Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:56:00.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Pivot of John's Prologue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

R. Alan Culpepper
R. Alan Culpepper
Affiliation:
Louisville, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The prospect of writing anything further about the prologue of John reminds one of the verdict quoted by W. C. van Unnik in a similar context some twenty years ago: ‘the new things he said were not true and the true things were not new’. The prudent course may, therefore, be to refine an already established position with the hope of being able to say something true, even if it is not altogether new. The thesis of this article is that the prologue is a chiasm with verse 12 b at its centre. That the prologue is chiastic is not a new thesis; that its centre is v. 12 b is. The first part of this paper attempts to establish this thesis. The second part studies the key phrase in v. 12 b, τέκνα Θεοũ, and the implications of its position in the prologue.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , October 1980 , pp. 1 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 van Unnik, W. C., ‘The Purpose of St John's Gospel’, Studia Evangelica, TU, Bd. 73 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), p. 383.Google Scholar

2 ‘Chiasm’ is defined below, p. 6.

3 The text used here is that published by the United Bible Societies, third edition, 1975. This text differs from the Nestle–Aland text (25th edn) only in the punctuation of the end of v. 3. Unless otherwise indicated English translations of biblical passages are taken from the Revised Standard Version.

4 The following works provide surveys of recent source analyses: Brown, R. E., The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, Vols. 29–29a (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1966–1970), 1, 22Google Scholar; Lopez, E., ‘Dos siglos de crítica literaria en torno al prólogo de San Juan,’ Studium Ovetense, 1 (1973), 165–7, 178Google Scholar; King, J. S., ‘The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel: Some Unsolved Problems,’ Exp. T. 86 (1975), 372–3.Google Scholar

5 Barrett, C. K., The Prologue of St John's Gospel (London: Athlone Press, 1971)Google Scholar. Barrett concludes: ‘The Prologue is not a jig-saw puzzle but one piece of solid theological writing. The evangelist wrote it all …’ (p. 27). Cf. his The Gospel of John and Judaism, trans. by D. M. Smith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), pp. 20–35Google Scholar. Lopez, ‘Dos siglos de crítica literaria en torno al prólogo de San Juan’, p. 179, provides the following list of scholars who affirm the unity of the prologue: Eltester, Lamarche, Irigoin, Ridderbos, Borgen, Hooker, Fenton, F. W. Schlatter, and van den Bussche.

6 Lund, N. W., ‘The Influence of Chiasmus upon the Structure of the Gospels,’ A.T.R. 13 (1931), 42–6Google Scholar. Cf. Lund, N. W., Chiasmus in the New Testament (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1942).Google Scholar

7 Lund, ‘The Influence of Chiasmus upon the Structure of the Gospels’, p. 44.

8 Ibid. p. 46.

9 Bosimard, M. E., St John's Prologue, trans. by Dominicans, Carisbrooke (London: Blackfriars Publications, 1957), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

10 Ibid. p. 73. Cf. Sanders, J. T., The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Relligious Background, SNTS Monograph Series 15 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971), pp. 24–5Google Scholar; Talbert, C. H., ‘The Myth of a Descending–Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity,’ N.T.S. 22 (1976), 418–39.Google Scholar

11 The following are only representative of the number of writers who have identified chiastic structures in John:Bligh, J., ‘Four Studies in St John, II: Nicodemus,’ Hey. J. 8 (1967), 40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borig, R., Der wahre Weinstock: Untersuchungen zu Jo 15, 1–10, Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, Bd. 16 (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1967), pp. 68–72Google Scholar; Brown, , The Gospel According to John, 1, cxxxvGoogle Scholar; Deeks, D., ‘The Structure of the Fourth Gospel,’ N.T.S. 15 (1968), 107–29Google Scholar, esp. p. 122; Léon-Dufour, X., ‘Trois Chiasmes Johanniques,’ N.T.S. 7 (1961), 249–55Google Scholar; Malatesta, E., ‘The Literary Structure of John 17,’ Biblica 52 (1971), 190–214Google Scholar; Talbert, C. H., ‘Artistry and Theology: An Analysis of the Architecture of Jn I, 19–5, 47,’ C.B.Q. 32 (1970), 341–66Google Scholar; Vanhoye, A., ‘La composition de Jn 5, 19–30’, in Mélanges Bibliques en hommage au R.P. Béda Rigaux, ed. Descamps, A. and de Halleux, A. (Gembloux: Duculot, 1970), pp. 259–74.Google Scholar

12 Lamarche, P., ‘Le Prologue de Jean,’ R.S.R. 52 (1964), 529–32.Google Scholar

13 This visual representation of the ‘W’ form of the prologue proposed by Lamarche is given by Lopez in his helpful Forschungsbericht. ‘Dos siglos de crítica literaria en torno al prólogo de San Juan’, p. 182.

14 Feuillet, A., Le Prologue du Quatrième Évangile (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1968), p. 160.Google Scholar

15 Ibid. ‘II serait sans nul doute excessif de présenter comme une certitute cette manière de concevoir la structure du prologue. Sa vraisemblance s'accroît cependant quand on observe que des développements de ce genre paraissent avoir été aimés de Jean’. See n. 11 above.

16 Hull, W. E., ‘John’, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970), 9, 211.Google Scholar

17 Borgen, P., ‘Observations on the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John,’ N.T.S. 16 (1970), 288–95Google Scholar; ‘Logos was the True Light: Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of John’, Nov. T. XIV (1972), 115–30.Google Scholar

18 Borgen, ‘Observations on the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John’, p. 291.

19 Ibid. pp. 291–4.

20 Hooker, M., ‘John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue,’ N.T.S. 16 (1969–1970), 357.Google Scholar

21 Lopez, ‘Dos siglos de crítica literaria en torno al Prólogo de San Juan’, p. 183.

22 Ibid. ‘Como se observerá, el quiasmo en la segunda parte no es perfecto: b´ y á no se corresponden exactamente, en cuanto al orden, con sus correlativos a y b. Tal vez por esta razón, la autora no Presenta en esquema la estructura qui´stica, tal como nosotros lo hemos hecho aquí en atención a la claridad. Por otra Parte, también es cierto que ella es consciente de los límites de su hipótesis’.

23 Brown, E.g., The Gospel According to John, 1, 23Google Scholar: ‘We remain in doubt on the applicability of a chiasm pattern to the Prologue’. Cf. Bultmann, R., The Gospel of John: A Commentarv, trans. by Beasley-Murray, G. R. et al. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971), p. 15Google Scholar n. 1.

24 See above, p. 4

25 Lund, , Chiasmus in the New Testament, p. 31.Google Scholar

26 Ibid. p. 32.

27 Ibid. p. 42.

28 Ibid. pp. 40–1.

29 Matthew: Bligh, J., ‘Scripture Reading. Matching Passages, 2: St Matthew's Passion Narrative,’ The Way 9 (1969), 59–73Google Scholar; Ellis, P. F., Matthew: His Mind and His Message (Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1974), pp. 10–13Google Scholar; Farrer, A., St Matthew and St Mark (2nd ednWestminster: Dacre, 1966), pp. 161–3Google Scholar; Fenton, J. C., The Gospel of Saint Matthew (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963), pp. 15–16Google Scholar; Gaechter, P., Das Matthäus Evangelium (Innsbruck: Tyrolia Verlag, 1963), pp. 15–17Google Scholar; Lohr, C. H., ‘Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew,’ C.B.Q. 23 (1961), esp. pp. 424–35Google Scholar; Lund, N. W., ‘The Influence of Chiasmus upon the Structure of the Gospel According to Matthew,’ A.T.R. 13 (1931), 405–33Google Scholar; Rigaux, B., The Testimony of St Matthew, trans. Oligny, P. J. (Chicago: Franciscan Herald, 1968), p. 22Google Scholar. Mark: Clark, D. J., ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm,’ Linguistica Biblica 5 (1975), 63–72Google Scholar; Dewey, J., ‘The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2.1 – 3.6,’ J.B.L. 92 (1973), 394–402Google Scholar; Zerwick, M., Untersuchungen zum Markus-still, Seripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici (Rome: Pontifico Instituto Biblico, 1937), pp. 125–6Google Scholar. Luke–Acts: Goulder, M. D.. ‘The Chiastic; Structure of the Lucan Journey’, Studia Evangelica, II, ed. Cross, F. L., TU, Bd. 87 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964), pp. 195–202Google Scholar; Goulder, M. D., Type and History in Acts (London: S.P.C.K., 1964), pp. 135–9Google Scholar; Morgenthaler, R., Die lukanische Geschichtsschreibung als Zeugnis (Zürich: Zwingli-Verlag, 1949), pp. 42–3Google Scholar; Talbert, C. H., Literary Paterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke–Acts, SBL Monograph Series, Vol. 20 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1974)Google Scholar. John: cf. n. 11. Paul: Bligh, J., Galatians: A Discussion of St Paul's Epistles, Householder Commentaries, No. 1 (London: St Paul Publications, 1969), pp. 37–42Google Scholar; Brunot, A., Le génie littéraire de saint Paul (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1955), pp. 41–51Google Scholar; Collins, J. J., ‘Chiasmus, the ABA Pattern and the Text of Paul’, Studiorum Paulinorum Congressus Internationalis Catholicus, 1961, Analecta Biblica, 17–18 (Rome: E. Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1963), 2, 575–83Google Scholar; Grobel, K., ‘A Chiastic Retribution-Formula in Romans 2’, Zeit und Geschichte, Festschrift, R. Bultmann, ed. Dinkler, E. (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964), pp. 255–61Google Scholar; Jeremias, J., ‘Chiasmus in den Paulusbriefen,’ Z.N.W. 49 (1958), 145–56Google Scholar; van Stempvoort, P. A., ‘Eine stilistische Lösung einer alten Schwierigkeit in 1 Thess. V. 23,’ N.T.S. 7 (1961), 262–5Google Scholar. Hebrews: Bligh, J., Chiastic Analysis of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heythrop: The Athenaeum Press, 1966)Google Scholar; Vanhoye, A., La structure littéraire de l'Épître aux Hébreux (Paris–Bruges: Desclée de Brouwer, 1963), pp. 60–3Google Scholar. Johannine Epistles: Malatesta, E., The Epistles of John: Structured Greek Text (Fano: Typis Paulinis, 1966)Google Scholar. Revelation: Fiorenza, E. S., ‘Composition and Structure of the Revelation of John,’ C.B.Q. 39 (1977), 364–6Google Scholar; Gaechter, P., ‘Semitic Literary Forms in the Apocalypse and Their Import,’ T.S. 8 (1947), 547–73Google Scholar. Chiasm in the Bible: Di Marco, A., ‘Der Chiasmus in der Bibel,’ Linguistica Biblica 36 (1975), 21–97; XXXVII (1976), 49–68; XXXIX (1976), 37–85.Google Scholar

30 Clark, , ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm,’ Linguistica Biblica 5 (1975), 63–72.Google Scholar

31 Dewey, , ‘The Literary Structure of the Controversy Stories in Mark 2: 1–3: 6,’ J.B.L. 92 (1973), 394–401Google Scholar. See also Dewey's unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, ‘Markan Public Debate: Literary Technique, Concentric Structure and Theology in Mark 2: 1–3: 6’ (Graduate Theological Union, 1977), pp. 231–8, 291–7.Google Scholar

32 Clark, ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm’, p. 63.

33 Ibid. p. 65.

34 Ibid. p. 66.

35 Talbert, ‘Artistry and Theology’, p. 362: ‘Imperfections of form are the rule in antiquity… It was, moreover, a stated rule that perfect symmetry was to be avoided (e.g. Horace, , On the Art of Poetry, 347 ff.Google Scholar; Longinus, , On the Sublime, 33, 1Google Scholar; Demetrius, , On Style, 5, 250Google Scholar)’.

36 Ibid. p. 363. Cf. Clark, ‘Criteria for Identifying Chiasm’, p. 69: ‘This analysis also brings out the important point that different types of recursion may interpenetrate each other [italics Clark's]. If this is not acknowledged, arguments may arise as to which pattern is “a right one”. Different patterns, each perceived in the same section of text by a different Gestalt, may all be right. Such is the complexity of which the human brain is capable in literary composition’.

37 Panimolle, S. A., II Dono della Legge e la Grazia della Verità (Rome: Editrice A.V.E., 1973), pp. 91–9Google Scholar; Borgen, ‘Observations on the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John’, pp. 288–93.

38 Lund, ‘The Influence of Chiasmus upon the Structure of the Gospels’, p. 42.

39 Brown, , The Gospel According to John, I, 23.Google Scholar

40 Boismard, , St John's Prologue, p. 80.Google Scholar

41 πλήρωμα occurs only here in John, though it occurs in significant Passages in the Pauline epistles: Rom. 11. 12, 25; 13. 10; 15. 29; I Cor. 10, 26; Gal. 4. 4; Eph. I. 10, 23; 3. 19; 4. 13; Col. I. 19; 2. 9. Occurrences of the word in the synoptics are insignificant: Matt. 9. 16; Mark 2. 21; 6. 43; 8. 20.

42 Brown, Cf., The Gospel According to John, 1, 14.Google Scholar

43 Bultmann, , The Gospel of John, p. 77Google Scholar n. 1. Schnackenburg, R., The Gospel According to St John, trans. by Smyth, K. (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968), 1, 275Google Scholar, maintains that ‘πλήρωμα takes up πλήρης and has certainly nothing to do with Gnostic speculation on the pleroma. The term has no cosmological connotations here …’

44 Bultmann, , The Gospel of John, p. 77Google Scholar n. 1.

45 On the appropriateness of turning to the Odes of Solomon for supplementary information see: Charlesworth, J. H. and Culpepper, R. A., ‘The Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John,’ C.B.Q. 35 (1973), 298–322.Google Scholar

46 Bultmann, , The Gospel of John, p. 77Google Scholar n. I. The term $$$ is closely related to both $$$ and $$$ for which Smith, R. Payne, ed., Thesaurus Syriacus (Oxford: Clarendon 1901), 2, 2127–28Google Scholar, gives πλήρωμα as a translation.

47 Charlesworth, J. H., The Odes of Solomon (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), pp. 78–9.Google Scholar

48 cf.Bultmann, , The Gospel of John, pp. 77–8Google Scholar: ‘Whereas elsewhere this gift of the Revealer is mostly referred to as зωή αίώνιος (3. 15f.; 6. 33, 40; 10. 10, 28; 17. 2 etc.), here, following on v. 14, Хάρις is used.’

49 Brown, , The Gospel According to John, 1, 26–7.Google Scholar

50 Boismard, , St John's Prologue, p. 60.Google Scholar

51 However, see especially Hooker's arguments to the contrary (n. 20 above).

52 See above.p. 1.

53 Käsemann, E., ‘The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel’, New Testament Questions of Today (London: SCM, 1969), pp. 146, 166.Google Scholar

54 Westcott, B. F., The Gospel According to St John (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. Eerdmans, B., 1971 [reprint]), p. 8Google Scholar; Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John (London: S.P.C.K., 1955), p. 125Google Scholar, and The Prologue of St John's Gospel, p. 25; and Brown, , The Gospel According to John 1, 30Google Scholar, agree in finding a reference to the incarnation at some point(s) in vv. 9–11. Boismard, , St John's Prologue, pp. 32–5Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: University Press, 1968), pp. 281–2Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., ‘Probleme des johanneischen “Prologs”,’ Gott und Mensh (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1964), pp. 115, 130–1, 138Google Scholar; and Lindars, B., The Gospel of John, New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1972), p. 78Google Scholar, agree that the incarnation is first expressed in v. 14. Following the latter interpretation vv. 9–12 describe the work of the pre-incarnate Word and give the reason for the incarnation. Bultmann, , The Gospel of John, p. 61Google Scholar, and Schnackenburg, , The Gospel According to St John pp. 227, 256Google Scholar, maintain that though the incarnation is hinted at earlier it is first proclaimed in v. 14.

55 Bultmann, R., Theology of the New Testament, trans. by Grobel, K. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955), 2, 40Google Scholar; The Gospel of John, p. 60.

56 Käsemann, E., The Testament of Jesus, trans. by Krodel, G. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), pp. 9–10Google Scholar; ‘The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel’, p. 159. The positions of Bultmann and Käsemann on the prologue have recently been reviewed and compared by Thyen, H., ‘Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium,’ T.Ru. 39 (1974–1975), 53–69Google Scholar; and Martens, R. F., ‘The Prologue of the Gospel of John: An Examination of Its Origin and Emphases’ (unpublished S.T.D. Thesis, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, 1974).Google Scholar

57 See above.p. 4.

58 Cf. Brown, e.g., The Gospel According to John, 1. 10.Google Scholar

59 Ibid. I, 11.

60 Cf. Lund's analysis of Isa. 28. 15–18 in which he illustrates his ‘laws of chiastic structures’: ‘The very core of the message is found in the central line, “He that believeth shall not be in haste.” Thus, the climax is at the centre, not at the end, where we should expect it.’ (Lund, , Chiasmus in the New Testament, p. 46.Google Scholar) It is significant that our analysis of the prologue's structure has led to the same climax as Käsemann's analysis of its source. The verse which Käsemann identifies as the conclusion and climax of the source we have identified as the pivot of the chiastic structure of the present from of the prologue: ‘Verse 12 specifies the gift which is his to bestow and the goal of his redeeming effectiveness The establishment of sonship to God through the Son of God is the eschatological end of all God's dealings with the world, the goal of the Creator and the Creation. Verse 12 is therefore pre-eminently suitable to serve as the conclusion of a Christian hymn $$$ Verse 12 could then be regarded as the culmination of the whole. In it is summed up, as a résumé, what was achieved by the manifestation of the Revealer.’ (Käsemann, ‘The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John's Gospel’, pp. 151, 152.) cf.Barrett, , The Prologue of St John's Gospel, pp. 10, 25–6.Google Scholar

61 Moule, C. F. D., ‘Children of God,’ I.D.B. 1, 559Google Scholar, points out that Jer. 31. 20; LXX 38. 20 [παιδίον] is an exception.

62 See Fohrer, G., ‘υίός’, T.D.N.T. 8, 340–54Google Scholar; Gottschick, J., ‘Kindschaft Gottes’, Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, ed. Hauck, D. Albert (3 Aufl.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung, 1901), 10, 291–304Google Scholar. Uses of the phrase ‘son(s) of God’ in Graeco-Roman writings are not dealt with below; at no point in John does Jesus debate the true identity of the ‘children of God’ with ‘the Greeks’. For the uses of ‘sons of God’ in Graeco-Roman writings see: Martitz, W. v., ‘υίός’, T.D.N.T. 8, 335–40Google Scholar; Hengel, M., The Son of God, trans. Bowden, J. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 23–41Google Scholar; Grundmann, W., Die Gotteskindschaft in der Geschichte Jesu und ihre religionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, Studien zu Deutscher Theologie und Frömmigkeit, Bd. I (Weimar: Verlag Deutsche Christen, 1938), pp. 11–26.Google Scholar

63 Cf. the author's article on ‘Education’ in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Revised edition; Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans [forthcoming]).

64 Fohrer, Cf., ‘υίός’, T.D.N.T. 8, 348–9Google Scholar; Cooke, G., ‘The Sons of (the) God(s),’ Z.A.W. 76 (1964), 22–47Google Scholar; Hermann, W., ‘Die Göttersöhne,’ Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte 12 (1960), 242–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlisske, W., Gottessöhne und Gottessohn im Alten Testament, BWANT, Folge, V., Heft 17 (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1973), pp. 15–78.Google Scholar

65 Fohrer, ‘υίός’, p. 349; Cooke, G., ‘The Israelite King as Son of God,’ Z.A.W. 73 (1961), 202–25Google Scholar; Schlisske, , Gottessöhne und Gottessohn im Alten Testament, pp. 78–115.Google Scholar

66 Cooke (Ibid.) argues forcefully for this conclusion and suggests that ‘the figure of Israel's sonship appears to have offered the main content for the Davidic divine sonship’ (p. 225; cf. pp. 217–18).

67 Rudolph, W., Jeremia, Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Erste Reihe, 12 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1958), p. 27Google Scholar; Freedman, H., Jeremiah (London: Soncino Press, 1959), p. 23.Google Scholar

68 See Jeremias, J., ‘παίς Өεο’, T.D.N.T. 5, 678, 700.Google Scholar

69 Cf. Grundmann, W., ‘Sohn Gottes,’ Z.N.W. 47 (1956), 122, 125Google Scholar

70 Hengel, Cf., The Son of God, p. 51Google Scholar; Fuller, R. H., The Foundations of New Testament Christology, The Fontana Library (N.P.: Collins, 1965), pp. 70–1.Google Scholar

71 Cf. Hadas, M., ‘Wisdom of Solomon,’ I.D.B. 4, 861–3.Google Scholar

72 Cf. Mansoor, M., The Thanksgiving Hymns, STDJ, III (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1961), p. 51Google Scholar. Cf. II. Macc. 7. 34 where τούς ούπανίους παίδας designates the faithful Israelites. For other references to ‘The Children of God’ see: Jub. I. 24–5; Sirach 4. 10; Ps. Sol. 17. 30; III Macc. 6. 28, 7. 6; Sib. Or. III. 702; Odes of Solomon 31. 4, 41. 2.

73 The texts and translation of Philo are taken from volumes of the Loeb Classical Library.

74 See below, p. 29.

75 Hengel, , The Son of God, pp. 51–6Google Scholar, directed me to these passages in Philo. See also his discussion of ‘son of God’ in Joseph and Asenath and the Prayer of Joseph, pp. 43–4, 47–8.

76 Vermes, G., Jesus the Jew (New York: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 206–10Google Scholar; cf. Hengel, , The Son of God, p. 42Google Scholar n. 85.

77 Translation taken from Danby, H., trans., The Mishnah (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933).Google Scholar

78 Strack, H. L., and Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (Munich: Beck, 1924), 2 360Google Scholar: ‘Über die Gotteskindschaft Israels gehen zwei Meinungen nebeneinander einher. Die Grundanschauung ist, dass die Gotteskindschaft Israels naturhaft mit der Zugehörigkeit zum jüdischen Volk gegeben sei. Die andere Meinung lässt die Gotteskindschaft Israels ethisch bedingt sein: nur wer als ein Kind Gottes lebt, ist Gottes Kind’. Cf. I, 219–20, 371–4. See also Lohse, E., ‘υίός’, T.D.N.T. 8, 359–60.Google Scholar

79 The translation is from Braude, W. G., trans., Pesikta Rabbati (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 1 93.Google Scholar

80 Cf. esp. Jeremias, J., New Testament Theology, trans. Bowden, J., (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), pp. 178–203Google Scholar, on ‘Being a Child’; and his The Prayers of Jesus, SBT, 2nd series, 6 (London: SCM Press, 1967), esp. p. 97Google Scholar. Grundmann, in his Die Gotteskindschaft in der Geschichte Jesu und ihre Religionsgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen, Teil II, helpfully relates the concept of becoming ‘childern of God’ to Jesus' teachings on Torah, the Kindom of God, and discipleship.

81 Oepke, , ‘παīς,’ T.D.N.T. 5, 653Google Scholar: ‘τέκνον is used [in the Synoptics] only to denote descent from Abraham as a pre-condition of divine sonship’.

82 Cf. Schweizer, E., ‘υίός’, T.D.N.T. 8, 389.Google Scholar

83 See the fine discussion (from which many of the following observations are drawn) in Ridderbos, Herman, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans. Witt, J. R. De (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Erdmans, 1975), pp. 197–204.Google Scholar

84 Regarding the relationship between the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine epistles see: Culpepper, R. Alan, The Johannine School, SBL Dissertation Series, 26 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 279–86Google Scholar; Houlden, J. L., The Johannine Epistles (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

85 Note the association of ‘righteousness’ with the παīς κυρίου or υίός Θεο in the Wisdom of Solomon; above, pp. 19–20.

86 The word δικαιοσύνη appears only twice in the Gospel of John (16. 8, 10), twice in Revelation (19. 11; 22. 11), and never in the two shorter epistles.

87 Regarding Johannine perfectionism see: Bogart, John, Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism in the Johannine Community as Evident in the First Epistle of John, SBL Dissertation Series, 33 (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977).Google Scholar

88 cf.Brown, , The Gospel According to John, 1, 354–5Google Scholar; Londars, , The Gospel of John pp. 323–4Google Scholar; Bogart, , Orthodox and Heretical Perfectionism, pp. 55–6Google Scholar; B. E. Schein, ‘“The Seed of Abraham” – John 8: 31–59’, Abstracts of SBL Meething, Atlanta, 1971, S 159, pp. 83–4.

89 Cf. Heb. 2. 10; 12. 5–9.

90 Cf. Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974), p. 295:Google Scholar ‘…, in 8: 59 we find the implication that, for John, “I am” has departed from the Temple, that “holy space” is no longer the abode of the Divine Presence. The Shekinah is no logner there, but is now found wherever Christ is…’

91 Cf. the parallel noted in Philo above, p. 21 and the references cited by Barrett, , The Gospel According to St John, p. 398.Google Scholar

92 This observation is also made by Twisselmann, W., ‘Die Gotteskindschaft der Christen nach dem Neuen Testament’, Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, Bd. 41, Heft I (Gütersloh: Verlag C. Bertelsmann, 1939), p. 77.Google Scholar

93 The occurrence of τεκνία in John 13. 33 may be taken as (1) a term of endearment appropriate for a farewell speech, (2) a designation which teachers used for their disciples, or (3) a reference to the Johannine Community, as it is in the Johannine epistles. In any case, it does not threaten the argument of the above paragraph. Brown, , The Gospel According to John, 2, 611, 1016Google Scholar; and my The Johannine School, pp. 272–3, 301–2.

94 See the very helpful study of these verses by Pancaro, S., ‘“People of God” in St John's Gospel,’ N.T.S, 16 (1969–1970), 114–29.Google Scholar

95 Pancaro's conclusion (Ibid. p. 129) appears to be correct: ‘The “childern of God”, mentioned in John xi. 52, are – contrary to what has traditionally been held – neither the Gentiles nor the Jews of the dispersion as such, but rather: all those (whether Jew or Gentile) who would be united into this new People by the death of Christ’. The implication he draws from this conclusion is also warranted: ‘If these conclusions are correct, they go against the opinion which holds that John avoids “ecclesial” terms, and thus represent an indirect contribution ot the study of ecclesiology in the Fourth Gospel.’.

96 Brown, , The Gospel According to John, 1, 443Google Scholar, cites Isa. 11. 12; Mic. 2. 12; Jer. 23. 3; Ezek. 34. 16.