A. Carson,
Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 130-134 64 R. Bauckham,
Eyewitnesses and Critical History: A Response to Jens Schroter and
Craig Evans, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 31.2
(2008), 221-235, Bauckham argues that eyewitnesses, despite
possible bias, are generally in the position to provide acceptably
reliable historical accounts, and that in rejecting form criticism
we should recognise that the Gospels depend on eyewitness accounts
for accuracy should be considered reliable or trustworthy
testimony, also, R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved
Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of John,
(Grand Rapids, Baker Academic Group, 2007), 12-15, and C. A Evans,
The implications of eyewitness tradition, 215, supports Bauckhams
argument, and suggests the apparent eyewitness origins were
essential for the receiving of the text as oral communication.
201017867
10
was written by an eyewitness, named John, who was not the
disciple.65 Some have suggested this figure was John Mark, Lazarus,
or John the elder.66 However, the internal evidence suggests John
was an apostle (1:14, 2:11, 19:35), and one of the twelve, whom
Jesus loved(13:23, 19:26-27, 20:2-9, 21:24-25). It is more
plausible that the nom-de-plume represents John, son of Zebedee
(13:23-24, 18:15-16, 20:2-9, 21), a conclusion based partly his
significance throughout the New Testament (Luke 22:8, Acts 1:13,
3-4, 8:14-25, Gal 2:9).67 The similarities in style between the
gospel, and the letters ascribed to John in the New Testament must
also be considered as indicating a common author,68 who also claims
to be an eyewitness (1 John 1:1-4). Johns account does not seem
dependent on the synoptic gospels,69 thus he is likely providing
his own testimony,70 which suggests a relatively early date.71 All
views on the question of authorship require a level of conjecture
and no
R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative,
History and Theology in the Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids, Baker
Academic Group, 2007), 12-15 66 G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and
its Theological Impact, 250-251 67 A.J, Kostenberger, John, Baker
Exegetical Commentary On The New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Baker
Academic, 2004), 6-7, also A.J Kostenberger, Encountering John: The
Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective, (Grand
Rapids, Baker Academic, 1999), Kindle Edition, Location 326 68 A.J
Kostenberger, John, 17-18, suggests John may even have written 1
John as a correction of false interpretations of his gospel, also
W. Carter, The prologue and John's gospel, 36, says the letters
provide an interpretive context for the gospels. 69 L. Morris, The
Gospel According to John, The New International Commentary on the
New Testament, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1995), 26, says most
scholars consider John to be independent of the synoptics, some
that he is so independent that he can not be said to be an
eyewitness, though some have suggested he was aware of Mark, see
M.E Glasswell, The Relationship Between John and Mark, Journal for
Study of the New Testament, 23 (Feb, 1985), 99-115, 109 70 A.J
Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle location 686-707, suggests
that John was aware of the synoptics but wrote independently to
provide his own testimony, We conclude that John was certainly
familiar with Synoptic tradition and probably also one or several
of the Synoptic Gospels, but that he saw fit not to let them set
his agenda. In this sense, then, John wrote independently. 71 L.
Morris, The Gospel According to John, 27, the later we date John,
the more we have to account for the absence of references or
dependence on the synoptics. M.E Glasswell, The Relationship
Between John and Mark, 101, It may even be accepted that the
evangelist is not fundamentally dependent on any other Gospel known
to us for such traditions in themselves, so that he is an
independent witness to historical tradition and has as much right
as any other evangelist to put it in the order he thinks best. M.A
Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of John, Evangel, 25.1,
SPRING 2007, 41411-12, Matson suggests possible dependence on John
in the synoptic gospels is not definitive in establishing an early
date, because the synoptics might be late, but for those holding to
an early dating of the synoptics this possible literary dependence
will bring the dating of Johns gospel into the middle of the first
century.65
201017867
11
view accounts for the evidence better than the view John the
disciple wrote this gospel.72 Kostenberger (2005) suggests John
writes in response to the destruction of the temple, some time
after 70AD.73 Morris (1995) argues that the atmosphere of John, and
the issues John broaches (including apparent interactions with the
Qumran community) place the gospel in pre-70AD Palestine.74
Arguments for earlier than critically held dating of the
Synoptics,75 and Johns lack of dependence on these works, would
also convincingly locate Johns gospel some time before 70AD.76
Genre and Purpose Johns gospel is obviously different to the
Synoptics,77 but similarly provides a deliberate account of the
life of Jesus. Johns narrative is less prosaic, and more artful,
than the synoptics. This is marked by his use of deliberate word
choices, sometimes to create ambiguities,78 and symbolism,79 this
is evident in L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 24, which is
both the traditional view, and the view presented by the text
itself. 73 A.J. Kostenberger, The Destruction Of The Second Temple
And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel, Trinj 26ns (2005)
205-242, further he suggests that it is most likely that the gospel
is written not immediately after the events of 70AD, in the reign
of Domitian, see A.J Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle
Location 404, 412 74 L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 29 75
J. Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke (Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 1992), 230-38, proposes perhaps the earliest limit for
dating, suggesting sometime between 57-59, L. Morris, Luke, Tyndale
New Testament Commentaries (Nottingham, IVP, 1973), 29-31, suggests
Mark has priority and emerges before 68AD. 76 P. Cahill, Johannine
Logos as center, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 38(1), (1976), 54-72,
57 suggests Johns content is indicative of an early date. 77 In
both style and content, this difference is widely recognised. For
example, R. Kysar, Christology and controversy, 357-358, It has
long been held that the Fourth Gospel is a literary piece which
does not neatly fit that genre known to us through the synoptics.
As a narrative proclamation, it is of a somewhat different kind
from its colleagues in the canon. Attempts to explain the
differences vary, L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 30-32,
Some suggest Johns account as a supplement to the synoptics,
expanding on some content of Jesus life the writer felt was
inadequately treated in those accounts, others have suggested Johns
Gospel is a polemic against various emerging theological views of
Jesus and the Incarnation, Namely Gnosticism and Docetism, or
against those continuing to hold to Judaism. 78 On Johns deliberate
ambiguities see S. Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of
Christ, (Tubingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2000), 7, 42-46, 90, 121-122 at
46, Johns style is based on an intricate and playful use of
language throughout the work, deliberate ambiguity and wordplay
were a common ancient rhetorical device, at 90 that Johns gospel is
complex and filled with deliberate ambiguities, at 121, these serve
to create two levels of perception explicit and implied, and 122
the enchanting nature of Johns gospel lies in his allusive,
complex, and subtle use of language. For specific examples of
deliberate ambiguity well noted by scholars (and from outside this
current study, which we will argue, contains a potential example),
include the character Nicodemus, see G. Renz, Nicodemus: An
Ambiguous Disciple? A Narrative Sensitive Investigation,
Challenging Perspectives in the Gospel of John, ed J. Lierman,
(Tubingden, Mohr72
201017867
12
the prologue. 80 He truly wrote his own book, in his own style,
with his own themes.81 The complexity of these themes, and the
accessibility of Johns style, leads to the observation that John is
a pool in which a child can wade and an elephant can swim.82 Johns
unique theology,83 and alternate presentation of Jesus life and
teaching,84 and the presupposition theology and literature are at
odds with history,85 led to a dismissal of Johns account as
unreliable for locating the historical Jesus.86 Some go so far as
to suggest John operates on the periphery of the Christian
tradition.91 These positions disappeared alongside the
Siebeck, 2006), 255-283, suggests that Nicodemus response to
Jesus is deliberately ambiguous so that the performance of the
gospel via public reading (its intended use see 281) encourages
audience members to identify with Nicodemus and consider how they
might respond to the gospels message, the purpose of the gospel
whether for encouragement or evangelism is also ambiguous in the
Greek, prompting speculation that John left the possibility of both
readings open, see M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 20-22,
D. Moody Smith, The Theology of the Gospel of John, (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 120 identifies deliberate
ambiguity at play in Johns account of Jesus final breath on the
cross These are just some examples of scholarship recognising that
John employs word play and deliberate double meanings to create a
rich, interacting, picture. 79 P. Cahill, Johannine Logos as
center, 71, so, for example, his presentation of Jesus via the
!"#"$ concept, The difference between the Synoptics and John is
perhaps better understood by his positing of the logos as a center
which immediately places this gospel in a more rarified symbolic
atmosphere than that which the Synoptics occupy. 80 S. Hamid-Khani,
Revelation and Concealment of Christ, 42, Every thread of his
literary tapestry is tied to another thread. Collectively these
threads produce the enigmatic, elusive, character of the fourth
gospel. 81 D.A. Carson, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel,
129 82 L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 3 83 E. H. Pagels,
Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John, Journal of
Biblical Literature, 118(3), (1999), 477-496, 478, one example is
in Johns presentation of the Kingdom of God, John presents Kingdom
of God protologically as opposed to synoptics which speak
eschatologically. 84 R. Kysar, Christology and controversy, 358,
while John is less interested in presenting history, this does not
amount to a disinterest in historical fact, My suggestion, then, is
that the fourth evangelist is the least concerned with historical
narrative, that his prologue signals the reader that the Christ
story he narrates is one that continues beyond the resurrection
right up to the reader's own time, and that the Christ of faith
affirmed in the prologue is no different from the Jesus of history.
85 L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 35, on the same
presupposition applied to literary criticism see A.J Kostenberger,
Encountering John, Kindle location 278, and 522-524, Once the study
of the medium (the literary art of the fourth evangelist) has
overshadowed the apprehension of the message (Johns desire to lead
his readers to faith; 19:35; 20:31), biblical priorities have been
reversed Inherent in much of literary criticism is also an
illegitimate dichotomy between literature and history. As already
mentioned, the literary study of biblical narratives has often
become an avenue for avoiding the historical dimensions of the text
of Scripture. 86 P. Cahill, Johannine Logos as center, 57 91 G. L.
Miller, Life and the glory, 212-213
201017867
13
fascination with form criticism,92 and John is now considered to
provide a reliable account, complementary to the synoptics. 93
While the gospel is most fruitfully read in light of Johns stated
intention (John 20:30-31),94 some seem determined to read the work
either disregarding, or in opposition to, this statement of
purpose.95 The purpose statement contains another deliberate
ambiguity, with a question arising as to whether John writes to
encourage the church, or evangelise.97 John is interested in
persuading his audience to believe, a verb form he uses 98 times,
in the !"#"$, Jesus Christ.99 Largely thanks to a decline in form
criticism, and partly due to Bauckhams work on eyewitness
testimony, in, for example, R. Bauckham, The Testimony of the
Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History and Theology in the Gospel of
John 93 P. Cahill, Johannine Logos as center, 57 94 A.J
Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle location 284 95 So, for
example, R. Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, (Louisville,
Westminster John Knox Press, 2007, 3rd Edition), 24-29, Kysar
suggests the statement of purpose is slightly ambiguous due to an
issue with the Greek, and uses this ambiguity as a means to
speculate on a completely unrelated purpose based on assumptions
about the books efficacy as an evangelistic tool. Also, at 48-50
suggests the gospel serves as an in-house document establishing
community identity, taking 20:31 to support this. For a view more
in keeping with the statement of purpose see L. Morris, Jesus is
the Christ: Studies in the Theology of John, (Grand Rapids,
Eerdmans, 1989), 1, 42, 170-189 Others have suggested John produced
a polemic, or wrote to resolve a conflict within the church.
Proposed conflicts involve either: a) Jew/Gentile division, R.
Kysar, Christology and controversy, 361, There is some reason,
therefore, to believe that the unique Christology of the prologue
was occasioned by a lively Jewish-Christian controversy. Some
suggest this accounts for the perjorative use of The Jews, R.M
Grant, The Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Journal of Biblical
Literature, Vol. 69, No. 4 (Dec, 1950), 305-322, 320-321, Grant
thinks John is a gnostic book, with a negative view of the Jews,
who reinterprets the gospel story from beginning to end to fit
these two positions. But this use is about religious identity and
the identity of the Messiah, rather than race, see J.W Pryor, John:
Evangelist of The Covenant People, (London, Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1992), 181-184, R. Kysar, John: The Maverick Gospel, 28. Or
b) doctrinal conflicts created by docetism, Johns dualistic
categories, or emerging heresies, E. H. Pagels, Exegesis of Genesis
1 in the Gospels of Thomas and John, 479-480, suggests John writes
to refute the Gospel of Thomas. 97 Many scholars have struggled to
resolve this ambiguity rather than appreciating the dual meaning.
S. Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ, 45, M. Silva,
Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 20-22, in his treatment of the
ambiguity of the verb 1:J35UR35 in 20:31 opens up the possibility
that this dual purpose is deliberate. Johns gospel has initial and
lasting value for readers from a variety of backgrounds, P.W
Comfort, & W.C Hawley, Opening Johns Gospel and Epistles, 8-9,
sees the verb as a present subjunctive interpretation of believe,
so suggests the purpose is solely encouragement, A.J, Kostenberger,
John, 6-7 suggests any evangelistic impact comes through the
equipping of believers, essentially on the basis of ruling out
non-Christian readers. 99 L. Morris, Jesus is the Christ: Studies
in the Theology of John, 170, identifies 98 instances, A. J.
Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle Location 1126, suggests his
use of belief 98 times with an absence of the corresponding noun
faith, means he is aiming to engender the act of believing, E.L
Miller, The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos, Journal for
Biblical Literature, 112/3, (1993), 445-457, 447 suggests it is a
major emphasis, but only used 55 times, R.A Culpepper, Anatomy of
the Fourth Gospel, 98, suggests the narrative arc of Johns gospel,
and its plot, serve to bring the reader to a point of belief in the
!"#"$ of the prologue92
201017867
14
Implied Readers and Purpose If Johns purpose is to have his
audience believe, we now turn to the question of who his audience
is. Our first century dating for the gospel a priori rules out the
Johannine community approach, and a Gnostic audience.100 We can
gain some insight into Johns implied reader through a cautious
approach to common worldviews of his time.101 One commonly proposed
reader, based largely on our passage (John 1:1-5), is a Hellenistic
group familiar with Platonic dualism.102 John employs Platonic
language (eg !"#"$, John 1:1), and dualistic categories (eg John
1:4), which makes his work accessible to Greek readers, but to
suggest his audience is exclusively Greek fails to account for both
the Jewish flavour of the work and the nature of first century
Jewish thought.103
R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans G.R
Beasley-Murray, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1971), 13 suggested Johns
prologue is a Gnostic hymn, but this relies on a late date for the
gospel or, a refuted early Gnosticism (which Bultmann advocated
with no support from his students), L. Morris, The Gospel According
to John, 31, Especially in the case of Bultmanns Gnostic
hypothesis. Gnosticism is a late development, based in part on
Johns gospel. The Nag Hammadi corpus demonstrates this evolutionary
sequence, see P. Perkins, John's Gospel and Gnostic Christologies:
The Nag Hammadi Evidence, Anglican Theological Review, 11 Mr 1990,
Supplement Series, 68-76, 69-71, 73-75, which provides a snapshot
of streams of Johannine theology in the process of evolving into
full-blown Gnostic mythology, for further support of this view,
against Bultmanns theory of pre-Christian Gnosticism see A.H.B
Logan, John And The Gnostics: The Significance Of The Apocryphon Of
John For The Debate About The Origins Of The Johannine Literature,
JSNT 743 (1991),41-69, Johns theology is anti-proto-gnostic in that
it addresses the issues Gnosticism raises before Gnosticism raises
them, G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its Theological Impact,
249 suggests the gnostics saw a powerful vehicle for the
proclamation of their distorted message in the Gospel of John, L.
Morris, The Gospel According to John, 18, while the Gnostics used
John extensively, it was also the major source used to refute their
views. D.A Carson, Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel 14, It
was used as a Gnostic text, but we would argue it was adopted by
the Gnostics, rather than written for a Gnostic audience, see also
L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 17-18 101 A.J
Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle location 739-760, 993,
Suggestions range from various Hellenistic sources (Mandaean
literature, Hermetic writings) to Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) to
Jewish wisdom literature. But as Samuel Sandmel has pointed out so
trenchantly, we must beware of parallelomania at 993, we must
register an important qualification, the distinction between Johns
conceptual background and his desire to contextualize, that is, to
communicate his message to his contemporary audience. 102 P.
Borgen, The Gospel of John and Hellenism, Exploring the Gospel of
John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R.A Culpepper, and C.C Black,
(Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 98-99 103 P.
Borgen, The Gospel of John and Hellenism, 116, suggests John
cultivates practices that are Jewish-Christian versions of trends
from the Hellenistic world. I would argue that it is more a case of
John adopting the language of the world in which he lives to
present the gospel. Borgen (117) suggests that the background for
Johns dualism is more likely Jewish than Greek. There is no reason
that the background should not be both.100
201017867
15
Dualism was not exclusively a Greek category, as evidence from
Qumran demonstrates,104 nor !"#"$ an exclusively Platonic
word.105Johns use of common first century categories involved
radical modification.106 Johns terminology is consistent with a
Jewish milieu,107 and it is a fundamentally Jewish book.108 Part of
Johns argument and his appeal to his audience, is Christianitys Old
Testament heritage.109 Kostenberger (2005) demonstrates the John
presents Jesus as supplanting the practices of second temple
Judaism.110 John describes Jesus with Jewish titles,111 and
presents Jesus as the fulfilment of the Mosaic Law (John 1:17,
5:46).112 Kostenberger
M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel, 18, Light and Darkness
were Qumran concerns. G.L Borchet, The Fourth Gospel and its
Theological Impact, 250-251, M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the
Priority of John, 10, D. Rensberger, Johaninne Faith and Liberating
Community, (Philadelphia, The Westminster Press, 1989), 18-20
suggests this discovery removed, in one fell swoop, decades of
Johannine scholarship that was determined to read John against a
Greek backdrop. 105 D. Wood, The Logos Concept in the Prologue to
the Gospel according to John, The Theological Educator, (38),
(1988), 85-93, 85-86, !"#"$ is used 325 times in the New Testament,
it is also a term used in the Jewish wisdom tradition, see W.
Carter, The prologue and John's gospel, 37 106 A.J Kostenberger,
Encountering John, Kindle location 993, 998, Yet even if John used
the term Word because it served his purpose of communicating to a
Hellenistic (-Jewish) audience, this does not mean that he used the
expression in the way in which it was commonly used in the world of
his day he filled this expression with a new, different meaning,
thus correcting and challenging his readers worldview. Also, L.
Mowry, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Background for the Gospel of
John, The Biblical Archeologist, XVII, (1954), 78-97, 97 107 We
suggest that while J.A Charlesworth, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Gospel According to John, 89-90 presents the Essenes as a
significant community in Jesus time and a profound impact on Johns
theology, he conducts his survey from the view that John was
composed by a second generation Johannine school that had input
from previous members of the Essene community. His methodological
assumptions are flawed, and his observations of links between the
two schools of thought represent the setting of John, rather than
formative influences on John, and thus John writes to people who
may have Essene concerns and expectations. For an argument that the
Old Testament was the common ancestor of both Qumran and John,
rather than Qumran being a parent of John, see also R. Bauckham,
The Testimony of the Beloved, 125-136 108 D.A Reed, How Semitic Was
John: Rethinking the Hellenistic Background to John 1:1, Anglican
Theological Review, 85:4, Fall (2003), 709-726, The prologue ties
Jesus to creation (1:15), the law, and the temple. 109 A.J
Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle location 760, suggests the
Old Testament heritage is evidence for a Jewish reader. However,
converts from outside the Judaic fold would likely have been more
convinced that this wasnt just a new thing, but that it had some
intellectual bona fides. 110 A.J. Kostenberger, The Destruction Of
The Second Temple And The Composition Of The Fourth Gospel, Trinj
26ns (2005) 205-242, says John demonstrates that post-temple
relationships with God find their basis in the Messiah, Jesus
Christ, the word tabernacling with the people (John 1:14), and then
in the people (14:17). 111 A.J. Kostenberger, Jesus as Rabbi in the
Fourth Gospel, Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 97-128,
100-102, Jesus is addressed in the narrative only as Rabbi,
teacher, and master. 112 M. Silva, Approaching the Fourth Gospel,
27-28104
201017867
16
suggests, on the basis of this content, that Johns primary
implied readers are diasporan Jews and Gentiles, conversant with
Judaism.113 While Johns themes are very Jewish,114 the prologue
also undeniably breathes the air of Greek philosophy and
metaphysics.115 Arguments for an exclusive category of reader fail
to adequately account for Johns content,116 and the melting pot of
first century worldviews,117 From the internal evidence outlined
above, Johns implied reader is an idealised everyman of the first
century,118 conversant with Greek and Jewish thought.119 Actual
readers may be Jewish, or Greek, but whoever reads the gospel as
the you (20:31),120 will be presented with the authentic
Christian
A.J Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle Location 404, he
also allows that the gospels were written for all Christians, at
location 426-430. 114 D. Moody Smith, The Theology of the Gospel of
John, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1995), 9, S.
Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ, Tubingen, Mohr
Siebeck, 2000), 407-410 115 D. Moody Smith, The Theology of the
Gospel of John, 12, R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary,
13 essentially recognised this in his proposal that Johns gospel
represented a Gnostic syncretism of Platonism and Judaism. 116
Attempts to separate first century Judaism and Hellenism to create
a monocultural implied reader operate on an arbitrary and
anachronistic dichotomy, D. Moody Smith, The Theology of the Gospel
of John, 10, Judaism and Hellenism are largely culturally
inseperable. M.A Matson, Current Approaches to the Priority of
John, 12, Matson suggests that rather than being specifically
Hellenistic, or Judaic, the background of Johns gospel is
potentially a combination of the two, but not possibly exclusively
Hellenistic. 117 L. Mowry, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Background
for the Gospel of John, 97 118 D.A Carson, Recent Literature on the
Fourth Gospel 14, F.J Moloney, Who is the Reader of the in/of
Fourth Gospel, Australian Biblical Review, 40 (1992) 20-33, 32-33,
S. Hamid-Khani, Revelation and Concealment of Christ, 407-410
suggests much of the complexity of Johns work would miss anybody
not familiar with Judaism, and thus he thinks Judaism is the
primary background, M.E Glasswell, The Relationship Between John
and Mark, 109, suggests it is too simplistic to read the prologue
against just one implied reader. 119 L. Morris, The Gospel
According to John, 33, some have suggested John was aiming to
present an intellectually respectable form of Hellenised
Christianity, D.A Carson, Syntactical And Text-Critical
Observations On John 20:3031: One More Round On The Purpose Of The
Fourth Gospel, JBL 124/4 (2005) 693714, 713, Carson suggests Johns
use of terminology common to his era is a form of missiological
contextualization, he is communicating the gospel in a manner that
those in his setting will understand. This fits with Johns own
statement of purpose (John 20:30-31). Identifying the you addressed
in this verse is fundamental to making the argument that John is an
evangelistic treatise rather than designed to reinforce the beliefs
of Christians, this you is capable of being any typical citizen of
the first century, P.M Phillips, The Prologue of the Fourth Gospel:
A Sequential Reading, Library of New Testament Studies 294 (London:
T&T Clark, 2006), 139, Thus, the Christian ultimately sees the
identification of Jesus and his message. The Stoic hears a
reference to what pervades the universe. The Gnostic finds the text
referring to the mediator from the Arche. The Jew is led to reflect
on the gift of Torah, God's chief agent, and the role of God's
word. The Hellenistic Jew recalls Philo's explorations. The
"ultimately incorrect philosopher in downtown Ephesus" finds a
reference to Heraclitus. Ultimately all are converted to an
understanding of John's Jesus. 120 D.A Carson, Syntactical And
Text-Critical Observations, 713,113
201017867
17
message.121 Johns presentation of the gospel engages with first
century culture in order to create belief that Jesus is the light
and life (John 1:1-5), the !"#"$ personified (John 1:1,15). The
gospel originated within the matrix of early Christian gentile
mission.122 This does not rule out the gospels capability for
fostering belief within the church.123
Literary ContextStudies of Biblical texts on a structural, or
literary level are of limited value if they are removed from
questions of history and theology,124 but are of some value when
considered together. The form and function of the Prologue The
prologue plays an integral part in the gospels structure and
message,125 functioning as a spoiler for the unfolding
narrative.126 The form critical approach identified layers of
tradition behind the prologue, either seeing three hymns stitched
together (1-5, 10-12, 14-18),127 or since
F.F. Bruce, "The Fourth Gospel in Recent Interpretation,"
Terminal Letter of the Theological Students' Fellowship (Spring
1958), 2-6, 2, citing C.H Dodd, who says The Evangelist, he [Dodd]
concludes, was concerned to commend Christianity to a wide public
consisting primarily of devout and thoughtful persons... in the
varied and cosmopolitan society of a great Hellenistic city such as
Ephesus under the Roman Empire in terms which would be familiar to
them. Yet, however much he employed new thought-forms and new
terminology to convey the Christian message, it was the authentic
Christian message that he conveyed. 122 A.J, Kostenberger, John,
6-7 123 It seems odd to argue, as some have, that because Johns
purpose was to encourage believers there was no evangelistic
function of the text. We suggest the encouragement comes through
reassurance that the message Johns readers have received from him
is credible, finding a similar idea expressed in the introduction
to 1 John 1 (esp. 1:3) Others noting this similarity have sketched
an odd compositional history for the gospel where 1 John was
written between the finished work and the prologue, see E.L Miller,
The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos, 445-446, 453, who
suggests a single author, developing his argument across multiple
texts, relatively early in the development of the church 124 A.J
Kostenberger, Encountering John, Kindle location 278 125 G.R
Beasley-Murray, John, 5, it is no mere preface, but rather is a
directive, integral to an understanding of the gospel and its
themes. 126 The prologue gives readers all the information they
need to know about who Jesus is before the narrative unfolds, R.A
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary
Design, (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1983), X, 87, 89, so,
considering the effect the prologue has on the reader of the
narrative, the prologue frames the readers understanding of Jesus
interactions with characters like Nicodemus (John 3), and the
Samaritan woman (John 4), and other dialogues through the unfolding
plot. This spoiler view is supported by R. Kysar, Christology and
controversy, 358, S.S Kim, Literary and Theological Significance,
435, M. E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions: a new case for reading the prologue as a hymn, Journal
of Biblical Literature, 128(4), (2009), 781-802, 800 127 Comfort
& Halwell, Opening John, 15
121
201017867
18
Bultmann a redacted Gnostic hymn,128 with editorial
interpolations regarding John the Baptist.129 Some dismiss those
interpolations when analysing the prologue,130 but John the
Baptists role in the prologue seems essential structurally,
literarily, and theologically.131 This methodology played down the
artistry involved,132 failing to account for intricate manner in
which it introduces the work,133 and ignoring the final form of
both prologue and book.134 Form critical theories are always the
result of speculation,135 and can largely be dismissed through the
unity of the text (and its unity with the gospel).136S. R
Valentine, The Johannine Prologue a Microcosm of the Gospel,
Evangelical Quarterly, 68:3 (1996), 291-304, provides an overview
of approaches to the prologue and suggests the hymn view fails to
account for the level of integration between the prologue and the
gospel narrative. As noted above, our proposed historical context
for gospel, and the Prologue, distances it from Gnosticism. 129 R.
Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 13-17, Bultmann sees the hymn
functioning as an overture, introducing the reader to the themes of
the gospel, he suggested its origins in a hymn of community
reflecting on the secret revelation it has received, also M. E.
Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 793-795, E.L Miller, The Johannine Origins of the
Johannine Logos, 446, suggests that rather than being
interpolations, the verses about John the Baptist were the original
opening statements of the gospel. 130 C.H Giblin, Two complementary
literary structures in John 1:1-18, Journal of Biblical Literature,
104/1, (1985), 87-103 also M. E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue
and Jewish didactic hymn traditions, 793-795 131 S. Voorwinde,
Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 35, [The] John the Baptist
references are not interpolations. Not only do vv 6-8 and v. 15
play a seminal role in the entire narrative, they are also
intricately interwoven into the matrix of the prologue. They cannot
easily be removed without serious damage to its fine literary
fabric. From the parabola not only can it be shown that they are
parallel, but also that within its thematic flow they stand at
significant points of transition. J. G, Van der Watt, The
Composition of the Prologue of Johns Gospel, 313, supports this
position. 132 G.R Beasley-Murray, John, 4, Beasley-Murray
highlights the two ways the prologue can be viewed either as a poem
fashioned by an intricate process, or as a closely knit composition
constructed with consummate artistry. 133 The relationship between
the prologue and the gospel is tabulated in Carson, D. A. (1991).
The Gospel according to John. (Grand Rapids, W.B. Eerdmans), 110111
134 M.E Glasswell, The Relationship Between John and Mark, 109, The
starting-point [in understanding Johns message] must be the opening
of the Gospel. I agree with CK. Barrett in taking the prologue to
be redactional and at least framed by the evangelist for its
present position. It is essential to the Gospel that follows, which
could not exist without it. The prologue would have to look very
different if divorced from the Gospel, and I would not agree that
nothing needs to follow it. R.A Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth
Gospel, 89, develops this last statement, suggesting that while the
prologue frames the narrative, the prologue also needs the
narrative to demonstrate its claims. S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue:
beyond some impasses, 17, 43, considerations of the final form of
the text are of more theological value. 135 S. Voorwinde, Johns
prologue: beyond some impasses, 17 136 S.S Kim, Literary and
Theological Significance, 435, Theologically the Prologue
introduces the main themes regarding the deity of Jesus that are
developed later in the narrative. W. Carter, The prologue and Johns
gospel, 35-36, treatments of the Prologue must take its interaction
with the rest of the gospel into account, S. Voorwinde, Johns
prologue: beyond some impasses, 18, 22, prologue is intimately
linked to the gospel, the prologue is the seedbed of the gospels
teaching, anticipating the major emphases of the work. Brown, The
Prologue, 429, Words like life, light, darkness, witness, believe,
world, knowledge, flesh, grace, truth, glory have a specific
meaning and importance in the Gospel as a whole. The meaning found
in the Word (Logos)
128
201017867
19
Structure of the Prologue (1:1-18) Johns prologue is an
intricate and complex piece of literature, with clear interweaving
of themes, but relatively unclear divisions or transitions between
elements. Many chiastic structures with various levels of
complexity have been proposed for the prologue, from Culpeppers
complex ABCDEFGHIHGFEDCBA,137 to simpler ABCDCBA,138 or ABCBA
structures.139 Others have identified a structure featuring a
sequential series of parallelisms, operating in an ABCDEABCDE
pattern.140 Any suggested structure must be determined by exegesis,
rather than exegesis being led by structure.143 Voorwinde (2002)
proposes a parabolic rather than chiastic structure, where verses 1
and 18 operate as an inclusio, and each idea is developed and
significant.144 He also warns against structures that are too
reductionistic.145
unfolds in the Gospel as a whole. One of the most exciting ways
to study John is to detect in the body of the Gospel the themes
introduced in the prologue. 137 Perhaps the most complex chiastic
structure was suggested by R. A Culpepper, The Pivot of Johns
Prologue, New Testament Studies, 27, (1980), 1-31, which focused
the chiastic structure on becoming children of God, Culpeppers
structure is cited (and dismissed) in S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue:
beyond some impasses, 24 138 J. Staley, The Structure of Johns
Prologue: Its implications for the Gospels Narrative Structure, The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 48, (1986), 241-264, 246, proposes a
Chiasm with three steps, and the middle element focusing on the
empowerment of believers in vv 12-13, and a movement from negatives
to positive in the B and C elements. 139 A.J Kostenberger, John,
21, proposes a simple chiasm: A) vv 1-5 The Words activity in
creation. B) vv 6-8 Johns witness concerning the light. C) vv 9-14
the incarnation and privilege of becoming Gods children B) v 15
Johns witness concerning the Words pre-eminence. A) vv 16-18 The
final revelation through Jesus Christ. 140 M. Coloe, The Structure
of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1, 44-46, Proposes a
particularly interesting bipartite parallelism where the first part
reports, second part announces personal testimony using first
person verbs. Introduction (1-2) Story was seen (3-5) paired with
14 by us Was heard (6-8) paired with 15 John cries out Was
experienced (9-13) paired with 16-17 we all received. Conclusion
(18), also J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of
Johns Gospel, 315-316, identifies another proposed parallelism, vv.
1-5 with v. 14, vv. 6-8 with v. 15, vv. 9-11 with v. 16, v. 12a-b
with v. 17, vv. 12c-13 with v.18, but suggests it is somewhat
arbitrary. 143 S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some impasses,
25, suggests several interrelated and complementary structures. 144
S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 27-28 145 S.
Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 27-28
201017867
20
Proposed literary structures are often arbitrary and tenuous.146
Johns prologue is so intricately interwoven that it is possible to
suggest multiple legitimate structures. 147 It is also possible to
read the prologue sequentially, as elevated prose,148 focusing on
the development of Johns !"#"$ theme.149 A proposal: A didactic
hymn by a single author Some hints as to how the prologue may have
been received and understood by Johns audience can be found in a
comparison with similar documents from the time.151 The Wisdom of
Solomon is one fruitful example, both in style,152 and
substance.153 While we have rightly rejected the form critical
notions of a redacted hymn, and a Gnostic audience, reading the
prologue as a particular type of hymn may provide some interpretive
benefits.
S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 24, possibly
2 chiastic structures within the prologue. Or a W shape. Culpeppers
children of God as central theme is based on a tenuous foundation,
J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns
Gospel, 314-315, chiasms are artificial, dont pay enough attention
to the syntax, the result of vivid imagination 147 S. Voorwinde,
Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 26-27, the integrity of the
prologue is enhanced by the number of plausible suggestions for the
structure, J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of
Johns Gospel, 311-312, suggests a single text does not have a
single structure, different structures may complement each other,
several interrelated and complementary structures 148 Coloe, M, The
Structure of the Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1, Australian
Biblical Review, 45 (1997), 53, suggests there may be six strophes
within the prologue, designed to reflect the days of creation,
culminating in one grand act, with Jesus arriving to replace the
law. 149 L. Morris, John, 63-100, uses the Word as a developing
theme in the prologue, The Word and God (vv. 1-2), The Word and
creation (vv. 3-5), The Word and John the Baptist (vv. 6-8), The
Word incarnate (vv. 9-14), The Words surpassing excellence (vv.
15-18). Also, R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 17, 19-83, similarly
divides the prologue on its treatment of the word, but settles on a
twofold division, the word in history (1:1-4), and the word as
revealer (1:5-18), S.S. Kim, The literary and theological
significance of the Johannine prologue, 428435, suggests the
prologue deals with the origin, witness, manifestation, and
revelation of the !"#"$. 151 While mindful of both parallelomania,
and inferring too much from the similarities in terms of origins.
152 M. E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 784, both documents represent a kind of discourse that
unites philosophy and rhetoric in order to persuade the audience to
embrace a particular approach to life. The genre lends itself to
the incorporation of a number of smaller genres or literary forms.
153 M. E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 784-786, both in terms of genre, and in the view of
!"#"$ as wisdom, as having a saving role in history. Gordley
suggests this role in history is interestingly paralleled in Johns
emphasis on the !"#"$ via his role in creation and salvation
history across seven stages: the Logos before creation (w. 1-2);
the Logos involved in creation (w. 3-4); the Logos in the world
after creation (w. 5,9); the Logos rejected by some Israelites in
biblical history (w. 10-11); the Logos received by some Israelites
in history (w. 12-13); the Logos made flesh (v. 14); the
community's experience of grace and truth through Jesus Christ (w.
16-17).146
201017867
21
Firstly, a hymn reading treats the movements in the text as
strophes, 154 removes the need for chiastic proposals,155 accounts
for the staircase relationship between verses, 156 and allows focus
on the final form. Secondly, a hymnic view accounts for Johns
cosmic language, which occurs in similar hymns throughout the New
Testament (Phil 2:6-11; Col 1:15-20; 1 Tim 3:16; and Heb 1:2-5).157
The prologue is very different to wisdom hymns of its era, and that
almost as many hymn forms have been identified as chiastic
structures.158 However, one particular genre of hymn reflects our
conclusions on both the historical context, and purpose of the
gospel,159 and observations on structure and form of the prologue,
the didactic hymn.160 Didactic hymns draw on any number of
traditions (exegetical, historical, philosophical, theological,
rhetorical) to achieve their didactic aims in poetic and/or hymnic
form.161 As a didactic hymn, the Prologue draws on various sources
and traditions to teach the basic truths about Jesus, the subject
of Johns gospel, and the object of the belief John hopes to inspire
in his readers.162 The Prologue and Johns Gospel
M. E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 791, this provides an interpretive chronology of sorts,
rather than seeing the prologue fold back on itself. 155 M. E.
Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 788-790 156 M. E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue and
Jewish didactic hymn traditions, 792 157 P. Cahill, Johannine Logos
as center, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 38(1), (1976).54-72, 57, M.
E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 791, The claims made on behalf of the Logos in the
prologue can be understood to reflect hymnic conventions. 158 M. E.
Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 796 159 M. E. Gordley, The Johannine prologue and
Jewish didactic hymn traditions, 801, supports connections that
other scholars find between the thought-world of the prologue and
the landscape of Hellenistic Jewish wisdom speculation. 160 M. E.
Gordley, The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn
traditions, 801, this conclusion allows for a richer development of
the many connections between this passage and other didactic hymn
traditions from the first century and before. 161 M. E. Gordley,
The Johannine prologue and Jewish didactic hymn traditions, 801,
The didactic hymn reading of the prologue thus allows for a richer
understanding of the prologue than any previous view. 162 However,
while this genre suggestion is compelling, and supports the
literary context outlined above, it is slightly circular, and thus
not conclusive. Nor is it ultimately necessary to establish this
conclusion in order to demonstrate the proposed purpose.154
201017867
22
The lack of consensus on both the structure and genre of the
prologue enhance the view that it is a united and complex text,163
and regardless of structure or genre, the prologue still sits
easily within the final form of Johns gospel. The Prologue forms a
clear first division of the gospel narrative, which can then be
split into either four ministry tours (1:19-3:36, 4:1-6:71,
7:1-10:42, 11:121:25),164 or the popular two book structure.165
This framework relies on a reductionist definition of signs,
contrary to Johns own view of the works single purpose.166 Various
literary structures have been proposed for the gospel, but treating
the book as a single narrative unit is more in line with the
authors intent (cf John 20:30).167 The prologue provides a
framework for the gospel, so that Johns narrative functions within
the story of the pre-existent word made flesh.173 Verses 1-5 in
relation to the Prologue (1:1-18) and the Gospel Johns opening
statements introduce and summarise the themes of the prologue,174
which does the same for the gospel175 The statements present,
on
163 Most suggested structures seem somewhat arbitrary, but all
contribute to the view that Johns prologue is intricately crafted
so that each idea relates to the other ideas in the sequence, see
J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns
Gospel, 317. Some, however, use the complexity to argue the
reverse, that the debate and lack of consensus suggest that no real
structure can be found, an example is E.L Miller, The Johannine
Origins of the Johannine Logos, 446, Miller sees the prologue as an
anthology of memorable quotes from Johns works. 164 J.L Staley, The
Structure of Johns Prologue, 262-264, at 262, Staley suggests this
structure operates around a concentric narrative structure, with
each of these four sections building on the themes from the
prologue - the witness of John, the journey of the Logos, and the
empowerment of believers (tied to Jesus demonstrations of power),
Our study has shown that the Fourth Gospel exhibits a symmetrical,
concentric structure which is built upon that of the prologue we
find that it divides the narrative neatly into five sections. At
263, Staley advocates narrative criticism rather than source
criticism because his treatment of the narrative doesnt cleanly
mesh with structures proposed by source or form critics. 165 A. J
Kostenberger, John, 9-11, this structure sees John as opening with
the prologue (1:1-18), followed by the book of signs (1:19-12:50)
and the book of Glory (13:1-20:31), concluded by an epilogue
(21:1-25). 166 D.A Carson, The Gospel According to John, 103-104,
John 20:30 makes it clear that John sees the entire gospel as a
book of signs. It makes more sense to read the gospel as a
narrative 167 D.A Carson, The Gospel According to John, 103-104,
Various structural assessments of the gospel are made possible by
Johns repeated treatment of the same themes 173 A. J Kostenberger,
John, 9 174 J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of
Johns Gospel, 317, verses 1-5 are the "logical foundation-piece"
for the rest of the prologue, also, Comfort and Hawley, Opening
Johns Gospel and Epistles, 15, The rst ve verses form a kind of
mini-prologue. Containing most of the key elements found in the
rest of the prologue, these ve verses span the time frame from
eternity,
201017867
23
a surface reading, a history of the !"#"$, prior to the
incarnation, but through both ambiguities within the passage,176
and the context within the prologue, promote the view that the
incarnation is the pivotal moment in history where the creator
enters creation.177 Structure and form of verses 1-5 Some form
critics treat 1-5 as a separate hymn (with redactions in verses
12).178 Others have identified an ABBA shaped chiasm, or
antimetabole, in verses 1-2, which makes claims of redaction within
those verses difficult to sustain.179 The statements in verses 1-5
interlock in a staircase structure.180 Words are repeated in pairs
throughout to help demonstrate that Johns statements come in a
closely related progression.181 There is little question this
passage is a single literary unit.182
to Creation, to Christs ministry, to the present (note the
present tense verb in 1:5the light shines). 175 S. R Valentine, The
Johannine Prologue a Microcosm of the Gospel, 291-304, The prologue
is a summary of the content of the gospel, integral to its form and
message. J.L. Staley, The structure of Johns prologue, 241-242, the
first strophe does set the tone for the structure of the prologue,
as the prologue sets the tone for the gospel itself. P. Cahill,
Johannine Logos as center, 70, it is the center around which the
gospel turns suggests Logos is what gives intelligibility to the
structure of the whole gospel, at 68, Centers in literature not
only have their own existence, but confer intelligibility on the
literary unit. The logos, now incarnate, is the center from which
all else in the gospel follows. Remove either the eternity or the
temporality of the logos, and nothing else within the gospel makes
sense. Critical scholars acknowledge this relationship, but see it
as evidence of redaction, E.L Miller, The Johannine Origins of the
Johannine Logos, 446-447, suggests the prologue serves to introduce
the themes of the gospel, but only because it is written as a
redacted summary, his analysis of the themes raised in 1-5, and
picked up in the gospel proper, the Pre-existence of the Logos,
Logos identified with God, Life in the Logos, Light in the Logos,
Conflict of Light and Darkness, is remarkably similar to Carsons
tabulated treatment of the prologues relationship to the gospel,
D.A Carson, The Gospel According to John, 110-111, where Carson
takes a less critical approach to the text. 176 In particular the
present tense sense of G/&5:, and the light-darkness conflict,
and the ambiguous transition between verses three and four,
discussed above. 177 D.A Carson, The Gospel According to John,
119-120 178 J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of
Johns Gospel, 317, cites Miller, who suggests 1:1-5 (actually la-b,
3-5) is "a complete Christological/Logos hymn In order for this
structure to "work," 1:1c and 1:2 are omitted as later additions.
179 J.L Staley, The Structure of Johns Prologue, 243 180 E.L
Miller, The Johannine Origins of the Johannine Logos, 446, S.
Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 18-19, J. G, Van
der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns Gospel, 318 181
J. G, Van der Watt, The Composition of the Prologue of Johns
Gospel, 319 182 And, indeed, a single Didactic hymn, as argued
above.
201017867
24
!"#"$ and Purpose: Divine word before, in, and entering,
Salvation History John opens with an exposition of Genesis 1,183
with the !"#"$ integral to the creation of the world (1:1-3), 184
active in bringing life to mankind (1:3b-4a), and active in
revealing, and redemption, in the battle between light and dark
(1:4-5). 185 Verses 1-5 retell the Genesis story as salvation
history, around the person of the divine !"#"$.186 The !"#"$ is
active before incarnation, but his physical arrival serves as the
pivotal point where the created order is dramatically altered. 187
Jesus claims to divinity and uncreated pre-existence are emphasised
through the use of & () as noted above, M.E Glasswell, The
Relationship Between John and Mark, 111 suggests this pre-existence
is a necessary pre-condition of Johns argument, a further element
of Johns exposition of Genesis is his treatment of God speaking in
creation (Gen 1:3) which he represents as !"#"$, a common
exegetical practice, P. Borgen, Creation, Logos and the Son, 92,
cites Philo as an example of a Jewish exegete who settles on logos
in Genesis 1:3. The Creation of light from darkness is also an
exposition on Gen 1:2-5. Others who suggest the prologue is an
exposition of Genesis include: S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond
some impasses, 33, E. H. Pagels, Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the
Gospels of Thomas and John, 478, 489, though some are hesitant to
recognise this connection, following Bultmann, Glasswell, M.E The
Relationship Between John and Mark, 110, Bultmann says, Gen. 1.1 is
inadequate even though it may form part of the idea. It is not
simply creation that is in mind. Revelation and redemption are seen
in Jesus and this is a fulfilment of God's Word achieved in the Old
Testament from Creation seen as the act and word of God himself.
There is room for no other Word; hence, when that Word is seen in
Jesus this can only imply divinity from the beginning. H. Thyssen,
Philosophical Christology in the New Testament, Numen:
International Review for the History of Religions, 53(2), (2006),
133-176, 153-155, is also dismissive of the link to Genesis 1
through a bizarre argument from silence, and some interesting
assumptions about the early church and their treatment of the
passage. He suggests that because a later author, Justin, makes the
connection between !"#"$ and creation, John must not have been
doing that, or this later argument would be unnecessary, The reason
why we do not hear of any scriptural derivation from the word of
creation is that such an argument did not exist. The scriptural
argument of Justin occupies so to speak the place where that
derivation ought to have appeared. Because that exists, the other
cannot have been Since, then, no Biblical derivation from the word
of Creation existed, the Christian doctrine of the Logos cannot
have originated as a deduction from the word of Genesis. 184 S.
Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 34, 43 In w. 1-5,
that part of the prologue which most strongly echoes the creation
account, the Logos is clearly aligned with the Creator rather than
with creation. 185 D. Wood, The Logos Concept in the Prologue to
the Gospel of John, 88-91 186 Stressing the divinity of the !"#"$,
by treating Jesus, not creation, as the subject, see S. Voorwinde,
Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 43, before a stylised
retelling of the creation account, P. Borgen, Creation, Logos and
the Son, 92-94, Borgen identifies three elements of this retelling,
the pre-existence of the !"#"$, the creator entering creation and
not being received, and the primordial light, he suggests that
point 2 contains echoes of wisdom tradition (see Enoch 40:2), where
perhaps the easiest link to Genesis is the fall, where Gods people
reject him. Regarding the divinity of the !"#"$, the Prologue
asserts what the gospel demonstrates, M.E Glasswell, The
Relationship Between John and Mark, 109 the Fourth Gospel does
later make that leap, on the basis of the Prologue, in its
understanding of the relationship between Father and Son, and there
is no need therefore to split hairs about this in the Prologue
itself. We can see how this development could take place from the
concept of the originality of God's gospel (i.e. Word) as found in
Jesus. 187 S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue: beyond some impasses, 33,
A similar pattern can be found in John's prologue where the verb
.,$)#3+, is found 9 times (six of which are the form "$."$)"(#). As
in Genesis, it is used of the created order consistently in w. 3,
6, 10, 12, but in v. 14 this pattern is183
201017867
25
The Light/Darkness dualism is a key theme in both Genesis 1:2-5
and John 1:4-5, and was common to first century religious
belief,188 John engages this category through his exposition on
creation, and ties a second common category, the !"#"$, to the
resolution of this common conflict.189 Johns !"#"$ creates the
world, triumphs over darkness, and brings recreation to individuals
through belief.190 In defining Jesus as the divine !"#"$ (1:1-2)
made flesh (1:14), John employed a term that engaged our identified
implied reader, the first century everyman. Jews viewed the !"#"$
as the word of God, typified by Torah and the prophets,191 but also
in the 2nd Temple period, and in Rabbinic speculation, it is
understood as wisdom,192 a foundation of Gods creation (Prov
8:22-30).193 Similarities can be drawn between the prologue and
both the Odes of
dramatically broken. By way of the incarnation the Logos,
through whom all things were created (w. 35, 10), enters creation
and becomes a part of it In w. 1-12 .,$)#3+, continues to be used
consistently of the created order in general or of specific
creatures in particular, -"$.4, on the other hand, has been
hypostasized into the cognate noun #$ -#$.#%. 188 A.J Kostenberger,
John, 13, Qumran positions light and darkness as an eschatological
dualism. Gnosticism, and Platonism more broadly, operated on
dualistic categories, Johns use of !"#"$ and the dualism between
light and dark form part of Bultmanns case for viewing the prologue
of John as a Gnostic hymn. R. Bultmann, John, 30, Bultmann suggests
the creation theology of verse 1, and the man of light in verses
4-5, place the prologue in an OT infused early Oriental Gnosticism.
This assumption was thoroughly repudiated, see E.M Yamauchi,
Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in
recent debate, Themelios 10.1 (September 1984): 22-27, electronic
edition, retrieved 28 July 2011,
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/article_gnosticism_yamauchi.html,
Bultmann's formulation that the Johannine prologue was a
pre-Christian Gnostic baptist hymn has not convinced even his own.
Furthermore, D.A Carson, Recent Literature on the Fourth Gospel:
Some reflections, Themelios, 8-17, 12, suggests such dualism is
universal to religious expression, also M.A Matson, Current
Approaches to the Priority of John, 5 189 See translation notes
above regarding the present tense of G/&5: in juxtaposition
with the aorist ./3!/M5&. 190 S. Voorwinde, Johns prologue:
beyond some impasses, 34, The Logos therefore is portrayed in the
prologue as the one through whom God brings about both creation and
new creation, the latter being made possible by the incarnation.
191 D. Wood, The Logos Concept in the Prologue to the Gospel of
John, 86 192 W. Carter, The prologue and John's gospel, 37, Taps
into wisdom traditions, where the !"#"$ is not created but eternal,
on Rabbinic speculation see E.L Miller, The Johannine Origins of
the Johannine Logos, 447 193 M. Coloe, The Structure of the
Johannine Prologue and Genesis 1, 46, 52
201017867
26
Solomon,194 and Wisdom of Solomon.195 The Targum understands it
as a divine hypostasis. 196 The Stoics viewed !"#"$ as the
reasoning and creative power in the universe,197 Roman Stoics spoke
of the emperor as the embodiment of the divine !"#"$,198 speaking
of Augustus as the beginning of all things. 199 Philo fused the
Jewish wisdom concept with the Greek,200 he used the word !"#"$
some 1,200 times,201 and viewed it as the sum total of the thought
of God and a divine mediator between humans and God.202 Some see
similarities with Philo as evidence that Hellenised Judaism is the
sole background of the prologue,203 but this is an unnecessarily
narrow conclusion.204Equally narrow is the reverse, the idea that
since Johns !"#"$ is