A Tomb with a View: John 11.1–44 in Narrative-Critical Perspective

1994 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark W. G. Stibbe
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Structure Characterization ◽  
Literary Analysis ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Aesthetic Appreciation ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Narrative Literature ◽  
Raising Of Lazarus

It is one of the more surprising facts of academic life that no one has as yet attempted a detailed literary analysis of John 11.1–44. This narrative text, perhaps more than any other in the New Testament, calls out for sustained aesthetic appreciation. In many ways, John's story of the raising of Lazarus represents the pinnacle of the New Testament literature. It is a tale artfully structured, with colourful characters, timeless appeal, a sense of progression and suspense, subtle use of focus and no little sense of drama. Yet, even in the context of the well-documented paradigm shift from historical to text-immanent approaches to the Gospels, I know of no article or book which has exposed this story to a synchronic and aesthetic interpretation. This article is therefore a long overdue contribution to Fourth Gospel research. In it, I shall be examining John 11.1–44 from the following, recognizably literary, angles: context, genre, form, plot, narrator and point of view, structure, characterization, themes, implicit commentary, and reader response. My hope is that this article helps readers not only to appreciate the riches of John's storytelling, but also demonstrates in accessible terms how to approach the New Testament narrative literature.

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.

Some Johannine ‘Herrnworte’ with Parallels in the Synoptic Gospels

1955 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-86
Author(s):  
C. H. Dodd
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Oral Tradition ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Early Church ◽  
Synoptic Gospels ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
The First World War ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Written Sources

The question whether or not the Fourth Gospel is based upon the Synoptic Gospels has been discussed endlessly, and will no doubt continue to be discussed. The divergent conclusions which different critics draw from the same body of evidence (for it is seldom that really fresh evidence can be adduced) largely depend on their presuppositions. In particular, if the critic takes the view that the writings of the New Testament form a series of literary works in an orderly sequence of development, each depending on its predecessors and influencing its successors, even though some links in the chain may be lost, then wherever the contents of the Fourth Gospel coincide more or less with those of the Synoptic Gospels, he will be disposed, prima facie at least, to see an instance of a writer's use of written sources. Such was, in the main, the presupposition, even if not always the avowed presupposition, of nineteenth-century criticism of the Gospels, and it is by no means entirely abandoned. But the whole course which the investigation of the history and literature of primitive Christianity has followed in the period since the first world war has tended to weaken this presupposition. It suggests that the early Church was not as bookish a community as that, and it tends to emphasize the importance of oral tradition, not only in the dark years before any of the extant Christian writings appeared, but all through the New Testament period. It is not denied that in some cases New Testament writers were probably dependent on written sources, extant or lost, but it is no longer safe to entertain a general presumption that any coincidence of content is due to literary dependence. To prove such dependence some specific evidence is required—some striking or unexpected identity of language, for example, or some agreement in an apparently arbitrary arrangement of material. The question of the relation of John to the Synoptics needs to be closely re-examined from this point of view. In this article I propose to take, as specimens, four dominical sayings in the Fourth Gospel which have parallels in the Synoptics, and to ask whether, if there is no general presumption of literary indebtedness, the phenomena are such as to suggest indebtedness, or whether they rather point to independent use of a common oral tradition.

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 Faith and the Fourth Gospel: A Conversation with Teresa Morgan

2018 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-298
Author(s):  
Judith M. Lieu
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
The New Testament

In Roman Faith and Christian Faith Teresa Morgan brings a classicist’s sensitivities to a subject that lies at the heart of the New Testament but that is often taken as self-evident. This article engages in a conversation with its insights, with particular reference to the Johannine literature. It suggests that more nuancing might be needed, not least from a recognition of the demands of the genre of the gospel, but also finds much to provoke further reflection.

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.

A Note on Matthew 6:33

1945 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-272
Author(s):  
William H. P. Hatch
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
Textual Critic

The first half of Matthew 6: 33 presents a difficult problem to the textual critic, and the leading editors of the New Testament have solved it in different ways. The textual authorities offer several variant readings, but none of them is satisfactory from every point of view. However, it is possible by means of a highly plausible conjecture to obtain a text which makes excellent sense.

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.”

Passover and Eucharist in the Fourth Gospel

1967 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-337
Author(s):  
J. K. Howard
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
People Of God ◽  
Dominant Position ◽  
The Past ◽  
The People ◽  
The Future ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
New Israel ◽  
Acts Of God

The events of the Exodus, in which the Passover occupied a central and dominant place, were one of the most deeply rooted of all Israel's traditions. The Passover itself lay at the very heart of the covenant concept and forms the basis of the Heilsgeschichte which records the redemptive acts of God for His people Israel. In later Judaism it became overlaid with eschatological ideas, especially those associated with a Messianic deliverance for the people of God, as God's saving act in the past became the prefigurement of an even greater saving act in the future. The Passover night was thus a night of joy for all Israel, the night on which Israel's future redemption, effected through the Messiah, would be revealed. The early Christians, however, believed that this Messianic deliverance had already appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and consequently, in Preiss' expression,‘the totality of the events of the Exodus centering on the Passover’ together with its associated ideas occupied a dominant position in Christian soteriological thought in the New Testament period, especially as Jesus Himself had instituted the eucharist in a distinctly Paschal setting. We may trace, as has been done in recent years, the idea of the Exodus complex of events running as a constant theme through the New Testament writings, and Jesus is pictured both as a second Moses leading His people forth from a bondage far greater than the slavery of a human despot, from the thraldom of sin and death, and as the Antitype of the very Passover sacrifice itself, through which the redemption of the New Israel was effected.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document