John: The Fourth Gospel
The Fourth Gospel ("Gospel According To John") is the epitome of the fusion of Greek philosophy and Jewish theology. More than any other this gospel defined the familiar image of Jesus we now know -- Jesus as a god.
The Jewish world of Palestine in which Jesus was born was awash with Hellenism and Greek thought. Greek Stoicism and Platonism were amalgamated into Jewish/Christian theology and ethics from the first to fourth centuries CE. Even St. Augustine, the Christian Bishop of Hippo Regius, readily admitted "...when I read those books of the Platonists, I was taught by them to seek incorporeal truth so I saw your 'invisible things, understood by the things that are made' ("Confessions" 7. 20).
Biblical scholars are finding Greek philosophical influences everywhere, pervading the entire New Testament, including the popular image of Jesus.
In first century Roman-occupied Palestine, Jewish children learned the Greek language from birth, which is why Alexandrian Jews translated Hebrew scripture and New Testament writings into Greek . They had to; Jews in the diaspora spoke more Greek than they did Hebrew.
This Greek-Jewish cultural and linguistic matrix is the context in which the Fourth Gospel was written. The centers of Hellenization in the Levant were Damascus in the north and Alexandria in the south. Palestine was right smack dab in the middle.
The earliest manuscript of the Fourth Gospel ("John") in existence is in Greek. Written on papyrus around 120-180 CE, it was intended to propagandize the message that Jesus was a superior god come to earth as human (a pagan religious theme) and was a doer of miracles so powerful that "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (3:16). Such claims were made to convince potential converts from paganism that the Jewish deities were stronger. It was this fusion of Platonic and Aristotelian theology with Jewish thought that also gave birth to the "Christian" concepts of divine omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence. "John" is the only canonical gospel which has Jesus claiming to be a god.
I use the term "John" for familiarity. The Fourth Gospel is, in fact, anonymous.
John 21:20-24 claims the Fourth Gospel was inspired by ‘the Beloved Disciple.’ Title "Gospel According to John" ("Kata Ioannen Euangelion") was attached to it in the third century when the gospels were being gathered together and circulated as a collection.
The "Beloved Disciple" is an enigmatic figure. He is never actually identified by name. Instead, he is the young man laying on Jesus at the last supper (John 13:22-25). Or he is the young man who ran away -- naked -- when Jesus was arrested. He is even present at the crucifixion. John's "beloved disciple" may also have been modeled on the wealthy young disciple that Clement of Alexandria mentions in his letter to "Theodore" in reference to a now-lost, more complete version of Mark intended for those "perfect in their faith." This earlier complete version of Mark describes a scene in which Jesus reanimates a wealthy young man who died. Naked except for a linen covering, the young man awakens and expresses his love for Jesus. He stays with Jesus overnight so he can learn the "mysteries of the Kingdom of God." St. Clement is quick to refute any notion of the nudity involving same-gender sex, and indeed, it's the only reason St. Clement brought it up in the first place. [see Morton Smith;"Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark"]
What really makes the Fourth Gospel unique is Jesus' discourses with his disciples. These are not comparable to the sayings collections in of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or in the Gospel of Thomas, or in "Q." In John's gospel, Jesus lectures and everyone else is pretty much absent or silent. There is so little interaction that John is primarily a collection of Jesus talking about himself; "I am the light" "I am the Way," "Only through me," and so on.
An example of Jesus' bombast is contained in the story of Jesus and Nicodemus.
Nicodemus comes to see Jesus and recognizes that Jesus is a wise rabbi sent by God. At one point Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Unless you're reborn, you'll never enter the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus, of course, understands the rebirth reference as a physical rebirth. So he asks Jesus, "How can anybody who has gotten old go back into his mother's womb to be reborn?" This gives Jesus an opportunity to pontificate. And pontificate he does, filling up the whole rest of the chapter.
The author of the Gospel of John uniquely places himself (and those whom he represents) as separated from "the Jews." Historically speaking, this separation happened around 90 CE when the Hebrew Jews kicked the Greek Jews out of the synagogues for heresy and for sucking up to the Romans. This also probably explains why John provides some light antisemitism when he has Jesus speak of the Passover of "the Jews" (John 2:13, 6:4, 11:55), a religious festival of "the Jews" (John 5:1), the Festival of Tabernacles (Sukkot) of "the Jews" (John 7:2), and so on.
Clearly, the "Greek" Jesus created by John is emphatically not "a Jew."
True, Jesus is called a Jew twice in John: once by the Samaritan woman (John 4:9) and once by Pontius Pilate (John 18:35). But in both instances the speaker is a foreigner, and in both instances the term "Jew" is used in its sense of "person of Judah," as contrasted with a Samaritan or a Roman.
The same applies in John 4:22, where Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, "You [Samaritans] do not really know whom you worship, but we [Jews] know whom we worship, because salvation is from [us] the Jews."
In John's statement, "salvation is from the Jews" does not mean the Jewish people, per se, because "salvation" is has now become the inheritance of the true worshipers of God, as defined by Jesus in John 4:23. Christian sectarian Jews are good. All other Jews are bad. John's idea of "a Jew" finally becomes someone of whom he has Jesus conndemn as a "son of the devil."
The Fourth Gospel is not about Jesus the Nazarene Jew, nor was it written by or for other Jews.
John was written as propaganda, to attract converts from among the pagans and Hellenized Jews, and to shift the blame for killing God away from the powerful dominant Romans onto Jesus' own Jewish people.
Ironically, the same community that wrote the Fourth Gospel started as a breakaway sect of Jews who eventually attacked the Jewish faith itself -- and in so doing, gave birth to antisemitism.
|
Change Location:
|
That Jesus...he was quite the liberal Greek philosopher, eh?
The whole "Fulfillment of the Prophecies" thing was just a coincidence, right? Greek prophecies? No, Jewish prophecies.
http://www.bprc.org/topics/fulfill.html
when was the country known as Israel first called Palestine? Give me proof.
Y_S,
David Copperfield and Cris Angel routinely predict the future - and it comes to pass. Cris Angel even levitates, flies through the air unassisted and has walked on water on live TV. Do you worship him, too?
Both the Hebrew prophecies and the so-called fulfillment of those prophecies are contained in the same Bible. It would probably amaze you more if they failed to agree. But actually, most of them do fail. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (Matt 10:21) is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true.
skeptic - you need to find better Bible scholars. The nonsense in your blog is overwhelming. You mix a little fact with a lot of "bullonly". An example. "John was written as propaganda, to attract converts from among the pagans and Hellenized Jews, and to shift the blame for killing God away from the powerful dominant Romans onto Jesus' own Jewish people." Why would John do this? The Jewish authors of Matthew and Mar had already made the Jewish involvement abundantly clear.
Matt 26:3-4, “Then the chief priests and the elders of the people assembled in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, and they plotted to arrest Jesus in some sly way and kill him. (NIV). Mark 3:6, “ Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus. (NIV) The Pharisees and the Herodians were not exactly "buddy-buddy" (Pharisees - religious, Herodians - secular) but they were in agreement on getting rid of Yeshua: Matt 26:59, “The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death.” (NIV)
Regardless, any reader of the Bible with insight knows that the sin of all humans necessitated the death of Jesus. We all killed him, Jews and Gentiles alike.
Lant:
Skeptic is not skeptical, he has his mind made up and is so entrenched that he must deny others of the words in the Bible, but only gives his interpretation of them.
Example:
"An example of Jesus' bombast is contained in the story of Jesus and Nicodemus.
Nicodemus comes to see Jesus and recognizes that Jesus is a wise rabbi sent by God. At one point Jesus tells Nicodemus, "Unless you're reborn, you'll never enter the Kingdom of God." Nicodemus, of course, understands the rebirth reference as a physical rebirth. So he asks Jesus, "How can anybody who has gotten old go back into his mother's womb to be reborn?" This gives Jesus an opportunity to pontificate. And pontificate he does, filling up the whole rest of the chapter. "
Now..what actually did Jesus "Pontificate" on?
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.
10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.[d] 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
well said, sam. I think skeptic is just trying to counteract the truth set forth in my blogs about John's Gospel. He will grasp at anything he can find that contradicts or weakens the Bible, in his mind. Problem is, God spoke , and skeptic can't hide forever.
YS...great passages and you are drenched in blind faith....very powerful words for those that understand the meaning of them.
lantbarney, Skeptic is just yanking the proverbial chain. Why? Because he can and he has nothing better to do with his time I guess.
Faith is a personal thing. Those who embrace it, can find peace with their understanding, and it's a great comfort in this world. Those who do not or will not, well, they never find such comfort, and look to move those who have, away from their solace.
nice play on words.
gordonlantbarney,esq. -
How about we discuss the ways in which your Mormon theology is not Christian, monostic or monotheistic. Are you prepared?
keepingupdated - I agree. Faith is a very personal thing. It should be kept personal between a woman or man and their gods.
So if people like Mr. Barney kept their silly beliefs personal, like, say, a belief in the Tooth Fairy, everything would be fine. But Tooth Fairy worshipers don't come to my door asking for money. Tooth Fairy followers don't try to get their myths taught as science in public schools. Tooth Fairy believers don't hire lobbyists to bribe or threaten legislators into enshrining their beliefs into the law of the land.
Yes, religion can sometimes be a source of comfort. But it is a comfort appropriate for the weak, not for the strong. The great trouble with religion - any religion - is that a believer, having accepted certain propositions on faith, cannot thereafter judge those propositions by evidence. One may bask at the warm comforting fire of faith, or one may choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason. But one cannot do both.
I disagree Skeptic. I can bask in the certainty of my faith, and at the same time I can and do prepare myself to live and deal with the here and now and all the ugliness of this world. I've known many people of different faiths and weak is not a word I would use to describe them.
I'm sorry you can't seem to find such solace.
Keepingupdated.....I for one would not question Skeptics ability to find solace based on his own terms... and he may just choose to bask in his own radiant light that encompasses him.... for solace exists in everything and is everywhere around us. Solace and how it is grasped... is purely a personal choice....
Skeptic: Why don't you keep your "silly beliefs" personal, too? Some of us don't care that you have a bone to pick with Christians. Why should we care? You don't give a hoot about what other people believe and you have made that very clear. It is all about you and what you think. But to some of us gnosticism and the teachings of the mystics is vague and foundationless. But you would never in a million years want to discuss any of the reasons...yes REASONS...why we think that because you are always right. It must be nice to live like that. I wish I was always right, too. But I actually live "in the bleak certainty of reason" that you claim to live by. It takes way more faith to believe what you believe, which is basically nothing.
Obewan, you are not me and so I will tell you I question his ability to do so because of all the anger he shows when he tries to demean those with faith that he deems less than worthy. His choice is to do so, and so I feel sorry that he has so much anger towards many that have none towards him. I find it fascinating but sad that he mocks those who would pray for him.
Its as if he embraces diversity, yet only the diversity he chooses. (and those of the Christian and Jewish faiths need not apply).
Thank you, Obewan, for recognizing that my "gods" are not their God; the one that religion created.
Well then, Skeptic, why don't you live and let live instead of inciting malice with your demeaning words and use your talents to build people up, instead debase those you disagee with? I dare you.
This is clearly just a diversion. On to more important issues. Skeptic is not open minded so no reason to waste time on him.
Keepingupdated: Then Skeptic and the rest of us would actually have to go back and forth in a conversational manner presenting our cases and evidence, etc. Usually this is done politely and with respect. We have to allow that the person we are conversing with has a certain amount of intelligence and is not some extreme radical (which most of us who regularly post here are not). Esp. those of us who use our real names are just here to learn more about the topics brought up here and are not trying to "troll" or insight people to anger. Although sometimes we do get a little wild at times, most of us can admit that and many times we have back-stepped and apologized.
But what I outline above is just not as much fun and easy as talking out both sides of the mouth saying: People should keep their "silly beliefs personal," but what I believe is more valid so I am going to make sure everyone knows what I believe, so am going to tell everyone else who doesn't agree with me 100% to shut-up.
Isn't this midset the kind that can be termed "megalomania"?
skeptic - does insanity run in your family, or are you an anomaly? I will not play your Mormon game, because, I am not Mormon. You have to be the only person reading this dialogue that cannot comprehend that.
Many forms of faith can provide solace in this life. Only saving faith will help you in the next one. Solace, without saving faith, is of limited value.
Mormons believe that Jesus came to America and that Native Americans are the decedents of the Israelites. I may disagree with Christianity on many levels but I certainly do not believe Mormons are anything near Christian and Mormon beliefs are as far fetched as any religion out there. Apparently the head of the Mormon church can receive direct word from God? and if you are a super awesome Mormon you can someday be a god on your own planet. Joseph Smith read golden tablets out of a hat but let no one else see those tablets. And if you marry into a Mormon family, no one in your family may sit in the church (temple?) during the ceremony. That's real open and inviting.
ski - your understanding and mine are pretty close.
Keepingupdated......As Christians I believe you are suppose to turn the other cheek.....never allow those around you to anger or disturb your solace.
Obewan, alas, we are all not without fault, because we suffer from the same condition - the human kind. I'm challenging Skeptic to acknowledge his tendency to demean a view not shared by him and respect our freedom of religion and treat others with the respect they give him. I will also always stand up for my freedom of religion as he should stand for his freedom from religion. (or at least some religions from his vantage point).
Since he has not responded, I will hope he will refrain from demeaning commentary and if he chooses to engage, make it a respectable exchange of ideas. I won't hold my breath.
GailB, your sarcasm is much appreciated by this blogger. I can get so frustrated with some topics, I have to just refrain from engaging at all. I have been staying away some days and reading the "hands on" paper so to read the articles without someone elses views mixing it up.
In this blog. Skeptic's tert, snide and childish comparisons got me going.
And I wasn't even being sarcastic. I was serious.
John is a Platonist-inspired "euangelion" that was adopted in the late third century by the orthodox church, and edited to fit the nascent church's rapidly-evolving political and theological agenda. Anyone able to read critically can discern redaction in John.
The original goal of first century Jewish proto-Christianity was to form a subjective one-on-one spiritual relationship with God through his messenger, The Christ. Gnostic Christians viewed scripture as basically true, but allegorical, having a literal meaning for Somatics (or Hylics, the spiritually uninitiated). As one gained in Gnosis, one began to understand deeper, "secret" levels of meaning. Paul states in Romans 8:3 that the Christ, Jesus, came in the Homoioma (an illusory representation) of a human, which was translated by Somatics as a tangible, corporeal existence indistinguishable from our own. Gnostic Christians treated this revelation of Paul as Docetism, with the pure spirit of the Christ bringing to humanity the Gnosis by which we could escape the material world of the Demiurge.
Lant - Palestine is a modern English rendition of Philistia. The Philistines ousted earlier Levantine peoples and settled on the maritime plain north of Gaza, a very fertile and desirable area. They seem to have lived in the region around Gerar and Beersheba as early as the time of Abraham; or around 2000 B.C.E.
skeptic - since the Gospel of John was quoted in the writings of the early church fathers before the late third century, and can be reconstructed to prove that it was not changed or invented as you and your critical thinkers claim, you are wrong.