The Gospel of John has always stood out to me as a text that is out of place with regard to other books of the new testament, particularly when juxtaposed with the synoptic gospels. My observation has been that there are verses that are critical to Christian orthodoxy that are found only in this gospel, and this has made me suspicious of it for a long time. It is the only gospel in which Jesus points to his own divinity and Godship whereas the synoptic gospels (and earlier gospels) have Jesus as the Messiah. There are very important verses such as John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". No one comes to the Father except through Jesus? That does not quite seem the narrative of the first three gospels, particularly Mark, one would think that this verse being such an important revelation to his disciples would have merited mention in at least one of the other (earlier) Gospels. This particular verse has lead many Christians to believe that unless one has come to know Christ they are effectively condemned. This interpretation has become so literal with the more fundamental thinking that many will even assert that non-Christian children washed out to sea and drowned by a tsunami in Indonesia are also condemned. Really? God condemns innocent children? They may back-pedal from this assertion but still insist that adults or youth of a certain age cannot be saved by any means other than faith in Christ Jesus even if they had no opportunity to come to know Christ. What about people before Christ? This is one of the reasons the church has insisted that Jesus descended into Hell before resurrection, so that those in Hell could be saved. Thinking along these lines we must assume (as long as we are still thinking that Hell is an actual place) that anyone who was in Hell would have leaped at the opportunity for salvation! Could you imagine anyone not taking up the offer?, "No thanks, I'll pass, I'm good here in Hell. It's a dry heat man...." Going back to the adults after Jesus walked the Earth, history has documented many people of many faiths and no faith that have achieved great things and lived a very Jesus-like life, doing good not for reward but doing good for the sake of good. Believing that doing good things is right and just and worth doing. Does God condemn them too? Even without knowing Jesus such individuals still followed His way. Certainly knowing Christ makes this path much more knowable, but not knowing of Christ does not equivocate condemnation.
You only come to this interpretation if your view asserts the following; The Bible is the infallible word of God; You translate this literally; and you need it to be this way so that the faith can convert and subsequently control the masses of a many-nation empire. Maybe the third point comes first and drives the other two. This is what drove canon and orthodoxy.
Clearly I do not believe that the bible is the infallible, ineffable word of God. I have come to learn that John was written by three or more authors over a period of a couple decades, or so goes the majority view of contemporary biblical scholars. We know that these gospels were written by men that decided to try and record what they could of Jesus's teachings, acts, and works before those that witnessed it passed away. Mark is believed to have been written prior to 70AD (66-70AD). Matthew and Luke are estimated at being written between 80 and 90, and John is thought to have been written between 90-110AD and some think that the version we have in our cannon was completed closer to 110 having been revised or added to over a span of nearly 20 years.
The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus preaching in and around Galilee then making a trip to Jerusalem over the course of a year. John describes Jesus primarily in Jerusalem, visiting there three times over a period of three years. Such differences have always concerned me, but I have a very scientific critical mind and thus such inconsistencies always stand out and are generally problematic for me. I embrace it though, as this does often trouble me and is often the source of faith-loss, this critical perspective always yields a deeper understanding.
Though I have often thought so, I would not go as far as to say that John is a Gnostic text. Maybe quasi-Gnostic, at least a text that is more metaphor than history. I regard the Old Testament in this way. The OT contains the Jewish Law, or the Law of Moses, though Moses most certainly did not write the Pentateuch. With regard to the other texts that are not the law I view them as Truth, that is, not historical events, but more stories of Truth. Take Genesis 1, I don't believe that this account of the creation of our universe and Earth as a description of historical event, rather, I see it as a cosmic truth, a cosmos that God is responsible for. Where history and metaphor come together are in the Synoptic Gospels and the epistles. John and Revelation are, to me, texts of metaphorical truth that need to be viewed in such a way to get the real value out of them. Reading them from a historical perspective distracts from this greater truth and understanding the historical context of them is important to grasping these truths.
You only come to this interpretation if your view asserts the following; The Bible is the infallible word of God; You translate this literally; and you need it to be this way so that the faith can convert and subsequently control the masses of a many-nation empire. Maybe the third point comes first and drives the other two. This is what drove canon and orthodoxy.
Clearly I do not believe that the bible is the infallible, ineffable word of God. I have come to learn that John was written by three or more authors over a period of a couple decades, or so goes the majority view of contemporary biblical scholars. We know that these gospels were written by men that decided to try and record what they could of Jesus's teachings, acts, and works before those that witnessed it passed away. Mark is believed to have been written prior to 70AD (66-70AD). Matthew and Luke are estimated at being written between 80 and 90, and John is thought to have been written between 90-110AD and some think that the version we have in our cannon was completed closer to 110 having been revised or added to over a span of nearly 20 years.
The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus preaching in and around Galilee then making a trip to Jerusalem over the course of a year. John describes Jesus primarily in Jerusalem, visiting there three times over a period of three years. Such differences have always concerned me, but I have a very scientific critical mind and thus such inconsistencies always stand out and are generally problematic for me. I embrace it though, as this does often trouble me and is often the source of faith-loss, this critical perspective always yields a deeper understanding.
Though I have often thought so, I would not go as far as to say that John is a Gnostic text. Maybe quasi-Gnostic, at least a text that is more metaphor than history. I regard the Old Testament in this way. The OT contains the Jewish Law, or the Law of Moses, though Moses most certainly did not write the Pentateuch. With regard to the other texts that are not the law I view them as Truth, that is, not historical events, but more stories of Truth. Take Genesis 1, I don't believe that this account of the creation of our universe and Earth as a description of historical event, rather, I see it as a cosmic truth, a cosmos that God is responsible for. Where history and metaphor come together are in the Synoptic Gospels and the epistles. John and Revelation are, to me, texts of metaphorical truth that need to be viewed in such a way to get the real value out of them. Reading them from a historical perspective distracts from this greater truth and understanding the historical context of them is important to grasping these truths.
Comments
Post a Comment