Peter Kirby

Gringo, with your permission I would not mind being a leader for this Bible study.

The purpose of this study, as I conceive it, is a better understanding of the message and method of the authors involved. Insights are welcome from both believers and skeptics. We should try to understand what the author says, and we should welcome contributions from people who have different perspectives than our own. A person can have the viewpoint that the work is inspired; however, the person should post with the realization that others will not share that assumption. In the other direction, a person can have the viewpiont that the work is entirely fictitious, but others will not be compelled to adopt this viewpoint without argument. I have no illusions that there is an objective point of view from which the interpretation of John can be tackled, so I suggest that we be explicit about the assumptions that are behind our readings.

Here are some questions that confront us when we read the first chapter of John. I welcome any and all answers.

1. I quoted two different second century commentaries on the prologue of John, one by Ptolemy and one by Heracleon. Do you think that these two commentators make sound and permissible interpretations? Why or why not?

2. What do you think serves as the background for the thought and style found in the prologue of John? Is it the OT picture of personified wisdom? Is it the Qumranic dualism of light and darkness? Is it Gnosticism? Is it Hellenistic speculation on the Logos? Something else or a combination?

3. Unlike Matthew and Luke, there is no infancy narrative in the Gospel of John. Why? Does this tell us anything about John?

4. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God." Does this contradict the Hebrew Sciptures?

5. Unlike the Gospel of Mark, there is no mention of the baptism of Jesus by John, but there is a mention of a dove from the sky in John 1:32. Why do you think this is so?

6. In John 1:20, it is said that, "he admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, 'I am not the Messiah.'" Do you think that this is credible, or do you think that the author doth protest too much?

7. Matthew 11:14 says, "And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one who is to come." In John 1:21, John the Baptist answers the question of whether he is Elijah by saying that he is not. Do you think that this is an example of varying traditions behind John and the synoptics, or do you think that each author had the same understanding of the person of John the Baptist?

8. John 1:31 has the Baptist say, "I did not know him." Can this be squared with the tradition about the kinship of Jesus and John found in the infancy narrative of Luke?

9. John 1:29 and 1:36 have the Baptist say, "Behold, the Lamb of God." What do you think that the imagery of the Lamb of God means?

10. In Mark 1:16-20, Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to be disciples at the same time. In John 1:40-42, Andrew had been called first and told his brother Simon about Jesus. How do you account for these two different ideas?

11. In John 1:46, it is put on Nathanael's lips that, "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" Where do you think this statement against Nazareth came from?

12. In John 1:51, Jesus says, "Amen, amen, I say to you, you will see the sky opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man." What does this mean? Was it fulfilled?

That should be enough to start us off.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

You may be interested to know about this parallel found in the Coptic manuscript of the Gospel of Thomas.

114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."

This in turn has a parallel in Paul.

Galatians 3:28. There is no Jew nor Greek; there is no bondman nor freeman; there is no male and female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus:

You may see that this is parallel once you realize that the Greek word used for "one" is masculine. The feminine was seen as not just the weaker sex but as not fully human. But Christians offered women the opportunity to become part of the (male) body of Christ.

best,
Peter Kirby

Gringo

Thanks, Peter, I think you'd be an excellent Bible study leader! You've thrown out alot of great questions. Thanks also for the commentaries; I'll probably have to read them a few more times before they sink in

Vorkosigan

Another interesting parallel here is with ancient Buddhist belief: one cannot become a Buddha without becoming male.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

2. What do you think serves as the background for the thought and style found in the prologue of John? Is it the OT picture of personified wisdom? Is it the Qumranic dualism of light and darkness? Is it Gnosticism? Is it Hellenistic speculation on the Logos? Something else or a combination?

• NIV: 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

I do not know if we can see the Prologue as Gnostic. For although it has mystical overtones, it seems, at least in this redaction, to be firmly anti-Gnostic in setting out the proper order of creation and the proper relationship between God and Humankind. There's a comment in the Gospel of Philip that says first the gods created us, and now we created the gods.

The way I read this, it reads more like a dialogue with Gnosticism, borrowing some of its imagery and tone, but repackaging them using orthodox doctrines.

However, perhaps Qumran thought may be indicated by two points -- the light-dark comments in the Prologue, and the Book of Daniel quoting in John 1:51. Qumran was really into Daniel. It is interesting that this chapter opens and close with Qumranic flavor. Is the chapter division ancient?

3. Unlike Matthew and Luke, there is no infancy narrative in the Gospel of John. Why? Does this tell us anything about John?

John is dependent on Mark, and independent of Matthew, and written before Luke....Markan dependency is also suggested by...

5. Unlike the Gospel of Mark, there is no mention of the baptism of Jesus by John, but there is a mention of a dove from the sky in John 1:32. Why do you think this is so?

In addition to the dove imagery found in both M and J, there is also the sandals and untying, and baptizing with the holy spirit. This may suggest dependence.

But John knows that Jesus' father is Joseph, so some birth narrative is known to John

6. In John 1:20, it is said that, "he admitted and did not deny it, but admitted, 'I am not the Messiah.'" Do you think that this is credible, or do you think that the author doth protest too much?

I'll take B here, Peter. I suspect that the NT obsession with John has nothing to do with any relationship between him and Jesus, but because he headed a rival messianic group that the Christians needed to paint as subordinate to their crowd. Each of the NT gospels has dealt with the problem in a different way, with the general theme of Jesus "succeeding" John. I do not think the Baptism of Jesus by JtB was historical.

8. John 1:31 has the Baptist say, "I did not know him." Can this be squared with the tradition about the kinship of Jesus and John found in the infancy narrative of Luke?

Nope. Mebbe Luke came after John...

10. In Mark 1:16-20, Jesus calls Simon and Andrew to be disciples at the same time. In John 1:40-42, Andrew had been called first and told his brother Simon about Jesus. How do you account for these two different ideas?

Peter, I'm wondering, in John 1 John seems to see Jesus in Bethany, on the other side of the Jordan, picks Andrew and Simon, and then goes to Galilee. But in Mark, Jesus is in Galilee and John is in prison when Andrew and Simon are called. It seems to me that not only is the order reversed, but the location is different and the circumstances completely different. Not merely has Peter been firmly denigrated, but the entire story is removed from Galilee.

Vorkosigan

HelenM

I was interesting to hear an Orthodox-Jew-turned-Christian argue that the Word being personified is a very Jewish concept. I can't remember his specific reasoning.

Of course Wisdom is personified in the book of Proverbs, with descriptions about being there with God in the beginning, that kind of parallel the beginning of John's gospel.

I think it's very hard to know how symbolic the author was being, in John's gospel.

Quite symbolic, perhaps. Maybe more so than conservative Christians have traditionally realized.

Or at least, aside from the heyday of allegorizing, perhaps...

love
Helen

Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan writes: I do not know if we can see the Prologue as Gnostic. For although it has mystical overtones, it seems, at least in this redaction, to be firmly anti-Gnostic in setting out the proper order of creation and the proper relationship between God and Humankind.

Do you mean to say that Gnostics didn't have ideas about the proper order of creation and the proper relationship between God and Humankind?

Vorkosigan writes: There's a comment in the Gospel of Philip that says first the gods created us, and now we created the gods.

Can I get chapter and verse on that?

Vorkosigan writes: The way I read this, it reads more like a dialogue with Gnosticism, borrowing some of its imagery and tone, but repackaging them using orthodox doctrines.

I can certainly understand that reading. On this reading, Gnosticism is in the background of the composition of the prologue, although the author is not gnostic himself. Do you think it can be established that the author know a form of Gnosticism?

Vorkosigan writes: However, perhaps Qumran thought may be indicated by two points -- the light-dark comments in the Prologue, and the Book of Daniel quoting in John 1:51. Qumran was really into Daniel. It is interesting that this chapter opens and close with Qumranic flavor. Is the chapter division ancient?

I do not know how ancient the chapter division is, but I think I know that it is not original to the fourth gospel.

Vorkosigan writes: John is dependent on Mark, and independent of Matthew, and written before Luke.

You may know that there is an old debate over whether (and how) the author of John was dependent on the Gospel of Mark. Hopefully you will be able to comment throughout this Bible study in order to represent the point of view that the Gospel of John was dependent on Mark. You are in good company, along with J. D. Crossan and Frans Neirynck, although Kysar says that a slim majority still hold to the independence of the fourth gospel.

Vorkosigan: In addition to the dove imagery found in both M and J, there is also the sandals and untying, and baptizing with the holy spirit. This may suggest dependence.

Do you think that the author of John suppressed mention of the actual baptism as found in Mark because the author of John thought Jesus to be sinless and thus in no need of baptism for the repentance of sins?

Vorkosigan writes: But John knows that Jesus' father is Joseph, so some birth narrative is known to John

Why couldn't the name of the father of Jesus be transmitted independently of a birth narrative?

Vorkosigan writes: I suspect that the NT obsession with John has nothing to do with any relationship between him and Jesus, but because he headed a rival messianic group that the Christians needed to paint as subordinate to their crowd.

Is there evidence that some saw JtB as a Messiah?

Vorkosigan writes: Each of the NT gospels has dealt with the problem in a different way, with the general theme of Jesus "succeeding" John. I do not think the Baptism of Jesus by JtB was historical.

Do you think that the baptism of Jesus by JtB was unhistorical and that the two never met, if they ever lived?

Vorkosigan writes: Nope. Mebbe Luke came after John...

Do you think that Luke knew John?

Vorkosigan writes: Peter, I'm wondering, in John 1 John seems to see Jesus in Bethany, on the other side of the Jordan, picks Andrew and Simon, and then goes to Galilee. But in Mark, Jesus is in Galilee and John is in prison when Andrew and Simon are called. It seems to me that not only is the order reversed, but the location is different and the circumstances completely different. Not merely has Peter been firmly denigrated, but the entire story is removed from Galilee.

Do you have any ideas for why this is so?

HelenSL writes: Quite symbolic, perhaps. Maybe more so than conservative Christians have traditionally realized.

Hopefully you can chime in throughout this Bible study with suggestions for allegorical interpretation. What do you see as symbolic in the first chapter of John?

HelenSL writes: Or at least, aside from the heyday of allegorizing, perhaps...

Was there a heyday of allegorizing? When was that?

I welcome further comments from everyone on the first chapter of John, either in response to my suggested questions or from your own reading.

best,
Peter Kirby

HelenM

I read it somewhere. I think it peaked in medieval times, if I recall correctly.

It may have started much earlier.

love
Helen

Peter Kirby

Origen's commentary on the Gospel of John can be accessed here.

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/origen.html</a>

Origen wrote in the early third century, and I believe that he championed an allegorical or spiritual reading of the fourth gospel.

best,
Peter Kirby

King Arthur

I believe it was adopted by Jews anyway. Philo, before Jesus, wrote about the "logos" or "word".