Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry
  • Home
  • Calendar
    • Events
  • Blog
  • About
    • About Wittenberg CoMo
    • Support Us
    • Contact Us
  • Recording Archives
    • Resources >
      • Christianity 101
      • Greek Tutorials
  • Position Papers
  • Sandbox

Introduction to the Fourth Gospel

4/6/2017

0 Comments

 
Thursdays are for the New Testament
4/6/17

We’re going to start a walk-through of a commentary on John’s Gospel. D.A. Carson writes from a strongly Calvinistic perspective. He tends to use terms like “law” and “gospel” more loosely and with broader range than I would. He is not very sacramental in his outlook. Yet he does attempt to play fair with his sources.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991.
“Introduction” pp. 21-104

Carson’s commentary, which is aimed at the pastor or lower level scholar, attempts to defend a view of the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel. He proposes that the text was written at least in large part for the purpose of evangelizing unbelievers. Prior to the textual commentary, he provides a lengthy introduction.

John’s Gospel is distinct from the other canonical Gospels. “There are no narrative parables in John, no account of the transfiguration, no record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, no report of Jesus casting out a demon, no mention of Jesus’ temptations” (Carson 1991, 21). It seems clear that different events were chosen for inclusion. John records events which are not in the Synoptics. Carson also notes several instances which may seem to be contradictions between John and the Synoptics, along with chronological challenges (Carson 1991, 22). The language usage in John is quite distinct from that of other New Testament writings. Carson considers this an evidence of the author’s independence (Carson 1991, 23).

The earliest manuscripts and comments seem to show an early practice of gathering the fourGospels together, often with Acts (Carson 1991, 24). John’s Gospel was used by Gnostics in the second century to justify their points of view (Carson 1991, 25). The text was also used by orthodox Christians as early as Justin Martyr (Carson 1991, 25). Carson goes on to discuss several of the early authors who make references to John as the author of the Gospel.

Though there was considerable debate about John’s Gospel through the time of the reformation, there was strong agreement that it was authored by John the apostle and could be reconciled in its message with the Synoptic Gospels (Carson 1991, 29). Carson notes that in 1835, the work of David Friedrich Strauss applied the idea of “myth” to the miraculous in John, thus discounting the authenticity (Carson 1991, 30). From that point, studies were divided as to the reliability of the message of the Fourth Gospel. Carson details some of the debate, particularly focusing on Bultmann and his opponents, He suggests that the writing may well knowingly preserve materials and ideas independently of, but not contradictory to the Synoptics (Carson 1991, 34).

Carson reviews some recent scholarship. Observing that the book is now 25 years from publication, the information could use an update. In general terms, while some scholars pursue the idea of some form of source criticism (Carson 1991, 35), there  is also a growing movement toward some form of literary criticism, which considers the text as a body not closely connected to a historic context (Carson 1991, 38).

Carson next turns to a discussion of the Gospel’s “authenticity.” By this he means an evaluation of its reliability as “witness to the origins, ministry, death, resurrection, and exaltation of Jesus the Messiah” (Carson 1991, 40).

As to source criticism, it is clear that John used various sources of information (Carson 1991, 41). Trying to identify the sources is another matter altogether. At the same time, the text has numerous strong and unifying characteristics (Carson 1991, 42). Carson suggests that many attempts to engage in source criticism are based on an assumption that thought will necessarily develop in a linear and consistent way (Carson 1991, 44).

Carson identifies a considerable unity of style and structure in John (Carson 1991, 45). There are signs throughout indicating a sermonic style consistent with a work of one who has practiced telling the material many times (Carson 1991, 46).

Carson questions the standard discussion of a relationship between John’s Gospel and the Synoptics. Rather than looking for a literary dependence, Carson suggests that the Gospels, informed by eyewitnesses of real events, were strongly influenced by those very events (Carson 1991, 50). While it seems likely that John had  read at least Mark and Luke, it is unfair to suggest that his knowledge of events is dependent on those accounts (Carson 1991, 51). Carson prefers to see congruity of concepts. He describes it as “an interlocking tradition” (Carson 1991, 52). The different accounts are complementary. Carson observes that John can contribute to an understanding of the Synoptics and that the Synoptics can aid in interpreting John. Complementarity is reciprocal (Carson 1991, 54). Carson illustrates this briefly by discussing the growth in the Christology of the disciples, both in the Synoptics and John.

There have been various speculations about the philosophical concepts underlying John’s Gospel. Carson notes that John uses a vocabulary rich in terms used by other religious groups. The more important consideration is the referent. What does a term refer to? This is a very important factor in understanding a message (Carson 1991, 59). Carson points out that John’s references are overwhelmingly related to the Old Testament and a Palestinian Jewish understanding of history and philosophy. This, then, gives context to the message (Carson 1991, 60). John’s Gospel, then, uses philosophical language expressly to show how Jesus fits into the entirety of religious and philosophical thought (Carson 1991, 62).

Carson moves on to discuss the “new criticism” which analyzes John in terms of a novel (Carson 1991, 63). The search is for some sort of truthful insight which has no necessary relationship to actual events (Carson 1991, 64). Carson observes that in every age, readers have been aware of the distinction between factual and fictional narratives. The Gospels have always been recognized as relating factual accounts (Carson 1991, 66).

The ascription of authorship is a common question. Carson sees the early, external, evidence as very strong in affirming the apostle John as the author (Carson 1991, 68). Modern scholars who dismiss Johannine authorship almost uniformly do so based on internal, rather than external, evidence. Carson discusses the passage in Eusebius where Papias is cited as possibly discounting John the apostle as the author. Carson sees this as possibly an attempt of Eusebius to contradict Papias, a closer source to the author (Carson 1991, 70). Carson goes on to treat evidence in John and commented on by the Synoptics which points strongly to John the son of Zebedee as the author (Carson 1991, 73).

Carson discusses the dating of the Gospel in some detail. Because of recent papyrus discoveries he considers any second century date very unlikely (Carson 1991, 82) It appears to have been written after the death of Peter about 64, based on 21:19. The lack of any mention of the destruction of AD 70 suggests a date before 70 or considerably afterward (Carson 1991, 83). Many suggestions of late authorship are based on a premise that the sophisticated Christology shown took a long time to develop. Carson does not consider this a necessary assumption (Carson 1991, 84). His inclination is to tentatively hold a date between 80 and 85.

As to the purpose of John’s Gospel, Carson notes four common ut problematic assumptions. First is that John depended on, then purposely made a contrast with, the Synoptic Gospels. This fails to see the complementary nature of the biblical texts (Carson 1991, 87). Some suggest the book was an effort of a polemical Johannine community trying to promote one point of view. There is, however, disagreement about the actual purpose of the text (Carson 1991, 88). Others focus on one or another of the themes or literary features. Again, there is little agreement about which is preeminent (Carson 1991, 88). Some commentators try to synthesize a variety of views. This may confuse the purpose of the Gospel with its theoretical effect (Carson 1991, 89). Carson prefers to accept the author’s statement in 20:30-31, that the text is written so the reader may believe (Carson 1991, 90). The Gospel makes many references to Old Testament concepts, suggesting that the reader likely was familiar with the ideas, but needed to see them in light of Jesus’ work (Carson 1991, 91). Carson suggests that the author’s statement of purpose can articulate all his reasons for the material selected and his mode of presentation (Carson 1991, 93). It all encourages belief in Jesus.

Carson finds John’s theological work to be well integrated, thus difficult to reduce to a list of emphases (Carson 1991, 95). The fullness of Jesus’ identity is certainly important. Carson lists many of the titles used of Jesus, along with multiple chapter and verse references, to help illustrate the author’s concern with identity. Likewise, the concept of salvation is important in John, as is the eschatological nature of the Christian life (Carson 1991, 97). The work of the Holy Spirit and the relation of Jesus to the Old Testament are also important concerns  (Carson 1991, 98), as is the way people misunderstand Jesus (Carson 1991, 99).

As regards preaching, Carson urges “attention to the narrative” (Carson 1991, 101), not divorcing passages or verses from their overall context. Above all, the preacher needs to remember that the Gospel is about Jesus, not about us.

​
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    ​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

    All the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry, including this blog, is supported by the generosity of people like you. Please consider joining our team of prayer and financial supporters. Read more here!
    Please Note: The opinions presented in blog posts are not necessarily those of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry. Frequently we report on contrary views, often without comment. Please chime in on the discussion.

    About Throwing Inkwells

    When Martin Luther was dealing with struggles in his life he once saw what appeared to be an angelic being. Not trusting that he was going to be informed by someone other than the God revealed in Scripture, he took the appearance to be untrustworthy and hurled his inkwell at it. The chipped place in the plaster wall is still visible at the Wartburg Castle, though apparently the ink stain on the wall has been refreshed periodically by the caretaker.

    Blog Feeds

    RSS Feed

    Want to keep up with what's happening at Wittenberg Door? Subscribe to our mailing list!

    Categories

    All
    1 Corinthians
    1 John
    1 Kings
    1 Peter
    1 Samuel
    1 Thessalonians
    1 Timothy
    2019-02-feb
    2 Chronicles
    2 Corinthians
    2-john
    2-kings
    2 Peter
    2 Samuel
    2 Thessalonians
    2 Timothy
    3-john
    Academic-success
    Acts
    Advent 1
    Advent-1-a
    Advent-1b
    Advent-1c
    Advent 2
    Advent-2-a
    Advent-2b
    Advent-2c
    Advent 3
    Advent-3-a
    Advent-3b
    Advent-3c
    Advent 4
    Advent-4-a
    Advent-4b
    Advent-4c
    Alesso-2009
    Alexander 1999
    Allitt-2010
    Alon 1996
    Amos
    Aristotle
    Audet 1996
    Augustine
    Bakker 1993
    Bammel 1996
    Baptism Of Christ
    Baptism-of-the-lord-b
    Bauckham 2006
    Belonging
    Ben-Amos 1999
    Betz 1996
    Biesenthal 1893
    Boehme-2010
    Braaten 2007
    Bruce1988
    Bruce-1988
    Bryennios
    Butler 1960
    Canonicity
    Capon1998
    Capon-1998
    Carson-1991
    Carson-moo-2005
    Catholicism
    Christmas-1b
    Christmas-1c
    Christmas Dawn
    Christmas-day
    Christmas Eve
    Christmas Midnight
    Chronicles
    Circumcision And Naming Of Christ
    Colossians
    Confession Of Peter
    Confessions
    Connolly 1932
    Connolly 1933
    Connolly 1934
    Constanza-2013
    Culley 1986
    Daniel
    DeHalleux 1996
    Deuteronomy
    Didache
    Diversity
    Dix 1933
    Dix2005
    Dix-2005
    Doane 1994
    Draper
    Draper 1989
    Draper 1995
    Draper 1996
    Easter 2
    Easter-2a
    Easter2b
    Easter-2c
    Easter 3
    Easter-3a
    Easter-3b
    Easter-3c
    Easter 4
    Easter-4a
    Easter-4b
    Easter-4c
    Easter 5
    Easter-5a
    Easter-5b
    Easter 6
    Easter-6a
    Easter-6b
    Easter-6c
    Easter 7
    Easter-7a
    Easter-7b
    Easter-7c
    Easter-b
    Easter Day
    Easter-sunday-a
    Easter-sunday-c
    Ecclesiastes
    Eleutheria-2014
    Elman 1999
    Ephesians
    Epiphany
    Epiphany-1c
    Epiphany-2-a
    Epiphany-2c
    Epiphany-3-a
    Epiphany-3b
    Epiphany-3c
    Epiphany-4-a
    Epiphany-4b
    Epiphany-4c
    Epiphany-5-a
    Epiphany-5b
    Epiphany-5c
    Epiphany-6-a
    Epiphany-6c
    Epiphany-7-a
    Epiphany-c
    Epistle Of Barnabas
    Esther
    Eucharist
    Eve Of The Circumcision Of Christ
    Exodus
    Exodus-20
    Ezekiel
    Ezra
    Fagerberg1988
    Fagerberg-1988
    Farrell 1987
    Flew-2007
    Flusser 1996
    Forde-2007
    France-2007
    Galatians
    Genesis
    Gibbs 2006
    Glover 1958
    Gonzalez-2010
    Grosvener & Schaff 1885
    Grosvenor 1884
    Habakkuk
    Haggai
    Harnack 1884
    Hebrews
    Henderson 1992
    Henderson-1992
    History
    Hoffman 1986
    Holy Innocents
    Hosea
    Hutchens-2013
    Hymes 1994
    Infertility
    Isaiah
    James
    Jeffreys 1986
    Jeremiah
    Jerome
    Job
    Joel
    John
    Jonah
    Joshua
    Jude
    Judges
    Jungmann 1959
    Justin-martyr
    Kelber 1987
    Kelber 1995
    Kevil
    Kings
    Kleinig-2013
    Koch-2010
    Kolb2000
    Kolb-2000
    Kolbarand2008
    Kolb-arand-2008
    Kurekchomycz2009
    Lamentations
    Last Sunday Of The Church Year
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-a
    Last-sunday-of-the-church-year-b
    Last Sunday Of The Church Year C
    Lectionary
    Lent 1
    Lent-1-a
    Lent-1b
    Lent-1c
    Lent 2
    Lent-2-a
    Lent-2b
    Lent-2c
    Lent 3
    Lent-3-a
    Lent-3b
    Lent-3c
    Lent 4
    Lent-4-a
    Lent-4b
    Lent-4c
    Lent 5
    Lent-5-a
    Lent-5b
    Lent-5c
    Lessing2014
    Lessing-2014
    Leviticus
    Lincoln 1885
    Long-2009
    Lord 1986
    Lord 1987
    Luke
    Luther
    Maas-2014
    Malachi
    Mark
    Marty-2016
    Martyrs
    Mason 1998
    Matthew
    Matthias
    Mazza 1996
    Mcknight-2014
    Micah
    Milavec-2003
    Milavec-2012
    Mitch-2010
    Molina & Evers 1998
    Montenyohl 1993
    Morris-1992
    Motyer-1993
    Mueller 2006
    Music
    Nahum
    Nehemiah
    Newsletter
    Newtestament
    New Testament
    Niditch 1995
    Niederwimmer 1996
    Numbers
    Obadiah
    Oldtestament
    Old Testament
    Olsen 1986
    Ong 1987
    Ong 1988
    Ong 1995
    Orality
    Ordination
    Orphan-hosting
    Osborne-2002
    Osborne-2013
    Ozment1980
    Ozment-1980
    Palm-sunday-a
    Palm-sunday-c
    Parks 1986
    Passionb
    Pearce 1993
    Pentateuch
    Pentecost-10a
    Pentecost-10b
    Pentecost-10c
    Pentecost-11a
    Pentecost-11b
    Pentecost-11c
    Pentecost-12a
    Pentecost-12b
    Pentecost-12c
    Pentecost-13a
    Pentecost-13b
    Pentecost13c
    Pentecost-13c
    Pentecost-14a
    Pentecost-14b
    Pentecost-14c
    Pentecost-15
    Pentecost-15a
    Pentecost-15b
    Pentecost-15c
    Pentecost-16
    Pentecost-16a
    Pentecost-16b
    Pentecost 16C
    Pentecost-17a
    Pentecost-17b
    Pentecost 17C
    Pentecost-18a
    Pentecost-18b
    Pentecost 18 C
    Pentecost-19a
    Pentecost-19b
    Pentecost 19 C
    Pentecost-1a
    Pentecost-20a
    Pentecost-20b
    Pentecost 20 C
    Pentecost-21a
    Pentecost-21b
    Pentecost 21 C
    Pentecost-22a
    Pentecost-22b
    Pentecost 22 C
    Pentecost-23a
    Pentecost-23b
    Pentecost 23 C
    Pentecost-24a
    Pentecost-24b
    Pentecost-24-c
    Pentecost-25b
    Pentecost-25-c
    Pentecost-26b
    Pentecost-26-c
    Pentecost-2a
    Pentecost-2b
    Pentecost-2c
    Pentecost-3a
    Pentecost-3b
    Pentecost-3c
    Pentecost-4a
    Pentecost-4b
    Pentecost-4c
    Pentecost-5a
    Pentecost-5b
    Pentecost-5c
    Pentecost-6a
    Pentecost-6b
    Pentecost-6c
    Pentecost-7a
    Pentecost-7b
    Pentecost-7c
    Pentecost-8a
    Pentecost-8b
    Pentecost-8c
    Pentecost-9a
    Pentecost-9b
    Pentecost-9c
    Pentecost-b
    Pentecost-c
    Pentecost Sunday
    Peterson2010
    Peterson-2010
    Philemon
    Philippians
    Philosophy
    Pieper1924
    Pieper-1924
    Piper 1947
    Preaching
    Proper-19c
    Proper-20c
    Proper 21C
    Proper 22C
    Proper 23C
    Proper 24C
    Proper 25C
    Proper 26C
    Proper 27C
    Proper 28C
    Prophets
    Proverbs
    Psalm
    Quinquagesima
    Quintilian
    Receptivity
    Reformation
    Revelation
    Rhetoric
    Romans
    Rordorf 1996
    Rosenberg 1986
    Rosenberg 1987
    Rosenfeld-levene-2012
    Rueger-2016
    Russo 1994
    Ruth
    Sailhamer1992
    Sailhamer-1992
    Sale 1996
    Samuel
    Scaer2004
    Scaer-2004
    Schaff 1888
    Schaff 2014
    Schaff-2014
    Schollgen
    Seeliger 1996
    Septuagesima
    Sermon
    Sexagesima
    Smith-2009
    Sommerville-2006
    Songofsongs
    St. Andrew
    Stark 1997
    St. John
    St. Stephen
    St. Thomas
    Sunday Of The Passion
    Taylor 1888
    Teaching
    Telfer 1939
    Thielman-2010
    Titus
    Transfiguration
    Transfiguration-a
    Transfigurationb
    Transfiguration-c
    Trinity 1
    Trinity 10
    Trinity 11
    Trinity 12
    Trinity 13
    Trinity 14
    Trinity 15
    Trinity 16
    Trinity 17
    Trinity 18
    Trinity 19
    Trinity 2
    Trinity 20
    Trinity 21
    Trinity 22
    Trinity 23
    Trinity 3
    Trinity 4
    Trinity 5
    Trinity 6
    Trinity 7
    Trinity 8
    Trinity 9
    Trinity-a
    Trinity-b
    Trinity-c
    Trinity Sunday
    Tuckett
    Ty 19
    Van-de-sandt-2010
    Van-de-sandt-2011
    Veith1993
    Veith-1993
    Veith-sutton-2017
    Vikis-Freibergs 1997
    Voobus 1969
    Warfield 1886
    Wasson & Toelken 1998
    Weston-2009
    Wilson2011
    Wilson-2011
    Wilson20113470b5cf10
    Ysebaert-2002
    Zechariah
    Zephaniah

Proudly powered by Weebly