The Present State of Johannine Studies (Raymond Brown, 1966)

One of the curious aspects of scholarly study on the Gospel of John is that skeptical treatments of the gospel—those which argue that it’s a late non-Jewish fabrication—are actually decreasing in credibility. There are a few aspects to this which I’d like to comment upon, but for now here’s a brief overview of this curious historical trend from a Johannine scholar of note, Raymond E. Brown;

In this century an enormous literature has been devoted to the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, the most instructive introduction to the study of the Gospel is to read one of the surveys of the literature on John—for instance, that of Howard, or the shorter article of Collins. The ephemeral character of some of the positions taken merits sober reflection. The most valuable analysis of Johannine literature is found in French in the writings of Menoud, whose own very competent and balanced opinions emerge from his criticism of the works of other scholars. His bibliographies are most helpful. Haenchen’s German survey is also remarkably complete.

In particular, in the decade after the Second World War there emerged a number of major contributions to the study of John. The commentaries of both Hoskyns (1940) and Bultmann (1941) may be included in this group since they had no wide circulation until after the War. In addition, Dodd’s Interpretation (1953) and the commentaries of Barrett (1955) and Lightfoot (1956) come immediately to mind. The difference of approach in these various works caused much discussion, as evidenced by the articles of Grossouw, Käsemann, and Schnackenburg.

Even a cursory acquaintance with this literature reveals that the trend in Johannine studies has passed through an interesting cycle. At the end of the last century and in the early years of this century, scholarship went through a period of extreme skepticism about this Gospel. John was dated very late, even to the second half of the 2nd century. As a product of the Hellenistic world, it was thought to be totally devoid of historical value and to have little relation to the Palestine of Jesus of Nazareth. The small kernel of fact in its pages was supposedly taken from the Synoptic Gospels which served as a basis for the author’s elaborations. Needless to say, few critics thought that the Gospel according to John had the slightest connection with John son of Zebedee.

Some of these skeptical positions, especially those regarding authorship and the source of influence on the Gospel, are still maintained by many reputable scholars. Nevertheless, there is not one such position that has not been affected by a series of unexpected archaeological, documentary, and textual discoveries. These discoveries have led us to challenge intelligently the critical views that had almost become orthodox and to recognize how fragile was the base which supported the highly skeptical analysis of John. Consequently, since the Second World War there has emerged what Bishop John A. T. Robinson calls a “new look” in Johannine studies—a new look that shares much with the look once traditional in Christianity. The dating of the Gospel has been moved back to the end of the 1st century or even earlier. A historical tradition underlying the Fourth Gospel similar to the traditions underlying the Synoptic Gospels is being posited by some. In fact, the author of the Gospel is gradually having his status as an orthodox Christian restored, after long languishing in the dungeons of Gnosticism to which he had been relegated by many critics. And perhaps strangest of all, some scholars are even daring to suggest once more that John son of Zebedee may have had something to do with the Gospel. This reversal of trend, however, does not mean that all the intervening critical scholarship has been in vain. Scholarship cannot return to pre-critical days, nor should it ever be embarrassed by the fact that it learns through mistakes. Indeed, it is the admirable honesty of biblical criticism and its ability to criticize itself that has led to a more conservative estimation of the historical value of the Fourth Gospel.[1]

Footnotes:

[1] Raymond Edward Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, vol. 1, 1st ed., The Anchor Bible 29 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), xxi-xxii.

Christmas Makes Me Paranoid…

Every Christmas we lament the increasing commercialisation of one of Christianity’s most significant days. And every Christmas I grow just a little more paranoid with the idea that the free-market is out to destroy Christianity. Not, I hasten to add, because they are evil, anti-Christian villains (although sometimes I wonder…) but because there is something intrinsically incompatible with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth on the one hand, and the idea that unbridled consumption is somehow an intrinsic good on the other. You can’t serve God and Mammon both, and according to my paranoid fantasy, one must first kill Jesus if one is to grow fat and wealthy. Yes, yes, it’s a silly thesis, I know, but the advantage of being paranoid is that a firm grasp on reality isn’t a prerequisite.

Except…

A really interesting article by Matt J. Rossano (Professor and Department Head of Psychology, Southeastern Louisiana University) gives my thesis a bit more in the way of support.

“I” is not the Answer

I met David Opderbeck online through the now defunct ASA listserve and found him to be an interesting thinker who often has interesting things to say, and says them in interesting ways (yes, that is a tautology). He blogs at “Through a Glass Darkly” and has just published a post entitled “God and Creation: Transcendence.”

He writes;

The first common popular idea is that “God is in everything and everyone.” In popular culture, what we hear often sounds more like “pantheism” — the notion that God and the world around us really are essentially the same thing. In fact, in American popular culture, this usually boils down to God becoming the same thing as our own individual selves. How often have you hear a line like this in a song or TV show or movie: “what you’ve been looking for has been right inside yourself all along” or “the most important thing is to find out who you are.”

The truth of God’s transcendence is that the real basis for a meaningful and good life lies outside of ourselves. We are part of creation, and therefore we are not God.

… in our created humanity we are made for an intimate connection with God. It is right to look into ourselves as we seek God. An honest search of the self should reveal a nature that is not self-sufficient, that is not meant to be alone, that longs for relationship with a beauty and harmony and love that the individual self cannot sustain. The great Christian thinker Augustine called this a “God-shaped void” at the heart of every person.

There’s probably something rather “old hat” about this given that true novelty is a rare thing in theology (not to mention that David cites Augustine in support!) but there is something here which strikes me in a new way. In teasing this out I actually discovered (or think I did) that what David is saying is, in fact, “old hat” but also very, very important.

NT Wright on the Historical Jesus

New Testament scholar NT Wright offers some fine insights on the birth narratives of the Gospels and the resurrection of Jesus. I’m currently preparing a post on Isaiah’s prophecy concerning the virgin birth—a subject on which Wright says some helpful things—so I’ll likely be returning to this in the near future.

GM4: The Biblical Passages (Isaiah 13:15-18)

This post is part of the series; God: Merciful? Maniac? Mass-Murderer? (GM4) and belongs to the subthread GM4′s treatment of the Biblical materials

Isaiah 13:15-18

In response to “the idea God is all forgiving” GM4 offers a brief excerpt from the Book of Isaiah 13—a chapter in which the destruction of Babylon, or more precisely the Neo-Babylonian Empire, is prophesied. This prophesy certainly contains some nasty elements, but there’s at least two major issues we need to take into account before trying to draw any conclusions from the text.

The Purpose of Life by William Lane Craig.

I’ve just watched a very interesting video in which William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens respond to the question: “What is the purpose of human existence?”

The person putting the question suggested that for theists the purpose of human existence is found in serving God, to which Craig gives the following reply;

Why the Virgin Birth?

“What is the theological significance of the virginal conception? Some have argued it was necessary to protect Jesus’ sinless nature, but the narratives themselves do not indicate this purpose. The Messiah could have entered human life free from sin with or without a virginal conception…
In the final analysis, the details remain a mystery. What is certain from the text is that the conception of Jesus was a supernatural act of God, confirming that God himself was about to accomplish the salvation which no human being could achieve.”

– Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007).

via Zondervan’s Facebook page without a page reference.

GM4: The Biblical Passages (Second Kings)

This post is part of the series; God: Merciful? Maniac? Mass-Murderer? (GM4) and belongs to the subthread GM4′s treatment of the Biblical materials

Second Kings

Here GM4’s objection is a pretty simple one:

“In Second Kings, God sends lions to kill people who don’t believe in him. Lions! Can you imagine the suffering?”

The reference is clearly to 2 Kings 17:25 and, sure, being attacked by a lion is not at all pleasant. The full story, however, is nowhere near as simple as GM4 suggests and we’ll again have to do more than scratch the surface of the text top get near to the full story. We’ll see that the victims of the lion attacks are guilty not merely of disbelief in God, but of roasting infant children alive in ritual child sacrifices. This, together with the absence of any person who might have spoken against such practices, provides a coherent explanation of why God used such drastic means to achieve his ends.

GM4: The Biblical Passages (Exodus 32:26-29)

This post is part of the series; God: Merciful? Maniac? Mass-Murderer? (GM4) and belongs to the subthread GM4’s treatment of the Biblical materials

Exodus 32:26-29

So he [Moses] stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, “All of you who are on the Lord’s side, come here and join me.” And all the Levites gathered around him. Moses told them, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: Each of you, take your swords and go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other. Kill everyone—even your brothers, friends, and neighbors.” The Levites obeyed Moses’ command, and about 3,000 people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, “Today you have ordained yourselves for the service of the Lord, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Today you have earned a blessing.”

At first blush, this looks pretty damning as far as God is concerned, but the story is actually a far more interesting one than this small snippet indicates. When we look at the narrative, we find that we have a small story within a story here. The larger story involves God interacting with Moses, the small story involves Moses interacting with the Israelites. You’ll need to bear with me because this is likely to be longish, but if you want the short story: GM4 has omitted the crucial opening verse from the above in which we are told that “Moses saw that Aaron had let the people get completely out of control, much to the amusement of their enemies” (v.25). This collapse of order, rather than idolatry  or a divine command, is given as the motive behind Moses’ actions. Verse 25, it turns out, is a critical antecedent to the “so” of verse 26.

Cannato, Field of Compassion

Cannato, Judy. Field of Compassion: How the New Cosmology Is Transforming Spiritual Life. (Notre Dame, IN: Sorin Books, 2010).

When people set out to engage with science from a faith perspective, they often do so at the level of propositions or at the level of methodology. Very rarely, however, does one find what Cannato has attempted in Field of Compassion, namely an attempt to mesh faith and science at their most essential levels. It really is a very laudable goal. Sadly, I think it is one that fails miserably due to Cannato taking an approach which, rather than extending a hand of friendship to science, offers it instead a metaphorical slap in the face. Not only does she choose to make appeal to some very dubious scientific theorems, she does so in a most unscientific way.