scholarly journals The Eschatological Aspects of the Monastic Life in St. Jerome’s Letters

Vox Patrum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 143-155
Author(s):  
Marcin Wysocki
Keyword(s):  
Everyday Life ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Kingdom Of God ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Monastic Community ◽  
Monastic Life ◽  
Saint Jerome ◽  
The Way ◽  
Realized Eschatology

In the year 1953, a New Testament scholar named Charles Harold Dodd published a book titled The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel which revolutionized the way of thinking about Christian eschatology. In his opus vitae, Charles Dodd argued based on the Gospel of John that apocalyptic realities are in fact already realised through Jesus and His Apostles’ ministry. On this premise, he coined the term “realized eschatology”, in which all announcements concerning the Kingdom of God had already been realized according to Dodd. This “realized eschatology” can be seen through various realities of everyday life of the community of believers. In the case of Saint Jerome of Stridon, he saw the eschatological reality in the monastic lifestyle. This article aims to show what eschatological signs are present in the description of the monastic community found in the letters of Saint Jerome. For in his letters many times he refers to eschatological realities already present in monastic life, which is for him a kind of paradise on earth and the fulfilment of Christ’s eschatological prophecies.

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.

Ethics and the Gospel of John: Toward an Emerging New Consensus?

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 280-304
Author(s):  
Christopher W. Skinner
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Gospel Of John ◽  
English Language ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Ethical Systems

For decades the scholarly consensus held that the Fourth Gospel was either devoid of ethics or that its ethical material was narrow, exclusive, and sectarian. In recent years, that consensus has begun to show signs of wear. This article examines the more recent turn to ‘implied’ ethics by looking at four English-language books on the subject published in the past four years. This examination is undertaken with a view to tracing a newly emerging consensus, which holds that (1) the Gospel of John has ethical material, and (2) that material must be taken seriously by those reflecting on ancient ethical systems in general and New Testament ethics in particular. Further, the emerging consensus holds that the implied ethics of the Fourth Gospel, far from being strictly sectarian, are useful for reflecting on and/or constructing models of normative Christian behavior.

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>

Eschatology and Time in the Gospel of John

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruben Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Life Time ◽  
Eternal Life ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Linguistic Expression ◽  
Complex Issue ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
The Way

The article discusses the complex issue of time and eschatology in the Fourth Gospel. To get a grip on John’s eschatology it is necessary to take seriously John’s own use of language, and not to let the issue be determined solely by categories or terms (such as ‘eschatology’ and ‘apocalypticism’) introduced by scholars. It is essential to understand John’s eschatology as an aspect of the Gospel’s broader concept of time and the way in which this concept is given linguistic expression. This approach allows more recent, in particular narratological, methods to be applied to determine the Gospel’s concept of time. The article addresses the following topics: present and future eschatology in recent scholarship; the fusion of temporal horizons in the Farewell Discourses; motifs of time and eschatology, such as ‘the hour’, ‘the last day’, and ‘eternal life’; time and narration in John; and implications for John’s theology and ethics.

scholarly journals Enkele Ou-Testamentiese perspektievve en die betekenis daarvan vir die bediening van die gemeente

1994 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. L. Helberg
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Old Testament ◽  
Kingdom Of God ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
Ecological Responsibility ◽  
The New Testament ◽  
The Way

The soteriologic approach of Von Rad as well as the historical-critical approach of the Old Testament is presently regarded by many scholars as inadequate. Furthermore, there are calls for more attention to man's material needs and to man's ecological responsibility, as well as a call for more attention to the unity of the Old Testament. This article explores some basic alignments in the Old Testament and the way in which the theme of the kingdom of God can provide for the need created by these voices. The lines of thought are briefly drawn to the New Testament and to the implicit meaning of these lines of thought for the ministry.

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.

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>

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 Teologie van die koninkryk (Basileiologie)? Teologies nagedink oor die plek en betekenis van die koninkryk van God in die teologie en die kerk

2015 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan H. Van Wyk
Keyword(s):  
New Testament ◽  
Dynamic Effect ◽  
Kingdom Of God ◽  
Central Theme ◽  
The Past ◽  
Separate Locus ◽  
The Church ◽  
The Way

Hierdie artikel is ’n poging om aan te toon dat daar ’n groot leemte bestaan in die wyse waarop die klassieke leerstukke in dogmatiek in die verlede hanteer is, omdat dit ’n sentrale tema soos die koninkryk van God óf volkome geïgnoreer, óf totaal onderbelig het. Hierdie leemte word vervolgens nader ondersoek. Eers word aandag gegee aan die eskatologiese modelle wat in hierdie verband ontstaan het. Daarna word op die sentraliteit van die tema van die koninkryk in die Ou en Nuwe Testament gefokus en hierna word op die dinamiese uitwerking daarvan gelet wat dit op die samelewing behoort te hê. Die konklusie waartoe die outeur kom, is dat die tema van die koninkryk van God in die geheel gesien in die kerk en in die teologie totaal onderbeklemtoon was en steeds is. Vir ’n relevante kerkbeskouing (ekklesiologie) kan dit ’n groot bevryding bring indien die fokus van die kerk na die (gekome en komende) ryk van God verskuif. Die dogmatiek benodig ’n afsonderlike locus wat oor die Basileiologie handel.Theology of the kingdom (Basileiology)? Theological reflections on the place and role of the kingdom of God in church and theology. This article is an attempt to demonstrate that there is a great void in the way in which classical doctrine was treated in dogmatics in the past, since it either completely ignored a central theme like the kingdom of God, or shed altogether insufficient light on it. This void will subsequently be investigated more closely.Firstly, attention is given to the eschatological models which came into being for it. Next, the focus is on the centrality of the theme of the kingdom in the Old and New Testament after which its dynamic effect on society is pointed out.The conclusion reached by the author is that the theme of the kingdom of God was and is on the whole underemphasised in the church and in theology. For a relevant view of the church (ecclesiology) it could be liberating if the church shifted its focus to the kingdom of God (that has come and is coming). Dogmatics needs a separate locus dealing with Basileiology.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document