The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel

2005 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brent Nongbri
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Second Century ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Justin Martyr ◽  
John's Gospel

The thesis of this paper is simple: we as critical readers of the New Testament often use John Rylands Greek Papyrus 3.457, also known as P52, ininappropriate ways, and we should stop doing so. A recent example will illustrate the problem. In what is on the whole a superb commentary on John's gospel, D. Moody Smith writes the following about the date of John:For a time, particularly in the early part of the twentieth century, the possibility that John was not written, or at least not published, until [the] mid-second century was a viable one. At that time Justin Martyr espoused a logos Christology, without citing the Fourth Gospel explicitly. Such an omission by Justin would seem strange if the Gospel of John had already been written and was in circulation. Then the discovery and publication in the1930s of two papyrus fragments made such a late dating difficult, if not impossible, to sustain. The first and most important is the fragment of John chapter 18 … [P52], dated by paleographers to the second quarter of the second century (125–150); the other is a fragment of a hithertounknown gospel called Egerton Papyrus 2 from the same period, which obviously reflects knowledge of the Gospel of John…. For the Gospel of Johnto have been written and circulated in Egypt, where these fragments were found, a date nolater than the first decade of the second century must be presumed.

In the Beginning was the Word

2019 ◽  
pp. 101-148
Author(s):  
George Pattison
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
New Testament ◽  
German Idealism ◽  
Rudolf Bultmann ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Michel Henry ◽  
John's Gospel ◽  
In The Beginning ◽  
Original Interpretation

Turning to the New Testament, the chapter examines the prologue to St John’s Gospel as an exemplary commentary on Christian vocation. However, this requires rejecting interpretations that have seen John’s logos in terms of Platonic ideas or ‘ratio’, as in much ancient and medieval commentary (Eckhart’s commentary is used for illustration). German Idealism (Fichte) refigures ratio in terms of will, and in the twentieth century, Michel Henry foregrounds ‘life’. A rediscovery of the word element is found in Ferdinand Ebner and Rudolf Bultmann. Their insights are used to develop an original interpretation of the Gospel, contrasting John’s existential focus on calling and the name with Platonizing interpretations.

Jesus as God in the Fourth Gospel: the Old Testament Background

1984 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-160
Author(s):  
Günter Reim
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The New Testament

B. A. Mastin, in his article ‘A neglected feature of the christology of the Fourth Gospel’, points out ‘that in the construction of the Fourth Gospel prominence is given to the designation of Jesus as θεός. The Fourth Gospel appears to use the term θεός deliberately of Jesus; in “Paul”, on the other hand, the usage is much more casual, as indeed is the case in the rest of the New Testament, with the possible exception of Heb.i.8f'. Mastin demonstrates that Jn. 1. 1, 18 and 20. 28 speak of Jesus as God. ‘These three verses are placed at strategic points in the gospel, and this underlines the significance of what they say.’ Finally, Mastin states: ‘… it is reasonable to claim that the Evangelist thought it was important that the title θεός should be given to Jesus. It is probable that this feature of his christology is due to controversy with the Jews, and that as a result of this he formulated his estimate of Christ's person in this way.’ I fully agree with these results. The aim of my article is to show the scriptural background for this controversy.

Miracles, Early Modern Science, and Rational Religion

2006 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 493-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Synoptic Gospels ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Early Modern Science ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
John's Gospel

Readers of the New Testament could be excused for thinking that there is little consistency in the manner in which miracles are represented in the Gospels. Those events typically identified as miracles are variously described as “signs” (semeia), “wonders” (terata), “mighty works” (dunameis), and, on occasion, simply “works” (erga). The absence of a distinct terminology for the miraculous suggests that the authors of the Gospels were not working with a formal conception of “miracle”—at least not in that Humean sense of a “contravention of the laws of nature,” familiar to modern readers. Neither is there a consistent position on the evidentiary role of these events. In the synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—Jesus performs miracles on account of the faith of his audience. In John's Gospel, however, it is the performance of miracles that elicits faith. Even in the fourth Gospel, moreover, the role of miracles as signs of Christ's divinity is not straightforward. Thus those who demand a miracle are castigated: “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” Finally, signs and wonders do not provide unambiguous evidence of the sanctity of the miracle worker or of the truth of their teachings. Accordingly, the faithful were warned (in the synoptic Gospels at least) that “false Christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders [in order] to deceive.”

Pre-Understanding and New Testament Interpretation

1975 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Turner
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Recent Discussion ◽  
Theological Hermeneutics ◽  
Self Reflection ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Work Done

Almost all recent discussion in theological hermeneutics has been so abstract that it has had little relevance for the more practical task of the interpretation of biblical texts. This has largely been caused by the prominence in this discussion of proponents of ‘The New Hermeneutic’ who have had a predominantly existential interest in understanding the New Testament, but who represent only one of several alternatives in theological hermeneutics. Moreover, their exegesis has often been unreliable, to put it mildly.1 The chief deficiency of the New Hermeneutic is that it is concerned with the existential situation of the believing Christian, but hardly at all with the understanding and interpretation of texts. It is certainly true that theological hermeneutics can no longer provide a set of rules or principles for the extraction of the correct meaning from the text as was attempted in the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, but hermeneutics can still analyse the process and structure of understanding which takes place in New Testament exegesis and can encourage self-reflection and self-criticism on the part of exegetes themselves. The task which now deserves attention, and which has for so long been neglected, is to relate the work done on the problem of hermeneutics by dogmatic theologians to the specific projects of interpretation carried out by New Testament exegetes. In this article I shall try to do just that by focusing attention on one particular problem.

scholarly journals The Fourth Gospel and the Apostolic Mission: John’s Common Evangelical Theology

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 127
Author(s):  
MATTHEW D. JENSEN
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
The Other ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
1 Corinthians ◽  
Close Attention ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Gospel Message ◽  
Evangelical Theology

Abstract: This article seeks to redress the imbalance of seeing John’s theology as distinctive and dissimilar to the other Gospels and New Testament documents by observing the essential consistency between the theology of the Fourth Gospel and the apostolic mission described by Paul in Galatians 2:1–10. First, it considers the origin of the New Testament documents in the mission of the apostles described in Galatians 2:1–10 and locates the apostles’ commonly agreed-on gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5. Second, the article examines the Fourth Gospel, paying close attention to the intrusive narrator’s comments about the purpose (John 20:30–31) and explicit use of the Old Testament (12:38, 39–40; 19:24, 28, 36–37) to demonstrate that John’s theology and epistemology was fundamentally the same as that of the other apostles.

scholarly journals Rudolf Bultmann: Sy mees invloedryke bydrae in die 20ste eeu: ‘Urchristentum’, ‘Jesus’, ‘Johannes’-kommentaar?

2011 ◽  
Vol 67 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andries G. Van Aarde
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Theological Interpretation ◽  
Historical Discourse ◽  
Rudolf Bultmann ◽  
Theological Discourse ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Hellenistic World ◽  
John's Gospel

Rudolf Bultmann: His most influential contribution in the 20th century: ‘Urchristentum’, ‘Jesus’, ‘Commentary on John’s gospel’? This article pays tribute to Rudolf Bultmann as a scholar of faith who fulfilled the most influential role in the interpretation of Jesus and the New Testament during the twentieth century. In the article Bultmann’s leading publications are discussed against the background of the question of which one has been the most significant. Three important publications are identified, namely his book on the socio-cultural environment of the earliest followers of Jesus in first-century Semitic-Hellenistic world, his book on the historical Jesus, and his commentary on the Gospel of John. Various criteria are applied to value the significance of these three publications. They are Bultmann’s understanding of what the scientific nature of the theological discourse principally would entail; how modern-day believers could adhere to an ancient mythological discourse; the way in which today a historical discourse could existentially been engaged with and why Jesus of Nazareth would be regarded as theologically significant. Both the depth of Bultmann’s understanding of the substance of the theological discourse found in John’s gospel and the quality of Bultmann’s historical-critical analysis of John’s gospel lead to the finding that this commentary should be considered to be not only the most significant for the twentieth century but beyond that time even into the current phase of biblical and theological interpretation.

Was Heracleon a Valentinian? A New Look at Old Sources

2006 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 275-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kaler ◽  
Marie-Pierre Bussières
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Second Century ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
New Look

Heracleon was a great second-century Christian thinker, and the author of the first known commentary on a New Testament text, the Gospel of John. Although we do not have Heracleon's commentary itself, Origen integrated a great deal of it into his own commentary on the fourth gospel.

The Aramaic Origin of the Gospel of John

1923 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-344
Author(s):  
Charles C. Torrey
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Gospel Of Mark ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
High Importance ◽  
The Past ◽  
The New Testament

In the numerous discussions of the Greek of New Testament documents with reference to the question of translation from Aramaic originals, the Fourth Gospel has generally been left out of account. The language of the Synoptists has been examined very diligently from this point of view, especially during the past two or three decades, and at least one competent Semitic scholar has published material of high importance. Wellhausen, in his “Evangelium Marci” (1903) and especially in his “Einleitung in die Drei Ersten Evangelien” (1905; 2d ed., 1911), argued, perhaps not quite conclusively, for an Aramaic original of our Gospel of Mark; and he and many others have discussed, in a somewhat desultory fashion, the question of possible written Semitic sources for portions of Matthew and Luke. To the majority of New Testament scholars it probably would seem superfluous, to many perhaps even ridiculous, to raise similar queries in regard to John, whether it be proposed to regard it as a formal translation, from beginning to end, or as “based on Semitic sources”—whatever this vague and unprofitable formula may mean. Since the time when the origin and authorship of the book first began to be discussed, its essentially Hellenistic character has rarely been questioned. It is generally taken for granted at the present day, even by those scholars who are most inclined to look for “translation Greek” in the New Testament. The reasons for this are obvious, and good as far as they go.

Moses and Abraham Go Arctic

2008 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-374
Author(s):  
Christina Petterson
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The World ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Contemporary Situation ◽  
John's Gospel ◽  
Spatial Construction

AbstractThis paper reads the Gospel of John as expounded by Musa W. Dube in her article 'Savior of the World but not of This World: A Post-Colonial Reading of Spatial Construction in John' alongside the religious situation in contemporary Greenland, itself an often ignored example of the dilemmas of colonisation and postcolonialism. Tensions between the Danish Lutheran State Church and anti-Danish members of the indigenous Inuit populations over the place of Christianity in contemporary Inuit identity are analogous to the tension in John's gospel over who can claim to be Israel. In making this comparison, I hope not to exemplify what David Jobling warns us about: "Simple links between biblical and current situations, whether they leave the Bible looking good or bad, convey no lasting benefit." I seek to overcome the theoretical problems inherent in blindly adopting Dube's intertextual methods by employing Jonathan Z. Smith's observations on comparison. This in turn poses another range of problems about identity and method for readers as well as for the text which will be outlined here. Both the New Testament and the contemporary situation reveal the complexity of identities which simple categories of 'coloniser' and 'colonised' do not encompass.

scholarly journals Waren Judas en Thomas gnostici? Het evangelie naar Johannes met gnostische ogen gelezen

2008 ◽  
Vol 64 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Van de Beek
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Psychological Understanding ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
John's Gospel

Jude and Thomas, were they Gnostics? Reading the Gospel according to John from a Gnostic perspective The discoveries of Gnostic texts since the mid of the twentieth century challenge biblical scholarship to read New Testament texts from new points of view. It is remarkable that Jesus’ disciples who are prominently present in Gnostic texts, especially Jude, Thomas and Philip are also more conspicuous characters in the Gospel of John than in the Synoptics. This challenges scholars to read these sections in relation to Gnosticism. The article aims at reading the scenes dealing with Jude and Thomas in John’s gospel with a Gnostic framework in mind. These texts gain more profile than by a traditional reading which is often based on a psychological understanding of Jude and Thomas. The article demonstrates that the author of John’s gospel uses these passages in an anti-Gnostic discourse. Thomas is a Gnostic who could fully understand Jesus’ words in a Gnostic way until he encounters the bodily risen Lord. Jude does not make such a conversion and disappears in the night. These are the option for Gnostics: either convert to the type of Christianity the Gospel of John teaches or being lost in darkness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document