The Role of Peter in the Fourth Gospel

1984 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 531-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur H. Maynard
Keyword(s):  
Annual Meeting ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Coming Out ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Roman Catholic ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Biblical Literature ◽  
The New Testament

In a meeting of the Fourth Gospel Task Force at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in 1972 I made an incidental remark to the effect that everyone agreed that Peter was depreciated in the Fourth Gospel. Immediately I was taken to task by other members of the Task Force! Since I had for years assumed that this was one of the few agreed upon conclusions of Fourth Gospel Research, I decided that it was time to research this area again and see what, in fact, the role of Peter actually is in this Gospel. In the intervening months the significant book coming out of the National Dialogue between Lutheran and Roman Catholic theologians entitled Peter in the New Testament, edited by Raymond E. Brown, Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann has appeared, with a chapter on ‘Peter in the Gospel of John’, which is especially relevant to this study.

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.”

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.

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.

scholarly journals Indicators of the church in John’s metaphor of the vine

2013 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann Fourie
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Unity In Diversity ◽  
The Church

This article aims to answer the question of what belongs to the essence of the church, as God intended it to be, by identifying certain indicators of the essence of the church through a study of one of the central metaphors of the New Testament: the vine in the Gospel of John. Through structural analyses, commentary and metaphorical analyses, several indicators of unity as part of the essence of the church emerge in this metaphor. These indicators are the primacy (or authority) of Christ, trinitarian balance, equality, interdependence, inclusivity, growth and unity (in diversity).Hierdie artikel poog om die volgende vraag te beantwoord: Wat behoort tot die essensie van kerkwees soos God dit bedoel het? Dit word gedoen deur sekere aanwysers van die essensie van kerkwees te identifiseer vanuit ’n studie van een van die essensiële metafore vir kerkwees in die Nuwe Testament, naamlik die Wynstok in die Evangelie van Johannes. Deur middel van struktuuranalise, kommentaar en metaforiese analise kom verskeie eenheidsaanwysers as deel van die essensie van kerkwees in hierdie metafoor na vore. Hierdie aanwysers is die hoër gesag (of outoriteit) van Christus, die balans van die Drie-eenheid, gelykheid, interafhanklikheid, inklusiwiteit, groei en eenheid (in diversiteit).

A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel

1975 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. Mastin
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
General Terms ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
The Way

Because the term θεóς is used so infrequently of Jesus in the New Testament, it is not surprising to find that there are relatively few discussions of it as a christological title. However, it may be of value to investigate the way in which the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus as ‘God’ since its usage differs somewhat from that of the rest of the New Testament. First, the extent to which the New Testament describes Jesus as God will be surveyed, and this will be contrasted in general terms with the approach of the Fourth Evangelist. Then the passages in the Fourth Gospel which may call Jesus ‘God’ will be examined in more detail, and an attempt will be made to establish the way in which this designation is used by the evangelist. Next it will be asked how the distinctive usage of the Fourth Gospel came to be adopted. Finally the view that the word θεóς expresses a functional christology will be considered.

scholarly journals The role of title and epigraph in the essay “The Vision of Mirza” by Joseph Addison

2021 ◽  
pp. 37-45
Author(s):  
Iurievna Makarova Liudmila
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Literary Studies ◽  
Joseph Addison ◽  
Greco Roman ◽  
Epic Poem ◽  
Comprehensive Examination ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Russian Literary ◽  
The Subject

The object of this research is the essay “The Vision of Mirza” by Joseph Addison. The relevance of studying J. Addison's essay is substantiated by undue attention to his works in the Russian literary studies, as well as the need for tracing the dynamics in the genre of vision in the Age of Enlightenment. The subject of this research is the title and epigraph as parts of the work that determine its structure and artistic distinctness. Analysis is conducted on the images of the viewer, visionary hero, and his guide, chronotope of the essay and allusive links. The essay is based on the combination of systemic-structural, comparative-historical, and hermeneutic methods. The novelty consists in the fact that the comprehensive examination of the role of the title ensemble within the structure of the essay allows reconstructing the link of the essay with the traditions of the medieval genre of vision manifested in the traditional topic and consistent motifs, imagery system, space and time arrangement, and dialogical structure of the text. The author provides interpretation to the allusive links between J. Addison's essay and Greco-Roman mythology, epic poem “The Aeneid” by Virgil, and psalms from the New Testament, and “The Voyage of St. Brendan”. It is established that the dialogue set by the epigraph passes through the entire plotline of the essay and reveal the characters of its participants. The extensively presented Christian theme alongside the images from ancient mythology and Virgil’s texts are essential for the author to express the enlightening program.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document