The gospel of John

Most of extensive research in the field of Biblical Studies on the Gospel of John in recent times has been characterized by its historical critical approaches with attention to its historical value, its relationship to other gospels, its sources and its literary character. Recently a number of scholars began to read the Gospel in terms of its Spirituality and specifically its mystical nature. This trend reflects the increasing attention being paid to Biblical Spirituality and contemporary Hermeneutics that stressed that a Biblical text is not only informative in nature, but also transformative. Specialists like Sandra Schneiders have already read parts of John’s Gospel convincingly in this way, whilst Kees Waaijman published major work on the mystical interpretation of Biblical texts. These new and now established insights, as well as the research on Biblical mysticism by other leading scholars like Meeks and Dunn have not yet been applied to John 15. The groundbreaking work by Kanagaraj and DeConick are alos further explored. The text of John 15 contains mystical imagery and contents which contribute decisively to the understanding of the mystical nature of John’s Gospel. The research focused on menein (indwelling) which has a clear mystical meaning, is central to the passage and binds together the different images in the chapter.

The article surveys recent scholarship on the use of creation imagery in the Gospel of John, with the aim of presenting rather exhaustive register of possible references. Both the obvious and the less clear-cut allusions to Gen 1–3 are discussed, the main focus being to accumulate and assess evidence (for or against) all the apparent references to creation imagery. Included in this examination are several unconvincing and even far-fetched proposals advanced by some modern scholars, in order to give the fullest possible picture of current discourse on these issues. After discussing the creation theme in the Prologue (1:1–18), the article explores the presence of creation imagery in the Book of Signs (1:19–12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1–21:25)

[The Meaning of the Angels’ Position in Jesus’ Tomb in John 20:12]

Compared with the Synoptics, the Johannine angels assume a particular and significant position inside Jesus' tomb. The evangelist describes it precisely as one angel sitting at the place of Jesus' head and another at the place of Jesus' feet. Not all Johannine commentators pay attention to this detail, yet a comparison with the descriptions of the angels' positions in the different synoptic narratives demonstrates that they all reflect original editorial work on the part of each the evangelist. Consequently, these accounts can – and indeed do – convey particular ideological or theological stances typical of each gospel writer, including John. With regard to John 20:12, the article surveys proposals advanced by several Johannine commentators, beginning with some very obvious and prosaic explanations and ending with the most probable meanings behind the particular posture of Johannine angels. According to a strictly archeological-historical explanation, the position of the Johannine angles is no more than an indication that Jesus' burial place was not a tomb of kôkîm type. The article also presents allegorical interpretations, from St. Augustine to St. Thomas Aquinas; a religious-cultural exposition referring to the Egyptian goddesses Isis and Nephthys; a few very literal explanations accentuating the physical emptiness between the angels; and an intertextual exposition based on a targumic reading of Isaiah 6. At the end, as the most persuasive solution, the article proposes that the Johannine angels represent the cherubs of the Ark of the Covenant and the mercy seat. This intertextual and symbolic interpretation likewise explains Mary Magdalene's lack of fear and astonishment in her interaction with supernatural beings.

[Jesus Writing on the Ground (John 8,6.8): A Survey of Research on the Content of the Writing, the Meaning of the Act and the Literacy of Jesus]

The article offers a glimpse into the wide spectrum of scholarly analysis concerning three basic issues connected with Jesus’ writing as reported in John 8,6.8. First, the article surveys the question of the content of Jesus’ writing. Despite the complete absence of an actual text, many authors over time have provided a plethora of possible, but hypothetical proposals as to what words Jesus might have written. Secondly, moving beyond the hypothetical content of the writing, the article reviews various suggestions concerning the meaning of Jesus’ action, that is, the very fact that Jesus was writing. Finally, the article deals with the question of the literacy of Jesus and Ch. Keith’s suggestion that this pericope adulterae, as a third century interpolation to the text of John’s Gospel, was created in order to meet the Church’s need for literate leaders.

The article interprets the so-called “Eucharistic section” in John 6:51–58 in the context of early Christian text on the Eucharist, especially Ignatius and Justin, but also Irenaeus and the Gospel of Philip. It interprets the Eucharist as a ritual by which, according to early Christian texts, canonical and non-canonical, the believers gain eternal life though their participation in Christ.

The imagery and detail of John 18.1-21.25 imbue it with a number of important theological implications.  These include the concepts of substitutionary atonement, a new kingdom, a new power structure on the earth, and more besides.  In the present note, I discuss the extent to which our text depicts Jesus’ death and resurrection as the start of a new divine creation.  John’s narrative has a number of contact-points with Gen. 1.1-3.24, which cast it as a creation story, but not just any old creation narrative:  Jesus’ triumph in John’s ‘garden’ is set in deliberate contrast to Adam’s failure;  as such, it depicts a new redeemed creation as opposed to an old fallen creation.  New creation, then, is not an interpretation theme which must be superimposed on top of John’s narrative;  rather, it is an integral part of the plot and drama of John’s view of Christ’s crucifixion.

This paper examines the "I am" sayings in the Gospel of John first through the ear of primary orality and then through the eye of textuality.  Oral "I am" sayings promoted a sense of the present, exalted Jesus offering the benefits of salvation in present experience.  By placing these sayings within the historicizing context of a written story of Jesus, the author of the Gospel of John anchored the evanescent and dynamic orally spoken "I am" sayings in the "fleshly Jesus" of the gospel narrative.  The Jesus who speaks “the words of eternal life” is now restricted to the one who appears in the gospel story (“the Word who became flesh”).  An effective closure for oral speaking in the name of the Lord is accomplished; a definitive context for hearing Jesus speak and interpreting his words is thereby created.

This article examines John 21 by means of Wayne Booths reading strategy of conduction. As a later redactional addition, ch. 21 casts a different understanding upon the preceding narrative of chs. 1-20 through the implied author's intertextual interpretation. One of the most obvious ways in which the intertextual interpretation of the implied author is manifest is in the form of narrative echoes, implicit references to earlier parts of the narrative discourse in chs. 1-20. These become intratextual connections for the implied reader, whereby the interplay between the derivations in chs. 1-20 and their intertextual interpretation in ch. 21 creates new meaning.

Pope Francis has established a new Marian feast, Mary the Mother of the Church on 03rd March 2018 and later a decree by Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacrament was issued. In 1964, Blessed Pope Paul VI formally declared Mary as the “Mother of the Church.” Mary, the Mother of the Church finds its roots in the Scripture and ancient Catholic traditions. In my attempt to describe this current Marian feast, I will briefly present the exegesis
of John 19:25-27 as the biblical foundation. An additional insights on immediate context, i.e., seamless robe and “it is finished.” As the analysis begins, one can see that how the birth of the Church is taking place and Mary, the Mother of Jesus is given a new task, i.e., to be Mother of the Church.

Modern explorations of the religious context of early Christianity often neglect analysis of Hermeticism.  This paper provides an introduction to the origins and nature of the pagan figure Hermes Trismegistus and the esoteric Hermetic tradition, in order to provide the student with a historical foundation for further critical study.  The paper begins by introducing the important foundation-stones of Graeco-Egyptian syncretism, Greek and Egyptian deities, Greek philosophical trends, and mystical Hellenistic Judaism.  The paper then explores the Hermetic tradition relative to its literature, its religious characteristics, its dating, and its relationship to Christian Gnosticism.  Also considered are the opinions of several Church Fathers, and the value of Hermetic studies for analysis of the Fourth Gospel and the early Christian world.

This document contains a complete Thesaurus on Genesis.
Includes all relevant languages, etymology of text, compared to other literature of the period.  With a parallel references to New Testament  themes.  Excellent for those interested in more detailed interpretations of the terms and concepts found in Berershit.

Author: J. Hellmuth  London:1884

According to legend, Christ spent part of his 'hidden years' in India.  Another tradition states that southern India has been visited by the apostle Thomas. These narratives are not backed by direct historical or archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, a closer look at Jh 4:44 suggests that at their core these tales are based on fact. John's 'second sign' (Jh 4:43-54) is concluded to concern an initiation of the apostle Thomas.

The article surveys recent scholarship on the use of creation imagery in the Gospel of John, with the aim of presenting a rather exhaustive register of possible references. Both the obvious and the less clear-cut allusions to Gen 1-3 are discussed, the main focus being to accumulate and assess the evidence (for or against) all the apparent references to creation imagery. Included in this examination are several unconvincing and even far-fetched proposals advanced by some modern scholars, in order to give the fullest possible picture of the current discourse on these issues. After discussing the creation theme in the Prologue (1:1-18), the article explores the presence of creation imagery in the Book of Signs (1:19-12:50) and the Book of Glory (13:1-21:25).

Temas del libro
Filología aramea: análisis lingüístico e histórico del arameo original.
Filología griega: análisis lingüístico e histórico del griego original.
Historia y teología sobre Jesús como palabra (logos).
Análisis de la estructura poética y temas teológicos del himno joánico.
Historicidad y teología sobre Juan el Bautista.

The article takes issue with recent attempts to deny that the New Testament Gospels were addressed to distinct early Christian communities and argues that it is still meaningful to trace how these writings construct distinct early Christian identities. The article applies the social identity approach and concepts related to the symbolic construction of communities and imagined communities to explain how an ideal portrait of the community of Jesus’ followers is created in the Gospel of John. It is demonstrated how John anchors his story of Jesus to mythical beginnings and uses various dualistic polarities to express a clear demarcation between Jesus’ followers and the rest of world. In the Gospel, the knowledge of God communicated only by Jesus and the mutual love between Jesus’ disciples function as strong symbols of belonging for Jesus’ followers but also create an imagined boundary between them and those who have not received Jesus’ revelation. The article argues that the Gospel writer has embedded his story of Jesus in a mythical framework in order to naturalize and essentialize a distinct early Christian social identity that was actually blurred and in the making.

This study investigated the unusual Greek of John 20:28 in which two articular substantives have a singular referent. This study searched through the Septuagint, the Greek New Testament canon, Biblical scholars and Greek grammarians. This study analysed data from an exploratory and inductive analyses to form new hypotheses from data. In the analyses, the researcher reports that Hebraism is the reason for the unusual Greek of John 20:28. The following are the findings in this study which explains why the two articular substantives (Ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου) in John 20:28 is referring to two persons in Koine Greek but has only one person in view: (1)  The New Testament writers, acquainted with the Septuagint, followed after its usage of ὁ κύριος (The Lord) when referring to the God of Israel. Psalm 35:23, Revelation 4:11 and John 20:28 all have ὁ κύριος (The Lord). This indicates that both titles in John 20:28 are equally divine titles (2) the dative singular pronoun (αὐτῷ) in the same text is addressing a singular referent (Ἰησοῦς),  and this shows that the substantives are in the vocatical nominative (direct address) and that this is in agreement with that of Sharp (1803) and Murray Harris's results (2009).  The Greek of John 20:28 is not unusual but normative in the Septuagint. (3) It is shown that the Greek of John 20:28 is consistent with its parallels in the Septuagint, showing that its Greek is an example of Hebraism. There are three instances of Hebraism in the gospel of John (John 4:12, John 12:14, and John 28:28). Psalm 35:23 is not only a parallel but even an allusion to John 20:28 which supports its being a Hebraism. An LXX expert, Solamo (2015) had explicitly affirmed that John 20:28 is a Hebraism. Contextual analysis within the same chapter of John 20 supports these results even further due to another allusion from the LXX (Genesis 2:7, John 20:22) wherein Jesus was ascribed an attribute unique to the Jewish deity with a very supportive ὁ θεός allusion for 20:28. This finding provided objective evidence that Jesus is θεός in John 20:28.

This essay recounts how John’s Christology became marginalized in the Quest for the Historical Jesus, how the Johannine Community view of R. Brown and J. L. Martyn helped to reclaim its theological significance, and how both its historical and theological message is being championed by more recent contemporary scholarship  (e.g. Richard Bauckham).

Of hitherto proposed interpretations of the sign at Cana the one according to which Jesus’ changing of water into wine should be seen as a symbol of the coming of the Messianic age is the most dominant. The author of the article argues, based on intra- and inter-textual evidence, that the meaning of this sign is first and foremost soteriological.

A defense of John 7:53-8:11, responding to objections against the passage recently made by Manuel Pereira.  I argue that the passage was accidentally lost due to an early copyist's misunderstanding of instructions in his exemplar about how to read the Pentecost-lection in a rudimentary lection-cycle.

Born from above, born of water, born of spirit (John 3:3-8)
What does Jesus mean by the phrase “born from above”? How does Nicodemus interpret it?  What does it mean to be “born of water and spirit”? Are water and spirit a contrast, or a parallel? If they are a contrast, what does, “born of water” refer to? 
Using the text from John 3:3-8, I will discuss what Jesus meant by the phrase “born from above”, and how Nicodemus interprets it.  I will also seek to examine what it means to be “born of water and spirit”, and whether water and spirit are a contrast or a parallel.  Working upon this, I will be aiming to conclude what “born of water” refers to, and alternatively if there is any Old Testament precedent that link water together with spirit.

The New Testament is a great treasure, it is the gospel of
life, given by God’s inspiration in the first century and ever
spreading since then. It is a joy to study and to teach it.
Jesus Christ the central hero of the New Testament is out-
standing. He is unique. According to the testimony of the prob-
ably eight apostles and prophets or chosen ones who wrote the
New Testament Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Man, the Savior
of Israel and the world, the high priest in heaven, the King of
kings, the Lord of lords, not only a prophet, but the Word of God
in person whose Spirit was in the prophets of the Old Testament,
the eternal Son of God who was the beloved of the Father even
before the foundation of the world, that is the second person of
the Holy Trinity.
The purpose of this book is to encourage people to study the books of the
New Testament, appreciate its contents and worship its hero.

Pilate’s declaration ἰδοὺ ὁ ἄνθρωπος found in John 19:5 has given rise to a number of interpretations that seem in basic agreement, yet, at the same time, many others of a divergent and opposing nature. Among the many treatments of this verse is a whole set of proposals that see in Pilate’s words an allusion to various Old Testament texts. The present article aims at presenting the range of these scholarly interpretations (both older and modern ones) which resort to an Old Testament background for the famous ecce homo phrase. The article then focuses the discussion on Daniel’s “Son of Man”, the Isaianic “Suffering Servant”, the messianic “man” of Zec 6:12 and Num 24:17 (LXX), Adamic typology, the king of 1 Sm 9:17, and finally the figure of the bridegroom from the Song of Songs. In each case, an evaluation of the hypothetical Old Testament background is given. The author concurs with the idea of multiple intertextual Old Testament references encapsulated in Pilate’s ecce homo utterance.

In this article, the problems revolving around the Prologue and its relationship with the rest of the Gospel are investigated from a theological perspective. The research has tended to focus on such issues as the views of revelation and salvation found in the Prologue and the subsequent narrative and on their respective use of symbolism.

The pre-existence of Jesus of Nazareth in the narrative of the Gospel of John is argued and represented variously in the course of the narrative, inter alia with reference to the phrase that Jesus was ‘before John’ (1:15, 30). While the pre-existence of Jesus is to be accepted as an inherent part of the Johannine portrayal of Jesus, this particular phrase does not unambiguously support such an interpretation. This essay argues that the phrase should be understood in
the context of the Johannine polemics against followers of John the Baptist as a rhetorical tool in the service of ranking the two figures, thus in the first instance as a narrational element and not as theological statement. Understanding the phrase in this light allows its use as data source for a construction of the historical location and social history of the Johannine ‘trajectory’ or tradition in the midst of the
complex religious innovations and tradition-making that characterised the Graeco-Roman world of the first century C.E.
Please note: due to extensive typesetting problems at the publisher many errors occur in the rendering of the Greek text in the originally published article. Attached here is also a pdf-corrected version now with Greek text rendered correctly.

The fulfillment of “the Scriptures” in John 17:12 has long been a bone of contention among commentators on the Fourth Gospel. The majority of authors have argued that ἡ γραφή unmistakably refers to a passage in the Hebrew Bible. Wendy Sproston (North) and Francis Moloney, however, picking up on an earlier observation by Edwin Freed, suggest Jesus’ own words as a more appropriate referent of ἡ γραφή in this verse. The issue of the correct scriptural referent is intrinsically connected with the question of the thematic referent within the verse in question. As it turns out, the fulfillment of the scripture can refer to either the tragic fate of Judas or the preserving of Jesus’ other disciples. The article surveys recent scholarship on these issues in order to identify the most convincing solutions.

This short paper is simply designed to raise questions as to Markan priority in the solution of the synoptic puzzle. It gives a short and by no means comprehensive outline of the synoptic problem, and asserts that while there is no present day academic consensus regarding an alternative hypothesis to Markan priority, it does not mean Markan priority is a satisfactory theory explaining the data in the three gospels. It is not and many of its inadequacies are explained in this paper. The first half of the paper outlines some of the hypotheses put forward which attempt to explain the data, this culminates with Markan priority. The second half is a critique of the hypothesis based on the work of Farmer on the Griesbach hypothesis. The final conclusion is by no means certain.