Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:34:22.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Neglected Feature of the Christology of the Fourth Gospel1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

B. A. Mastin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Because the term θεóς is used so infrequently of Jesus in the New Testament, it is not surprising to find that there are relatively few discussions of it as a christological title. However, it may be of value to investigate the way in which the Fourth Gospel speaks of Jesus as ‘God’ since its usage differs somewhat from that of the rest of the New Testament. First, the extent to which the New Testament describes Jesus as God will be surveyed, and this will be contrasted in general terms with the approach of the Fourth Evangelist. Then the passages in the Fourth Gospel which may call Jesus ‘God’ will be examined in more detail, and an attempt will be made to establish the way in which this designation is used by the evangelist. Next it will be asked how the distinctive usage of the Fourth Gospel came to be adopted. Finally the view that the word θεóς expresses a functional christology will be considered.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , October 1975 , pp. 32 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

page 32 note 2 Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘The Christological Confession of the World Council of Churches’, in Essays Philosophical and Theological (E.T. by James C. G. Greig of Glauben und Verstehen, Gesammelt Aufsätze, 11, London, 1955), p. 276.Google Scholar

page 32 note 3 Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament (E.T. by Kendrick Grobel of Theologie des Neuen Testaments), 1 (London, 1952), 129 and n.Google Scholar

page 33 note 1 Taylor, Vincent, The Names of Jesus (London, 1953).Google Scholar

page 33 note 2 Taylor, V., ‘Does the New Testament call Jesus “God”?’, The Exp. T. LXXIII (1961–2), 116–18, reprinted inGoogle ScholarTaylor, , New Testament Essays (London, 1970), pp. 83–9.Google Scholar

page 33 note 3 V. Taylor, art. cit. p. 117 (= New Testament Essays, p. 86).

page 33 note 4 Stauffer, E., in Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. Kittel, G. and Friedrich, G., III (Stuttgart, 1938), 105 ff.; cf.Google ScholarStauffer, E., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Stuttgart, 5 1948), p. 94.Google Scholar

page 33 note 5 Bauer, W., Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin, 5 1963), cols. 705 f.Google Scholar

page 33 note 6 Wainwright, Arthur W., The Trinity in the New Testament (London, 1962), pp. 53–74.Google Scholar

page 33 note 7 Brown, Raymond E., Jesus God and Man (London and Dublin, 1968), pp. 1–38.Google Scholar

page 33 note 8 Cullmann, Oscar, The Christology of the New Testament (E.T. by S. C. Guthrie and C. A. M. Hall of Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments, London, 2 1963), pp. 306–14.Google Scholar

page 34 note 1 Turner, Nigel, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament (Edinburgh, 1965), pp. 13–17.Google Scholar

page 35 note 1 Origen, In Joh. II. 2 (Greek text in Brooke, A. E., The Commentary of Origen on S. John's Gospel, I, Cambridge, 1896, 58 f.). For a discussion of Origen's christology with special reference to his treatment of the Fourth Gospel, and references to other recent literature, seeGoogle ScholarPollard, T. E., Johannine Christology and the Early Church (Cambridge, 1970), pp. 86–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 35 note 2 Colwell, E. C., ‘A definite rule for the use of the article in the Greek New Testament’, J.B.L, LII (1933), 20. R. E. Brown, op. cit. p. 26, refers to the rule that predicate nouns generally lack the article and cites John xi. 25, xiv. 6 as exceptions. But in both cases the predicate follows the verb, and according to Colwell the article is to be expected in such cases.Google Scholar

page 35 note 3 E. Stauffer, Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, III, 106 n. 267, cites II Cor. v. 19 as a further example of θε⋯ς used in this way. This is possible, but it is far more probable that θεός is the subject of the verb.

page 35 note 4 E. C. Colwell, art. cit. p. 17.

page 35 note 5 Ibid. p. 18 n. 14.

page 35 note 6 Ibid. p. 21.

page 35 note 7 Ibid. p. 20.

page 35 note 8 Westcott, B. F., The Gospel according to St John (London, 1882), p. 3.Google Scholar

page 36 note 1 Harner, P. B., ‘Qualitative anarthrous predicate nouns: Mark 15: 39 and John 1: 1’, J.B.L. XCII (1973), 75–87. It is important to recognize that Harner and Colwell ask different questions. Harner says, ‘Colwell was almost entirely concerned with the question whether anarthrous predicate nouns were definite or indefinite’ (p. 76). In fact Colwell examined definite predicate nouns and attempted (with considerable success) to establish the rule which decided when they were written with the article. Colwell did not discuss qualitative nouns because they cannot be definite (art. cit. p. 17). Harner, on the other hand, deals in the main with anarthrous predicates which precede the verb in Mark and John, and argues that frequently they have qualitative force.Google Scholar

page 36 note 2 P. B. Harner, art. cit. p. 87.

page 36 note 3 E. C. Colwell, art. cit. p. 21.

page 36 note 4 Griffiths, J. G., ‘A note on the anarthrous predicate in Hellenistic Greek’, Exp. T. LXII (1950–1), 314–16.Google Scholar

page 37 note 1 Bultmann, R., Das Evangelium des Johannes (Göttingen, 1950), p. 16 n. 4.Google Scholar

page 37 note 2 Ibid. p. 17.

page 37 note 3 Burney, C. F. (The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922, p. 40) claimed that μονογεν⋯ς θε⋯ς is a mistranslation of אׇהׇלֱא דיׅחְי, ‘the only-begotten of God’, which was wrongly read as דיׅחְׇ אׇהׇלֱאGoogle ScholarBlack, M. (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, Oxford, 3 1967, p. 11) says of this suggestion, ‘It has an attractive simplicity, is free from philological difficulties, and the Greek reading is unusual. Equally remarkable, however, would be the ignorance of the translator who made the blunder, unless we look on his “version” as a deliberate theological interpretation of the Aramaic.’ But since the two Aramaic expressions differ only in the pointing of one letter, the supposed translator's ‘ignorance’ is perhaps hardly surprising. He would have used an unpointed text, for there were no pointed texts then, and it would have been easy for him to get the pointing wrong. A more substantial objection is that one would expect דיחי to be in the emphatic state and to follow אהלא for translation of the phrase by μονογεν⋯ς θε⋯ς to be likely.Google ScholarBurrows', M. suggestion (‘The Johannine prologue as Aramaic verse’, J.B.L. XLV, 1926, 68) that the mistranslation may be due to dittography of the initial א of אהלא may be an attempt to meet this point, though he does not say so. However, Burrows does not examine this phrase in his later paperGoogle Scholar‘The original language of the Gospel of John’, J.B.L. XLIX (1930), 95–139, which includes sections discussing possible instances of wrong pointing or textual corruption in an earlier Aramaic version of the Fourth Gospel. Nevertheless, it has been convincingly argued that the prologue was in fact written in Greek (so, most recently,Google ScholarBarrett, C. K., The Prologue of St John's Gospel, London, 1971, pp. 12 f., reprinted inGoogle ScholarBarrett, C. K., New Testament Essays, London, 1972, pp. 35 f.;Google ScholarLindars, B., Behind the Fourth Gospel, London, 1971, pp. 73 f.Google ScholarThe Gospel of John, London, 1972, pp. 80 ff.). It follows that the hypothesis of mistranslation from Aramaic must be rejected.Google Scholar

page 38 note 1 Hort, F. J. A., Two Dissertations (Cambridge and London, 1876), p. 11.Google Scholar

page 38 note 2 J. N. Sanders thought that the reading ⋯ μονγεν⋯ς was original but that, as the result of ‘an accidental repetition of two letters at a very early stage in the tradition’, the word ⋯ς entered the text, and that later ὃς was ‘ corrected’ to an abbreviation for θε⋯ς (Sanders, J. N., A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John, edited and completed by Mastin, B. A., London, 1968, p. 85 n. 1). B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 99, comments, ‘It is difficult to see how hos (which has no MS support) can have got into the text in the first place.’ But this is not a valid argument. Dittography of the last letter of μονογεν⋯ς and the following word ⋯ gives the desired result, and such a corruption would not be impossible in a manuscript written in scriptio continua. ΣΟ could have been written twice by accident to give. ΣΟΣΟGoogle Scholar

page 38 note 3 E.g. Hoskyns, E. C., The Fourth Gospel, edited by Davey, F. N. (London, 2 1947), pp. 153 f.Google ScholarBarrett, C. K., The Gospel according to St. John (London, 1956), p. 141, andGoogle ScholarLightfoot, R. H., St. John's Gospel: A Commentary, edited by Evans, C. F. (Oxford, 1956), p. 90.Google Scholar

page 38 note 4 Aland, Kurt, Studien zur Überlieferung des Neuen Testaments und seines Textes (Berlin, 1967), pp. 133, 135.Google Scholar

page 38 note 5 Cf. e.g. O'Neill, J. C., ‘The Prologue to St John's Gospel’, J.T.S. new series XX (1969), 44, T. E. Pollard, op. cit. p. 14 n. 2, and B. Lindars, op. cit. pp. 98 f.Google Scholar

page 38 note 6 Barrett, C. K., ‘Papyrus Bodmer II: a preliminary report’, Exp. T. LXVIII (1956–7), 175.Google Scholar

page 39 note 1 Lagrange, M.-J., Évangile selon Saint Jean (Paris, 7 1948), p. 27.Google Scholar

page 39 note 2 Bardy, G., Recherches sur Saint Lucien d'Antioche et son École (Paris, 1936), p. 330;Google ScholarWiles, M. F., The Spiritual Gospel (Cambridge, 1960), p. 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 39 note 3 T. E. Pollard, op. cit. pp. 148 f.

page 39 note 4 M. F. Wiles, op. cit. p. 121 n. 2.

page 39 note 5 R. Bultmann, op. cit. p. 55 n. 4.

page 39 note 6 Schlatter, A., Der Evangelist Johannes (Stuttgart, 2 1948), p. 34.Google Scholar

page 39 note 7 Tenney, M. C., John: The Gospel of Belief (London, 1948, 1954), p. 72.Google Scholar

page 40 note 1 Paap, A. H. R. E., Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the first Jive centuries A.D. (Leiden, 1959), p. 119.Google Scholar

page 40 note 2 Roberts, C. H., The earliest manuscripts of the Church; style and significance, Sandars Lectures delivered in 1961, Lecture 3. A typescript copy of these lectures is deposited in the University Library, Cambridge.Google Scholar

page 40 note 3 F.J. A. Hort, op. cit. p. 10.

page 40 note 4 So, e.g., Büchsel, F., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, IV (Stuttgart, 1942), 748 n. 14.Google Scholar

page 40 note 5 Cadman, W. H., The Open Heaven, edited by Caird, G. B. (Oxford, 1969), p. 18. For the view that the reading ⋯ μονογεν⋯ς υἱ⋯ς is not found here, see F.J. A. Hort, op. cit. p. 32.Google Scholar

page 40 note 6 Cf. e.g. the variants at Heb. iv. 11, Rev. XV. 6, cited by Metzger, B. M., The Text of the New Testament (Oxford, 2 1968), p. 192.Google Scholar

page 40 note 7 So e.g. C. F. Burney, op. cit. p. 40.

page 40 note 8 So e.g. E. C. Hoskyns, op. cit. p. 154.

page 40 note 9 Winter, P., ‘μονογεν⋯ς παρ⋯ πατρ⋯ς’, Zeitschrift für Religions-und Geistesgeschichte, V (1953), 335–65;CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoody, Dale, ‘God's only son: the translation of John 316 in the Revised Standard Version’, J.B.L. LXXII (1953), 213–19. Cf alsoGoogle Scholarde Kruijf, Th. C., ‘The glory of the only son (John 114)’, in Studies in John presented to Professor Dr J. N. Sevenster (Supplements to Novum Testamentum, vol. XXIV, Leiden, 1970). PP. 111–23.Google Scholar

page 41 note 1 On this see e.g. B. Lindars, op. cit. p. 98.

page 41 note 2 Howard, W. F., Christianity according to St John (London, 1943), pp. 51 f.Google ScholarThe Interpreter's Bible (New York and Nashville), VIII, 1952, pp. 478 f.Google Scholar

page 41 note 3 F.J. A. Hort, op. cit. pp. 18–24.

page 41 note 4 Nilsson, M. P., ‘Orphic Literature’, in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, edited by Hammond, N. G. L. and Scullard, H. H. (Oxford, 2 1970), p. 759a.Google Scholar

page 41 note 5 Orphic Hymns, XXIX. 2; text in Abel, E., Orphica (Leipzig and Prague, 1885), p. 73.Google Scholar

page 41 note 6 The phrase ⋯ ὢν εἰς τ⋯ν κ⋯λπον το⋯ πατρ⋯ς may describe either (i) a relationship prior to the incarnation, or (ii) a relationship during Jesus' earthly ministry, or (iii) the situation after the ascension. The tense of ⋯ ξηγ⋯σατο establishes that the verse must refer to the activity of the incarnate logos, but if the third possibility be allowed the reference of μονογεν⋯ς θε⋯ς is wider than this. John xiii. 23 says of the beloved disciple την ⋯νακε⋯μενος…⋯ν τῷ κ⋯λπῳ ׀ησο⋯, and it is plausible to suppose that the parallel with i. 18 is intended to show that the one who best understands the mind of Christ has a relationship of intimacy with him not dissimilar from that which the incarnate logos has with the Father whom he reveals on earth. It is difficult to prove that the situation after the ascension is not in view, but it is far from clear that this is the most natural explanation of the phrase.

page 41 note 7 Pace F. Büchsel, art. cit. p. 748 n. 14, who regards such expedients as ‘Exegetenfündlein’, if this is the correct reading the two words must be in apposition (so e.g. Abbott, E. A., Johannine Grammar, London, 1906Google Scholar, §§ 1938, 1964; cf § 1931 for further examples of apposition in the Fourth Gospel). That ‘Joh ist bei der monumentalen Einfachheit seiner Ausdrucksweise dergleichen nicht zuzutrauen’ (Büchsel, ibid.) is a subjective opinion which may rely too heavily on modern criteria of what is readily intelligible. Cf. John xvii. 2, 11 f., 24 (on which see B. A. Mastin, op. cit. pp. 368, 372 f, 378) for constructions which appear harsh but are used deliberately.

page 42 note 1 See above, p. 32 f.

page 42 note 2 M. F. Wiles, op. cit. pp. 30 f.

page 43 note 1 Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (i–xii) (Garden City, New York, 1966), p. 124.Google Scholar

page 43 note 2 Ibid. pp. 19–23. For a fuller account of much recent discussion of this question, see Smith, Dwight M. Jr, The Composition and Order of the Fourth Gospel (New Haven and London, 1965).Google Scholar

page 43 note 3 Sanders, J. T., The New Testament Christological Hymns (Cambridge, 1971), p. 21.Google Scholar

page 43 note 4 C. K. Barrett, The Prologue of St John's Gospel, reprinted in C. K. Barrett, New Testament Essays, pp. 27–48.

page 44 note 1 Brown, R. E., Durham University Journal LXV = new series XXXIV (1972–3), 227 f. It is not possible to enter the debate between Barrett and Brown here, but, while Barrett has argued convincingly that the prologue was written in rhythmical prose, he incautiously denies the existence of Semitic verse in the first century A.D.Google Scholar

page 44 note 2 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 81. Unlike Barrett, Lindars thinks that, though the references to the Baptist were composed by the person who wrote the rest of the Prologue, verse 6 originally formed the opening of the gospel and the other parts of the Prologue were written later (ibid. p. 82). However, this does not affect the argument of the present paper. Cf. also B. Lindars, Behind the Fourth Gospel, pp. 73 f.

page 44 note 3 Brown, R. E., The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi) (Garden City, New York, 1970), p. 1047 (his italics).Google Scholar

page 44 note 4 Ibid. p. 1026.

page 44 note 5 Cf. the present writer in A Commentary on the Gospel according to St John by Sanders, J. N., edited and completed by Mastin, B. A. (London, 1968), pp. 431, 437.Google Scholar

page 44 note 6 Cf. B. A. Mastin, ‘The Imperial Cult and the Ascription of the Title Θε⋯ς to Jesus (John xx. 28)‘, Studia Evangelica, VI, 352–365, and p. 46 below.

page 45 note 1 R. E. Brown, Jests God and Man, p. 29.

page 45 note 2 B. Lindars, The Gospel of John, p. 615.

page 46 note 1 Longenecker, R. N., The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (London, 1970), p. 139. He perhaps incautiously regards II Peter as a Jewish Christian writing.Google Scholar

page 46 note 2 Ibid. p. 141. Bowker, J. W., ‘The origin and purpose of St John's Gospel’, N.T.S. XI (1964–5), 406, translates John X. 33 ‘You, a mere man, claim to be a god’. But in context the statement can only be understood as an assertion that Jesus was claiming far more than this. Bowker's translation, though linguistically possible, is exegetically unsound, and therefore it does not invalidate Longenecker's hypothesis.Google Scholar

page 46 note 3 See p. 44 n. 6 above.

page 46 note 4 Cf. e.g. Keresztes, P., ‘The Jews, the Christians, and Emperor Domitian’, Vigiliae Christianae XXVII (1973), 24 ff.Google Scholar

page 46 note 5 R. E. Brown, Jesus God and Man, p. 30.

page 47 note 1 Ibid. p. 30 n. 52.

page 47 note 2 R. E. Brown says that i. 1 and XX. 28 ‘represent the Johannine affirmative answer to the charge made against Jesus in the Gospel that he was wrongly making himself God (X. 33, V. 18)’ (The Gospel according to John (i–xii), p. 5), but it is not clear that he thinks this significant in the present connection.

page 47 note 3 Ibid. p. 36.

page 47 note 4 Cf. e.g. Robinson, J. A. T., ‘The Destination and Purpose of St John's Gospel’, N.T.S. VI (1959–60), 117–31, reprinted inGoogle ScholarRobinson, J. A. T., Twelve New Testament Studies (London, 1962), pp. 107–25;Google ScholarBowker, J. W., ‘The origin and purpose of St John's Gospel’, N.T.S. XI (1964–5), 398–408. Cf. also C. H. Dodd's conclusion that ‘the basic tradition… on which the evangelist is working was shaped (it appears) in a Jewish-Christian environment still in touch with the synagogue, in Palestine, at a relatively early date, at any rate before the rebellion of A.D. 66. Most of the material we have investigated would fit into such an environment’ (Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, Cambridge, 1963, p. 426). It is not necessary to discuss these problems at length in this paper. It is plausible to suppose that the topic under consideration here reflects a debate between church and synagogue, as Brown has suggested (see above, n. 1).Google Scholar

page 47 note 5 B. Lindars, op. cit. p. 219.

page 47 note 6 Ibid. p. 336.

page 47 note 7 R. E. Brown, op. cit. p. 367.

page 48 note 1 Oscar Cullmann, op. cit. p. 310.

page 48 note 2 Taylor, Vincent, The Person of Christ in Mew Testament Teaching (London, 1958), pp. 122 f.Google Scholar

page 48 note 3 R. E. Brown, op. cit. p. 408.

page 48 note 4 Ibid., (his italics).

page 49 note 1 Oscar Cullmann, op. cit. p. 265.

page 49 note 2 Ibid. p. 314.

page 49 note 3 R. E. Brown, Jesus God and Man, p. 37.

page 49 note 4 R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi), p. 1047 (his italics).

page 49 note 5 See above, p. 43 f.

page 50 note 1 Boobyer, G. H., ‘Jesus as “Theos” in the New Testament’, Bulletin of the John Rylands Library L (1967–8), 255 ff.Google Scholar

page 50 note 2 Ibid. p. 260 (his italics).

page 50 note 3 Cf. Charlesworth's, M. P. remarks on benefactor cult in his article ‘Some observations on ruler-cult especially in Rome’, H.T.R. XXVIII (1935), 8–16.Google Scholar

page 50 note 4 Braun, F.-M., Jean le Théologien, 11 (Paris, 1964), 109–12, questions this at least as far as the phrase ⋯ υἱ⋯ς το⋯ θεο⋯ in the Fourth Gospel is concerned, but it is not possible to discuss his arguments in the present paper. I have not had access to the article byGoogle ScholarMollat, D., ‘La divinityé du Christ d'après saint Jean‘, Lumière et Vie IX (1953), 101–34, to which Braun refers (p. 111 n. 1).Google Scholar

page 50 note 5 G. H. Boobyer, art. cit. pp. 250 f