Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Synoptic Gospels Johns Gospel - 7,301 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

The genius of the Apostle John resides in his ability to penetrate to the theological foundations that undergird the events of Jesus life. He reaches to the deeper baptism and the calling of the Twelve are doubtless presupposed, they are not actually described. Even themes central to the Synoptics have almost disappeared: in particular, the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven, so much a part of the preaching of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels and the central theme of His narrative parables, is scarcely mentioned as such (cf. 3: 3, 5; 18: 36). meaning of the events, to the relationships of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in the work of redemption, and to the Trinitarian love for humanity which generated that work and which seeks through the gospel to bring within that sublime circle of indwelling love all who respond by faith to Jesus as the great I AM. John deals with the same revealed truth as Mathew, Mark, Luke and Paul. But his way of approaching that truth is different very different.

Like waters from the same source, Johannine, Pauline and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) all flow from the same historical Jesus, but flow through different lands, picking up different textures, and emerge as observably different rivers. The Johannine river, as a preceptive reader will quickly realize, flows through a profoundly different world of its own: a world with its own language, its own symbolism, and its own unique theological view point. The reader who enters this world senses immediately how different it is from the world of Paul and the Synoptic Gospels. And thus, a few words are needed to help to guide our way. First, Johns Gospel leaves out a great deal of material that is characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels. There are no narrative parables in John, no account of the transfiguration, no record of the institution of the Lords Supper, no report of Jesus casting out a single demon, no mention of His temptations.

There are fewer brief, pithy utterances, but more discourses; but even here some major discourses found in the Synoptics (e. g. the Olivet Discourse) are not found in John. Although Jesus. Page 2 Introduction Second, John includes a fair amount of material of which the Synoptists make no mention.

All of the material in John chapters 2 thru 4, for instance, including His miraculous transformation of water into wine, His dialogue with Nicodemus and His ministry in Samaria, find no Synoptic counterpart. Further, the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus frequent visits to Jerusalem, and His extended dialogues or dis-courses in the Temple and in various synagogues, not to mention much of His private instruction to His disciples, are all exclusive to the Fourth Gospel. No less striking are the forcefully presented themes that dominate John but that are largely absent from the Synoptics. Only in John is Jesus explicitly identified with God (1: 1, 18; 20: 28).

Here, too, Jesus makes a series of important I am statements which are qualified: I am the light of the world, the resurrection and the life, the good shepherd, the vine, the living water, the way, the truth and the life. These culminate in a series of absolute (unqualified) I AM statements that are redolent of God Himself (cf. 6: 20; 8: 24, 28, 58). Furthermore, the Fourth Gospel maintains a series of opposites, dualism's if you will, that are much stronger than in the Synoptics: life and death, from above and from below, light and dark, truth and lie, sight and blindness, and more. Third, these themes become still more problematic for some readers when, formally at least, they contradict the treatment of similar themes in the Synoptic Gospels. Here, for instance, John the Baptist denies that he is Elijah (1: 21), even though according to the Synoptists Jesus insists that he is (Mk. 9: 11 - 13). What shall we make of the bestowal of the Spirit (Jn. 20: 22) and its relation to Acts 2?

Above all, how do we account for the fact that in the Synoptics the disciples seem to grow from small beginnings in their understanding of who Jesus is, with various high-points along the way, such as Caesarea Philippi (Mk. 8: 27 - 30), while in John the very first chapter finds various individuals confessing Jesus not only as Rabbi, but as Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, Lamb of God and King of Israel? Fourth, there are several chronological difficulties that must be addressed. In addition to the obvious questions, such as the relation between the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning (Jn. 2: 14 - 22) and at the end (Mk. 11: 15 - 17) of Jesus public ministry, or the length of that ministry as attested by the number of Passovers it embraces (John reports at least three, the Synoptists only one); there are one or two questions of great difficulty that are precipitated in part by a knowledge of background ritual and circumstance. In particular, the chronology of the Passion in the Fourth Gospel, as compared with that of the Synoptics, seems so idiosyncratic that it has generated complex theories about independent calendars, or about. Introduction Page 3 theological motifs that John is self-consciously allowing to skew the naked chronic-ogy. Did Jesus and His disciples eat the Passover, so that He was arrested the evening of Passover and crucified the next day, or was He crucified at the same time the Passover lambs were being slaughtered?

And how does one account for the fact that the Synoptics picture Jesus being crucified about the third hour (9: 00 a. m. ), while in John Pilates final decision is not reached until the sixth hour (19: 14)? Fifth, students of Greek, perhaps more readily than those who read Johns Gospel only in a translation, observe that the style of writing is quite different from that of the Synoptics. For instance, the vocabulary is smaller, there is frequent parataxis (the use of co-ordinate clauses instead of subordinating expressions, which elegant Greek much prefers), peculiar uses of pronouns (e. g.

that one), and many instances of asyndeton (simply laying out clauses beside each other, without connecting them with particles or conjunctions, as Greek prefers). More impor-tally, there is little discernible difference in style between the words that are ascribed to Jesus and the Evangelists own comments (Jn. 3: 16 ff. ). With all these examples of the differences between the Synoptics and Johns Gospel, the Gospel of John has been used by Christians in every age, and for the greatest array of purposes. University students distribute free copies to their friends in the hope of introducing them to the Savior. Elderly Christians on their deathbed ask that parts of this Gospel be read to them. Very often, this Gospel is the first of all Scripture to be translated in a newly evangelized part of the world.

Children memorize entire chapters, and sing choruses based on its truth (e. g. For God So Loved The World). Countless Bible courses and sermons have been based on this Book or on some part of it. It stood near the center of Christological controversy in the fourth century. And perhaps the best known verse in all the Bible is John 3: 16: a toddler can even recite it.

In this Gospel the love of God is dramatically mediated through Jesus Christ, so much so that Karl Barth is alleged to have commented that the most profound truth he had ever heard was Jesus loves me, this I know/For the Bible tells me so. Before entering this world, something must be said about the date and the author. In addition, something must be said about the audience and purpose of the author, and especially his literary techniques, and the structure of his Gospel. These points belong to what is known as introduction.

The better they can be established and described, the easier it is to understand and appreciate the Gospel. Internal evidence suggests that the Gospel was written after 85 A. D. External evidence points to a date no later than 110 A. D. The allusion to Peters martyrdom in 21: 18 - 19 demands a date after 64 A.

D. Three references to excommunication from the synagogue (9: 22; 12: 42; 16: 2) allude to the Birkat ha-minim, a Test Benediction used by the rabbis to exclude from the synagogue all heretics and perhaps especially Christians. Since the Test Benediction was instituted in the mid eighties, it is reasonable to conclude that the Gospel was composed sometime after 85 A. D.

How long after is impossible to determine. But external evidence in the form of papyrus fragments found in Egypt suggests some ten or fifteen years later, i. e. , between 85 and 100 A. D. The Rylands papyrus, the papyrus Egerton 2, P 66, and P 75 all date to approximately 150 A. D.

These papyrus finds prove that the Gospel existed in Egypt in the first half of the second century. If one allows forty or fifty years for the Gospel to become known and copied in Egypt, one comes on the basis of external evidence to the same conclusion suggested by the internal evidence, i. e. , 85 - 100 A. D. for the date of the Gospel. By the end of the second century, the Fourth Gospel was accepted, along with the three Synoptics, as canonical in Gaul (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3. 1. 1 - 2), in Egypt (Clement of Alexandria, so Eusebius, Church History 6. 14. 5), in North Africa (Tertullian, Against Martin 4. 2), and in Rome (Muratorian fragment).

The Author Whoever the author of the Fourth Gospel was, one thing is certain: he wanted to remain anonymous. He wanted only to be known as the disciple whom Jesus loved. He speaks about himself in 13: 23 as the one who at the Last Supper was reclining on Jesus breast... whom Jesus loved. ; in 19: 23 - 26, 35, as the disciple who stood beneath the cross, was given the care of Jesus mother, and witnessed the death of Jesus; in 20: 2 - 10, as the disciple who ran with Peter to the tomb on Easter morning and, upon seeing the burial cloths, believed; in 21: 7, as the disciple who alone recognized the stranger on the shore as Jesus; and in 21: 20 - 23, as the disciple about whom Jesus said to Peter: If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?

Follow Me! . Introduction Page 5 It is probable that he is the disciple... known to the high priest who spoke to the maid and had Peter admitted to the court of Annas (18: 15 - 16). It is quite probable that he was one of the two unnamed disciples of John the Baptist who followed Jesus at the beginning of His public life (1: 35 - 39), and equally probable that he was one of the two unnamed disciples who accompanied Peter in the boat on the Lake of Galilee after the resurrection (21: 2). What is certain is that the Gospel itself declares the Beloved Disciple to be this is the disciple who bears witness of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his witness is true (21: 24). The meaning of this statement is hotly debated.

It asserts at a minimum that the Beloved Disciple is the author of at least chapter 21; at a maximum, it asserts that he is the author of the entire Gospel. The reasons for these conclusions will be explained in the commentary on 21: 24 - 25. However much the Gospel says about the Beloved Disciple, it nowhere identifies him by name. Tradition, via Polycarp, Polycrates, and Irenaeus, tes-times to the belief of the Church in the early second century that John, the son of Zebedee, was the Beloved Disciple. This belief perjured until the twentieth century and was defended as recently as the sixties by such renowned Johannine scholars as R. Schnackenburg and R.

E. Brown. Brown, however, in his more recent The Community of the Beloved Disciple, has abandoned it and now goes along with the modern trend of dissociating John, the son of Zebedee, and the Beloved Disciple. Contemporary scholars see the Beloved Disciple as a disciple of Jesus, but not one of the Twelve, a disciple who formed and led his own Christian community sometime after the resurrection and became for that community a living link with the teaching of Jesus. They see him also as the leading figure in a school of interpreters who preserved his teaching and expanded it as the years went on, until a genius member of the school at the end of the first century authored the Gospel as we know it now.

His identity, however, remains a mystery. Considering the paucity of the evidence, it will probably always remain a mystery. supports an evangelistic purpose: that you may come to faith, come to believe. The former, then supports and edificatory purpose: that you may continue in faith, continue to believe.

In fact, it can easily be shown that both expressions are used for both initial faith and continuing in faith, so that nothing can be resolved by the appeal to one textual variant or the other. It is worth comparing these verses with the stated purpose of 1 John: These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life (1 John 5: 13). This verse was clearly written to encourage Christians; by the contrasting form of its expression, John 20: 30 - 31 sounds evangelistic. This impression is confirmed by the firm syntactical evidence that the first purpose clause in 20: 31 must be rendered literally, that you may believe that the Christ, the Son of God, is Jesus.

Thus the fundamental question the Fourth Gospel addresses is not Who is Jesus? but Who is the Messiah? Who is the Christ? Who is the Son of God?

In their context, these are questions of identity, not of kind: i. e. the question Who is the Christ? should not here be understood as What kind of Christ are you talking about? but So you claim that you know who the Christ is. Prove it, then: Who is he?

Support for this is simply common sense. Christians would not ask that kind of question, because they already knew the answer. The most likely people to ask that sort of question would be Jews and Jewish proselytes who know what the Christ means, have some sort of messianic expectation, and are perhaps in personal contact with Christians and want to know more. In short, Johns Gospel is not only evangelistic in its purpose (which was a dominant view until this century, when only a few have defended it), but aims in particular to evangelize Jews and Jewish proselytes. This view has not been popular, but is gradually gaining influence, and much can be said for it. It may even receive indirect support from some recent studies The Purpose and Audience of the Gospel The proper place to begin when we discuss Johns purpose for writing his Gospel is with his own statement: Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name (20: 30 - 31).

The words rendered that you may believe hide a textual variant: either hina pisteuete (present subjunctive) or hina pisteusete (aorist subjunctive). Some have argued that the latter expression. Introduction Page 7 that try to interpret the Fourth Gospel as a piece of mission literature. The commentary that follows occasionally pauses to show how one passage or another fits nicely into this purpose.

Some have argued, for instance, that John chapters 1417 cannot possibly be viewed as primarily evangelistic. Such judgment is premature, for at least two reasons. First, the evangelism of the early church was not merely existential. It had to explain, as it were, how we got from there to here, especially if the targeted audience was Jewish. Second, the best evangelistic literature not only explains why one should become a Christian, but what it means to be a Christian. John chapters 1417 addresses those concerns rather pointedly, and numerous details within those chapters likewise suggest an evangelistic thrust (e.

g. 14: 6). In addition, the Gospel seems to be polemic. But who would need such warnings, refutations, encouragement, and strengthening? We come to one reason-able conclusion from looking at the question from a historical perspective: John wrote his Gospel primarily for Jewish Christians whose faith was wavering, who were under attack by the synagogue for believing in Jesus, and who, because of Jewish persecution, were tending to either remain in or return to the synagogue and thereby apostatize from their faith in Jesus (i. e. in Pauls terminology, fallen from grace, Gal. 5: 4).

In brief, Johns primary audience among Christians was that group of Christian Jews who were straddling the fence between the Christian community and the Jewish synagogue (cf. the Book of Hebrews). Johns secondary audience was that group of Jewish Christians who belonged to Christian communities but who were wavering in their faith because of perfect-tion and the threat of death (16: 1 - 4). For these he records the words of Jesus: These things I have spoken to you, that you may be kept from stumbling (16: 1). Therefore, in conclusion, the Gospel as an edificatory piece, we may be reasonably sure that John wrote his Gospel for weak Christians both in his community and in the synagogue. His Gospel encourages Christian Jews who were straddling the fence between Jesus and the synagogue (1) because they feared excommunication from the synagogue (cf. 9: 22; 12: 37 - 43; 16: 2); (2) or because they found Jesus teaching about the Eucharist a hard saying and could not accept it (cf. 6: 59 ff. ) (3) or because they could not accept the high Christology of John and his community (cf. 5: 1 - 47; 7: 8: 59, especially 8: 31; 10: 22 - 29; and perhaps 2: 23 - 25; 11: 46); (4) or, possibly but not certainly, because they had been disciples of John the Baptist and could not easily accept Jesus as greater than the Baptist (cf. 1: 19 - 34; 3: 224: 3).

For all of these, the Gospel as a whole, with its massive emphasis on. Page 8 Introduction witness to Jesus and response of faith in Jesus, provided a powerful appeal for a definitive decision concerning the Messiah (the Christ). To all of these equally, the words of Jesus would certainly apply: These things I have spoken to you, that you may be kept from stumbling (16: 1). Literary Techniques Few things are more helpful for readers of Johns Gospel than an appreciation of his literary techniques. These are for the most part the techniques of a dramatist. They include the technique of using stories to set up scenes; the use of discourses, dialogues, and monologues to expound Jesus teaching; the use of misunderstanding and double-meaning words to emphasize important elements of Jesus teaching; and the use of such other techniques as the rule of two, explanatory comments, irony, foreshadowing, inclusion, and the chiastic arrangement of parts, sequences, and sections of the Gospel.

All of these call for a brief explanation. 1. Stories John uses stories to set up scenes, discourses, and dialogues. The following are good examples. In John 1: 19 - 51, the story of Jesus coming to John the Baptist at the Jordan sets the scene for the parade of witnesses who testify successively to Jesus as the Lamb of God, Messiah, King of Israel, Son of God, and Son of Man. In 2: 13 - 25, the story of the cleansing of the temple sets the scene for Jesus dialogue with the Jews concerning His words Destroy this temple [He means His body], and in three days I will raise it up.

In 3: 1 - 21, the story of Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night sets the scene for Jesus dialogue with Nicodemus about being born again (3: 5), just as in 4: 4 ff. , Jesus meeting with the Samaritan woman sets the scene for His dialogue with her about the water that will become a well of water springing up to eternal life (4: 14). John uses the same technique in chapter 5, where the cure of the paralytic 18) sets the scene for the long monologue of 5: 19 - 47; in chapter 6, where Jesus discussion with the Jews about signs (6: 22 - 31) sets the theme for Jesus homily on the true bread from heaven (6: 32 - 58); in chapters 78, where Jesus secret trip to Jerusalem sets the scene for a series of debates with the Jews; in chapter 9, where the cure of the man born blink sets the scene for the discourse on the good and the. Introduction Page 9 bad shepherds (10: 1 - 21); in 10: 22 - 39, where Jesus appearance at the feast of the Dedication leads to His final dispute with the Jews; and lastly in chapters 1317, where the washing of the feet (13: 1 - 32) sets the scene for Jesus Last Supper discourse. In all these examples, the stories are secondary to the dialogues, monologues, and discourses for which they prepare the way. They are clearly the work of a superb dramatist. 2. Discourses, Dialogues, and Monologues As C.

H. Dodd has pointed out, the typical Johannine discourse (e. g. , in 3: 1 - 21; 4: 4 - 38; 5: 1 - 47; 6: 22 - 58; 9: 3910: 21; 10: 22 - 39; 13: 3316: 33) follows a distinctive pattern: (a) it begins with a solemn declaration by Jesus, often in lapidary terms (e. g. , 10; 5: 17; 6: 32; 7: 16; 9: 39; 10: 25; 13: 13); (b) it is frequently followed by an objection or question based upon a misunderstanding of Jesus words (e. g. 3: 4; 4: 11; 5: 18; 6: 41 - 42; 7: 20; 9: 40; 10: 6; 10: 31; 13: 36); (c) there then follows Jesus discourse clarifying the misunderstanding or the objection.

The discourse is sometimes interrupted by further questions and objections (e. g. , 4: 4 - 38; 6: 33 - 58; 15: 3316: 33) and at other times consists entirely of a long monologue (e. g. , 3: 11 - 21; 5: 19 - 47; 10: 7 - 18). 6. Irony John records certain persons, most frequently opponents of Jesus that make statements about Jesus that they think are correct and that Johns readers know are correct, but in a different and sometimes far deeper sense. The following are good examples. In 4: 12, the Samaritan woman asks Jesus, You are not greater than our father Jacob, are you, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself, and his sons, and his cattle?

She thinks not; the reader knows that Jesus is inestimably greater than. Introduction Page 11 Jacob for He is the one that gave it to Jacob (cf. 8: 58). The Jews ask, Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? (7: 42). Their question implies that they deny Jesus David descent and birth in Bethlehem. The reader knows the opposite is true. Caiaphas declares, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish (11: 50).

Caiaphas means that the execution of Jesus as a revolutionary will save the Jews from the wrath of Rome. The reader knows that Caiaphas (the high priest), without being conscious of it, has prophesied the death of Jesus for the spiritual redemption not only of the Jews but of the whole world! When Pilate asks, What is truth? (18: 38), his question implies that one cannot find the truth. Johns readers know that the truth Pilate despairs of finding stands before him in the person of Jesus, the way, and the truth, and the life (14: 6). Finally, when the soldiers mock Jesus as king (19: 2 - 3), Johns readers grasp the double irony: He whom the soldiers ironically declare to be king is, ironically, truly a king! 7.

Foreshadowing This is a narrators technique whereby knowledge of the future is given in advance in order to arouse anticipation and suspense, and at the same time prepare the audience to look for an interconnection of the parts of the story with the whole. There are several excellent examples of foreshadowing in Johns Gospel. In the Prologue, John says, He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him (1: 11). Hearing these words, the reader is led to anticipate both the rejection of Jesus by the Jews and His eventual death on the cross.

When Jesus looks at Peter and says to him, You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas (which translated means Peter) (1: 42), the reader, who already knows the significance of Simons nickname, Peter (cf. Matt. 16: 17 - 19), is led to anticipate what actually only happens at the end of the Gospel, namely, Jesus designation of Peter to be vicar-shepherd in charge of His flock (21: 15 - 19)... Page 12 Introduction A classic example of foreshadowing occurs in 11: 4. Jesus responds to Martha and Marys message about Lazarus illness by declaring, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified by it. Lazarus illness is not unto death because Jesus will raise him. And because Jesus raises him, the Jewish leaders will plot and bring about Jesus own death.

Thus, Lazarus illness is for the glory of God, because it leads to Jesus death-glorification on the cross. Simpler foreshadowings are found in 11: 50; 12: 33; 13: 36; 16: 32; 21: 18. 8. Inclusion Known among classical scholars as ring composition, inclusion is a narrators technique in which was is said at the beginning of a piece is repeated at the end. The repetition forces the readers attention back to the beginning and thus serves as a frame for the piece as a whole. John frames his whole Gospel by repeating in chapter 21 words and names used in 1: 19 - 51 (note the return in chapter 21 of the names Simon son of John, Nathanael, the two unnamed disciples, the words follow me, and the commissioning of Peter as vicar-shepherd of the sheep, a commissioning already implicit in the change of Simons name to Peter in 1: 42). In addition to framing the Gospel as a whole, John frames each individual sequence of his Gospel.

Two examples will suffice: 2: 1 - 12 (note how verses 11 - 12 repeat names and places in verses 1 - 2); 20: 1 - 18 (note how the sequence begins and ends with the full name of Mary Magdalene). Recognition of inclusions is important for the interpreter. More than anything else, inclusions clearly indicate beginnings and endings and thus help the exegete to divide the Gospel into distinct parts, sequences, and sections. In modern terms, inclusions divide the written Gospel into parts, chapters, and paragraphs. The importance of this becomes obvious when the reader realizes that ancient manuscripts like Johns Gospel were regularly written almost entirely without indications of, or divisions into parts, chapters, and sections. Recognition of Johns inclusions becomes all the more important when one realizes that the present division of the Gospel into twenty-one chapters, as found in all modern Bible translations, goes back to the twelfth century and was done with complete disregard for Johns use of inclusions to divide his Gospel into individual parts, sequences, and sections.

As we shall see in this study, when we deal with the structure of the Gospel, John uses inclusions regularly, skillfully, and abundantly in the composition of his Gospel. Structure of Johns Gospel The search for the structure of Johns Gospel has been long and dishearteningly unsuccessful. Forty years ago, Bultmann proposed that the Gospel as it stands is not the Gospel as it came from the hand of the author, but the poor attempt of editors to put back in order an originally well-arranged manuscript that was either damaged or disarranged as early as the autograph stage. In 1963, D. M. Smith, Jr. , made a study of Bultmann's thesis regarding the order of John and came to the conclusion that in almost every instance Bultmann's reconstruction raised as many problems as it provided solutions.

Smith himself came to the conclusion that it was quite possible, indeed probable, that the Fourth Gospel has been left to us in an unfinished stage. Brown begins his section on the unity and composition of the Gospel with the question: Is the fourth gospel as it now stands the work of one man? His answer, like that of all modern commentators with the exception of Lagrange and Hoskyns, is an emphatic denial. Despite the fact that there is absolutely no textual witness to any other order than the one we find now in the Gospel, almost all commentators take for granted that there were at least two hands (or schools) at work in the composition of the Gospel and that the Gospel as it stands now is in a state of great disorder. The great commentators since Bultmann (Dodd, Barrett, Brown, Schnacken-burg, Linear, and Marsh) all call attention to the difficulties with Bultmann's reconstruction but do little more toward reconstructing the so-called original Gospel beyond suggesting a series of inept redactors or editors who have distorted the original order of the Gospel by introducing new material at several points and by adding to what is considered the original ending of the Gospel (20: 30 - 31) a new concluding chapter (21). To explain the alleged disorder, they propose variant versions of the following hypotheses: (a) hypotheses of accidental displacements; (b) hypotheses of multiple sources ineptly melded together; (c) hypotheses of successive editions of an earlier Gospel supplemented and re-edited later by incompetent editors.

Despite these and other hypotheses, what H. M. Temple said in 1962 remains true: No one yet has demonstrated convincingly that the gospel has been disarranged... Page 22 Introduction What follows is a proposed hypothesis that the Gospel of John has suffered neither displacements nor disarrangements but stands now as it came from the hand of the author. This proposition is based on the contention amply demonstrated that the Gospel was composed according to the laws of chiastic parallelism rather than according to 20 th century Western literary devices. The Gospel appears to be in a state of disarrangement only if one presupposes that the author composed it according to the ordinary principles of narrative composition.

If one presupposes, on the contrary, that the Gospel was composed according to the principles of chiastic parallelism, every part, sequence, section, and element is precisely where it belongs. It is my belief that the Gospel as it now stands is the work of one individual; that it has suffered no displacements; that it has a clear and easily demonstrable chiastic structure from beginning to end; and that it exists now in our New Testament (with the exception of the adulteress account) exactly as it came from the author. I agree wholeheartedly with Strauss who concluded many years ago when he declared that the Gospel was like the seamless robe of which it spoke (John 19: 23 - 24), which one may cast lots for, but cannot divide. The heart of my argument resides in this fundamental presupposition a press-position diametrically opposed to the fundamental presupposition of all previous authors: John wrote his Gospel according to the laws of chiastic parallelism and not according to the laws of narrative. If the Gospel had been written according to the principles of narrative, one would rightly expect a logical and chronological succession of events without violent changes of geography, situation, time, and content. If this narrative presupposition is true, scholars would be correct in deducing that Johns Gospel has suffered displacements, rearrangements, supple-mental interpolations, and even several redaction's.

The following would be the most obvious of these displacements and rearrange-ments: (1) the cleansing of the Temple (2: 13 - 25), which is out of place and should be transposed to some point closer to the Passion account; (2) 3: 27 - 36, which is misplaced and should be rearranged to follow either 1: 19 - 34 or perhaps 3: 19; (3) chapters 57, which are not in correct order and should be rearranged so that chapter 5 and chapter 7 go together, with chapter 6 preceding them; (4) parts of 10: 22 - 39 (the shepherd and sheep parts), which are misplaced and should go somewhere in 10: 1 - 21; (5) 12: 44 - 50, which floats and can find no good resting place anywhere in the. Introduction Page 23 Gospel; (6) chapters 1517, which should be treated as supplementary material added to the Last Supper discourse by one or more editors; and (7) chapter 21, which gives the appearance of being a supplement added to the Gospel as an epilogue by the final editor. The above-mentioned displacements and rearrangements have been hypoth-edited on the premise, rarely if ever questioned, that the Gospel was written according to the laws of narrative. If this premise were true, logic would demand that some hypothesis of displacements, rearrangements, and editions must be found, even though it reduces the Gospel as it stands to a hodgepodge of material put together by remarkably incompetent authors and editors. Reflecting on this situation, C.

H. Dodd thirty years ago remarked, Unfortunately, when once the gospel has been taken to pieces, its re assemblage is liable to be affected by individual preferences, preconceptions, and even prejudices (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 290). If, on the other hand, the premise is false, then the situation is entirely different. There remains the possibility that the Gospel was indeed written according to the principles of parallelism rather than according to the principles of narrative. That this is more than a mere possibility may be deduced from the fact that chiastic parallelism as a structural principle in ancient Middle Eastern books has been amply documented in the last fifty years for both classical and biblical authors. C.

H. Talbert is undoubtedly correct in his contention that books in the ancient Middle East were frequently written according to the laws of chiastic parallelism, and in his subsequent judgment that... the very law of duality (i. e. , parallelism) by which one part is made to correspond to another by being either analogous or contrasting seems deeply rooted in Near Eastern mentality (Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts, p. 74).

In addition, I believe that Johns Gospel is not simply constructed according to the principles of chiastic parallelism, but also that each of its parts, numbering five, and each of the twenty-one individual sequences of the Gospel is constructed according to the principles of chiastic parallelism. The following study will demonstrate that John creates his parallelism most often by repeating either the same words or the same content. Occasionally he creates parallelisms by means of antithetic parallelism, i. e. , by contrasting a negative with a positive or a positive with a negative situation or concept.

On rare occasions he not only parallels words and content, but even the literary form of a sequence... Page 24 Introduction Chiastic Structure of the Gospel In the following outline of the Gospel, the reader will notice that the Gospel is divided into twenty-one sequences, with the first mirrored back by the twenty-first, the second mirrored back by the twentieth, the third by the nineteenth, and so through the entire Gospel, with the eleventh sequence (6: 16 - 21) standing starkly alone in the center. This has been done because each sequence constitutes a well-defined unit either because of unity of place or time or theme or situation. Ideally these sequences should take the place of the old chapter arrangement of the Gospel that comes from Stephen Langton, who in 1226 divided the Gospel into its present very poor arrangement of chapters and verses. The original Gospel, like almost all ancient books, contained neither chapters nor verses nor even paragraphs.

Scholars are agreed that Langtons division is almost entirely arbitrary, and they have attempted to rectify the situation by retaining Langtons chapters and verses but adding titles or headings to indicate where they believe John would have begun new chapters and paragraphs if he were writing his Gospel today. In the following outline, because of limitation of space, only the most obvious parallels of persons, places, and situation can be indicated in bold type. Following the commentary on each sequence, beginning with the fourth, the reader will find a listing of the full range of parallels John has created in order to compose his Gospel according to the laws of parallelism. Commentators down through the centuries have been all too content to laud Johns Gospel for its theological depth and for its occasional brilliant literary sorties. But on the whole, they apologized for the seemingly pedestrian literary gifts of the author. When John is seen through the focus of chiastic parallelism, this judgment has to be revised.

Any author who could compose so elaborate a structure with such artistic attention to detail and over so long a work deserves to be ranked with the best of antiquity's literary artists. As you study Johns chiastic structure on the next page, note particularly how he has paralleled part with part, sequence with sequence, and section with section. The total effect of such a structure when presented to the eye is similar to the effect of an elaborate mosaic or a large Persian rug. The Rewards of Parallelism Studying the chiastic outline of Johns Gospel on page 25, the reader will notice that the author has paralleled in a chiastic structure PART for PART, SEQUENCE with SEQUENCE, and SECTION with SECTION.

With the relative ease which the literary style of John can now be detected, this study will make it a key that virtually anyone can use to gain access to the all too often hidden treasures of the Scriptures. Richard Greene Moulton emphasizes the importance of printing the text in such a way that the chiastic structure can be seen visually and thus adverted to: The essential thing is that the verse structure should be represented to the eye by proper printing of the text. Where this is done further explanation is superfluous; where structural arrangement is wanting, no amount of explanation is likely to be of much avail. Admittedly, such a structure is alien to modern experience and difficult to appreciate. But for the reader who is willing to study the principles of parallel structure and apply them to the Gospel of John as a whole, the aesthetic, literary, and theological rewards are considerable. Leaving aside the aesthetic rewards, which are too subjective to be adequately described, and leaving until later the theological rewards, the literary rewards can be described briefly...

Page 28 Introduction First, sequences of the Gospel and sections of sequences which seem to Bultmann and others to be out of their original place in the Gospel and which they accordingly move either backward or forward in the Book to achieve a more flowing and continuous narrative are seen to be precisely where the principles of chiastic parallelism require them to be (e. g. , 2: 13 - 25; 3: 22 - 36; chapters 5, 6, 7). Second, sections of the Gospel which are considered by many to be doublets of earlier sections, and which are therefore deduced to be the work of inept editors, are seen to be artistic and necessary parallels of their chiastic counterparts when judged according to the principles of chiastic parallelism (e. g. , 3: 22 - 36 parallels 1: 19 - 31 and chapters 1617 parallel 13: 114: 31). Third, individual sequences and sections of sequences whose beginnings and ends are difficult to determine when one expects them to follow the principles of narrative are seen to have clear and definite beginnings and endings when one reads them according to the principles of chiastic parallelism.

Fourth, such pericope's as 2: 13 - 25 (the cleansing of the Temple), 11: 1 - 54 (the Lazarus story and the priests plot), to name but two, have always posed problems for those who read John according to the principles of narrative. According to the principles of parallelism, both pericope's are exactly where they belong, the Temple pericope balancing the Passion narrative (the destroying of the body of Jesus) and the Lazarus pericope balancing the bread of life promise in 6: 32 - 58. Lastly, many have adverted to what has been called the spiral movement of Johns thought. They have seen this spiral movement, however, as peculiar, confusing, and repetitive. When the spiral movement is seen as part and parcel of Johns chiastic parallelism, it ceases to be peculiar and becomes artistic; it ceases to be confusing and serves to clarify; it ceases to be repetitious and becomes balanced and supportive.

There may be no more effective way to promote an ongoing renewal in biblical studies today than to teach and encourage Christians to read the Scriptures according to the same principles by which they were composed. Finally, one may ask, why John intentionally arrange his composition according to the principles of parallelism? Some possible answers are: (1) in order that the work might be the more easily memorized; (2) in order that corresponding parts might help to interpret one another; (3) in order to give to his grand theme a suitable artistic form. Introduction Page 29 in the same way that Vergil chose dactylic hexameters for his theme; (4) in order to present his work to the world in the same parallel literary pattern used so extensively in the Old Testament and other epic works of the Middle Eastern authors. CONCLUSION We conclude, therefore, that neither interpreters of the Fourth Gospel nor translators should ignore the help given to them by an author when he chooses parallelism as his method of composition. After a close study of Johns Gospel, the reader will be awe struck by his literary genius.

Rarely in Western literature has form been woven into content, pattern sewn into meaning, structure forged into theme with greater subtlety or success. The result is a Gospel of profound paradox that first reveals then resolves itself in absolute symmetry. To look closely at the major patterns of paradox is to discover how the literal level of the Gospel fully engenders the meaning and how pattern finally unravels predication. The Gospel of John is the most intricately composed, complex and relatively long opus in the New Testament. The author did not mind, however, breaking his Gospel up into manageable pieces. Even in the central part of his composition, which is strictly coherent, he has paid the greatest attention to the individual sequences and sections.

The grand effect of the Fourth Gospel is due to its parts melting into one continuous whole.


Free research essays on topics related to: johns gospel, gospel, synoptic gospels, middle eastern, literary techniques

Research essay sample on Synoptic Gospels Johns Gospel

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com