The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History

2000 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANCIS J. MOLONEY
Keyword(s):  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Passion Narrative ◽  
Jerusalem Temple

In the ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ it has become axiomatic that the Fourth Gospel, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. certain elements in the passion narrative), has little to offer attempts to trace the person and activity of the pre-Easter Jesus. A study of the Johannine presentation of the beginnings of Jesus' ministry, his relationship with the Baptist, the calling of disciples and his presence in the Jerusalem Temple, suggests otherwise. Given the Markan imposition of a ‘framework’ upon the Synoptic tradition, the Johannine tradition may more accurately recall those early events.

Gloria in Profundis: Comparing the Glory of Moses in Sirach to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel

2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-78
Author(s):  
Nijay K. Gupta
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Passion Narrative ◽  
Ben Sira ◽  
Presence Of God ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
John's Gospel ◽  
The One ◽  
Double Nature

Abstract The glory of Jesus is a leitmotif of the Fourth Gospel and probably reflects both the Shekinah “glory” of Israel’s God revealed in Jesus as well as honor attributed to Jesus by John. The Jewish wisdom teacher Ben Sira also employs glorification language frequently and carefully in Sirach. Bringing these two texts into conversation illuminates the peculiar and unique ways in which John portrayed the identity of Jesus. In Sirach 45:1-5, in particular, Ben Sira praised the glory of Moses—a man beloved of God, made equal to the angels, great before his enemies, powerful in word, intrepid before kings, sanctified in faithfulness, party to the holy presence of God, and privy to the secret things of God. Given that John also had much interest in Moses comparison and typology, setting these texts side-by-side brings to the forefront the double-nature of the Fourth Gospel’s glory-Christology. On the one hand, the Johannine Jesus offered great demonstrations of power and authoritative teaching. On the other hand, he fared quite the opposite as Ben Sira’s vision of the exalted Moses, especially in John’s passion narrative where Jesus appears frail, weak, shamed, and defeated. Comparing the Moses of Sirach to the Jesus of John’s Gospel especially reveals the Evangelist’s paradoxical theology of gloria in profundis—the humble glory of God demonstrated in Jesus.

Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1

2006 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crispin Fletcher-Louis
Keyword(s):  
Second Temple ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Divine Presence ◽  
High Priest ◽  
Jerusalem Temple ◽  
God's People ◽  
Psalm 110 ◽  
Intractable Problems ◽  
Programmatic Statement

AbstractRecent study of the priesthood in Second Temple life and thought invites a reconsideration of Jesus’ self-understanding. The appeal to Psalm 110 and Daniel 7.13 indicates that Jesus thought that, although not of priestly lineage, nevertheless he would ultimately be the nation's king and priest after the order of Melchizedek. Mark 1–6 contains a programmatic statement of Jesus’ claim to a high priestly identity as the ‘holy one of God’ (1.24), with a high priestly contagious holiness (1.40-45; 5.25-34; 5.35-43), freedom to forgive sins (2.1-12) and the embodiment of divine presence in a Galilean cornfield (2.23-28). As true high priest he makes divine presence ‘draw near’ to God's people (1.15), where before they had to ‘draw near’ to the Jerusalem temple. The hypothesis that Jesus thought he was Israel's long-awaited eschatological high priest resolves otherwise intractable problems in historical Jesus scholarship. This is Part 1 of a two-part essay.

Torture: Flesh, Truth, and the Fourth Gospel

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Glancy
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Bodies ◽  
The Body ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
John 1 ◽  
Passion Narrative ◽  
Roman World ◽  
Do So

AbstractIn the Roman world, torture, conceived as a mechanism to extract truth from flesh, was used in judicial interrogation, most commonly in interrogation of slaves and other low-status persons. The flogging of Jesus in John 19:1-3, a flogging that occurs in the midst of the trial before Pilate, is best read as an instance of such judicial torture. If understood as an act of judicial torture, the flogging is also an act of witnessing to the truth: the flesh of the Johannine Jesus is flush with truth (John 1:14). And because Jesus' flesh is flush with truth, the Johannine passion narrative is an account of torture, torture as defined in Roman law: "By torture we mean the infliction of anguish and agony on the body to elicit the truth" (Dig. 48.10.15.41). As I trace the lineaments of truth in Jesus' corpus, I ask how the Fourth Gospel implicates the project of torture. Confronted by the horror of a U.S. policy of distilling truth from foreign bodies, I ask this question urgently. Is it possible to embrace flesh as a locus of truth and still to condemn the practice of torture? Through my carnal reading of the Johannine passion narrative, I attempt to do so.

scholarly journals The midwife of truth: The nature of irony and a rationale for its prevalence in the Gospel of John

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bruce W. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Conceptual Level ◽  
Passion Narrative ◽  
Sustained Use ◽  
Meaningful Engagement ◽  
Major Treatment ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Conceptual Link ◽  
The Way

<p>The Gospel of John is renowned for its pervasive use of irony. While this phenomenon is widely recognized by scholars, there have been only a few attempts to explain the “how” of Johannine irony and no meaningful attempt to explain its “why.” The last major treatment of the topic was by Paul Duke in his 1985 work, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, which provides an account of how Johannine irony works through an analysis of local and extended ironies. Other examinations, such as Gail O’Day’s Revelation in the Fourth Gospel in 1986, explore irony as a corollary of some other thematic concern. The reticence of scholars to delve deeper into the nature of Johannine irony is understandable given that as Duke puts it, irony laughs at all pretensions, especially the pretension of claiming to have grasped irony.  This study undertakes the demanding but necessary task of describing irony to a level that allows meaningful engagement with ironic texts, while accepting that it remains ultimately indefinable. Particular attention is paid to historical shifts of understanding of the nature of irony and the implications this has for appreciating irony at a conceptual level. From a survey of the Johannine scholarship, a comprehensive but non-exhaustive overview of the Fourth Gospel’s use of irony is derived. No previous work has attempted to approach the subject in this way. The main advantage of doing so is that it allows for the identification of broad patterns of irony and the way it functions in the narrative. This in turn provides a framework for proceeding to an examination of particular texts and the identification of a possible rationale.  The present study assesses several hypotheses to explain why the author of the Fourth Gospel makes such sustained use of irony. The preferred hypothesis is that it is intrinsically linked to a predominant Johannine theme of alētheia (truth). Drawing on the conceptual link between irony and truth, it argues that the truth theme is a deliberate literary strategy employed by the author to entice the reader to seek certain propositional truths within the narrative. This ultimately serves the author’s desire to evoke revelation and response in line with the Gospel’s purpose statement in 20:31.  The argument that irony serves the Johannine truth theme is tested with particular reference to the Prologue (1:1-18) and the Passion Narrative (chapters 18-19). The study establishes that irony serves as the link between appearance and reality in the narrative. Its subtle and engaging qualities make irony the most suitable vehicle to testify to the Gospel’s propositional statements in a manner that fulfils the author’s stated Christological (a revelation of Jesus’ true identity) and soteriological (a response that leads to salvation) purposes.</p>

Are there Parables in John? It is Time to Revisit the Question

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 243-276
Author(s):  
Ruben Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Specific Form ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Synoptic Gospels ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Historical Document ◽  
Memory Research ◽  
Form Criticism

AbstractA point of agreement between historical-Jesus scholarship and Johannine scholarship is that there are no parables in the Fourth Gospel. The following article, however, questions this consensus on both historical and literary grounds. Drawing on the insights of memory research, the following discussion will not seek to peer 'behind' the text, but rather embraces the text itself as a historical document of the memory of Jesus. Additionally, new genre theories necessitate a shift in the application of form criticism to the parable genre. Taking these new methodological insights into account, one finds texts in John that have the same right to be called 'parables' as texts found in the Synoptic Gospels. Furthermore, these Johannine parables, in their specific form of remembering, preserve and reveal important theological aspects of Jesus' parables.

Mary Of Bethany And Mary Of Magdala-two Female Characters In The Johannine Passion Narrative

1995 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-586 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of Mark ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Female Characters ◽  
Passion Narrative ◽  
Critical Studies ◽  
Male Characters ◽  
John's Gospel

The focus of this investigation is ontwo female charactersin John's Gospel,Mary of BethanyandMary of Magdala. Key are the development and unfolding of these characters within the passion narrative and their relation to other female and male characters. According to Culpepper,‘… one of the most interesting elements of any story is the cast of characters’, and: ‘Much of the power of the Fourth Gospel comes from its vivid characterizations and their effects upon the reader.’ Nevertheless, not much attention has been paid so far to characterization in John (and to characterization in general), and female characters have been even more neglected and treated like stepdaughters. This holds true also for female characters in the Gospel of Mark, which has been the focus of interest in narrative-critical studies.

scholarly journals The midwife of truth: The nature of irony and a rationale for its prevalence in the Gospel of John

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bruce W. Bell
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Conceptual Level ◽  
Passion Narrative ◽  
Sustained Use ◽  
Meaningful Engagement ◽  
Major Treatment ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Conceptual Link ◽  
The Way

<p>The Gospel of John is renowned for its pervasive use of irony. While this phenomenon is widely recognized by scholars, there have been only a few attempts to explain the “how” of Johannine irony and no meaningful attempt to explain its “why.” The last major treatment of the topic was by Paul Duke in his 1985 work, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, which provides an account of how Johannine irony works through an analysis of local and extended ironies. Other examinations, such as Gail O’Day’s Revelation in the Fourth Gospel in 1986, explore irony as a corollary of some other thematic concern. The reticence of scholars to delve deeper into the nature of Johannine irony is understandable given that as Duke puts it, irony laughs at all pretensions, especially the pretension of claiming to have grasped irony.  This study undertakes the demanding but necessary task of describing irony to a level that allows meaningful engagement with ironic texts, while accepting that it remains ultimately indefinable. Particular attention is paid to historical shifts of understanding of the nature of irony and the implications this has for appreciating irony at a conceptual level. From a survey of the Johannine scholarship, a comprehensive but non-exhaustive overview of the Fourth Gospel’s use of irony is derived. No previous work has attempted to approach the subject in this way. The main advantage of doing so is that it allows for the identification of broad patterns of irony and the way it functions in the narrative. This in turn provides a framework for proceeding to an examination of particular texts and the identification of a possible rationale.  The present study assesses several hypotheses to explain why the author of the Fourth Gospel makes such sustained use of irony. The preferred hypothesis is that it is intrinsically linked to a predominant Johannine theme of alētheia (truth). Drawing on the conceptual link between irony and truth, it argues that the truth theme is a deliberate literary strategy employed by the author to entice the reader to seek certain propositional truths within the narrative. This ultimately serves the author’s desire to evoke revelation and response in line with the Gospel’s purpose statement in 20:31.  The argument that irony serves the Johannine truth theme is tested with particular reference to the Prologue (1:1-18) and the Passion Narrative (chapters 18-19). The study establishes that irony serves as the link between appearance and reality in the narrative. Its subtle and engaging qualities make irony the most suitable vehicle to testify to the Gospel’s propositional statements in a manner that fulfils the author’s stated Christological (a revelation of Jesus’ true identity) and soteriological (a response that leads to salvation) purposes.</p>

Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 143-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley E. Porter ◽  
Hughson T. Ong
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Redaction Criticism ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Research Areas

This article examines and responds to the arguments made by Paul Foster in a recent article in jshj regarding social-memory theory, orality, and the Fourth Gospel, where he argues that recent research in these areas are dead-ends for historical Jesus research. We do not necessarily wish to defend the research he criticizes, but we respond to Foster by pointing out some of the limitations in his analysis and provide further comments to move discussion of these research areas forward. Our comments address his assumption that form- and redaction-criticism accomplish the purposes that he envisions for historical Jesus research and a number of other problematic arguments he raises regarding each of these areas.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document