He does not, however, say where the text came from.
Another main way of seeing the problem is to claim that the writer has used different sources to create his gospel. These sources preceded him in the Christian tradition, and may have included both the synoptic gospels and other non-canonical or lost texts. In putting different sources together, he has been forced to make decisions. When he relied on tradition and not his own account, he is not able to make a coherent well-flowing narrative. It comes out disjointed.
Schnackenburg proposes perhaps the most satisfactory solution. His view is that John 15-16, and John 17 separately, were later insertions to the text done by an editor. He accepts that there is some continuity of content in the discourses following 14:31, which makes chapters 15-17 appropriate. But he accepts also that the transition is overly abrupt, and that the more original text likely went straight to 18:1. He sees this insertion as evidence that the editor wanted to admonish the community he was addressing by adding more of the evangelist's material. He writes that "the discourse is the work of an editor, in which certain material left by the evangelist himself is employed."
This view presumes...
As for a summary of the document, this has already been covered but no quotes from the text have been provided up to this point. Of course, one of the most widely known verses in the Gospel of John is John 3:16 which does not need to be repeated here because any Christian would know it. Other notable passages include chapter 18 when Jesus is arrested, the raising of Lazarus
" (Kysar 27) Scholars at times forget that the bible is not only a work of theology but also a work of literature. Barnes also believes in this interpretation and its New Testament expression of the Trinity, "I am thinking, in particular, of the pivotal appeal to John 1:1-3 at de Trinitate 2.2.9, which resembles Tertullian's (and Hippolytus's) use of the Johannine prologue as the paradigmatic expression of the economy of
Gilgamesh/Jesus The Mesopotamian myth story of "Gilgamesh" and the Gospel of John in the New Testament are both stories of men, part God and part man, whose journeys lead them far across the Earth. Their trials are somewhat similar, yet their outlooks are very different. Gilgamesh, the protector of his people, and Jesus, the prophet of his people, may have lived differently, had they existed in the other's time. However, assuming
Introduction While the Gospel of John bears some similarities to the Synoptic Gospels, as Barrett (1974) points out, it also sets itself apart in several unique ways by focusing on the mystical nature of Christ and the importance of the Church. Even the Synoptic Gospels offer differing details of the life and teachings of Christ, and in many instances, John agrees or is more in line with Mark, while Mark differs
Boring notes that early church hymns were constructed around a core of theological content, and were largely instructional in nature. According to Boring, the Prologue was one such hymn, and was used in catechism. Boring also points out the historical and sociological function of the Prologue, which would have been to “bridge the minds of the Semitic and Hellenistic worlds,” through the central and unifying concept of logos. Both the
Deity of Christ in the Gospel of John In John's Gospel, the term Son of God is used very frequently but people do not derive the spirituality of Jesus from this title, in fact they refer this title to the messianic position of Jesus. Such a belief has put forward a number of interesting questions, because according to John (20:30-31), in order to obtain an eternal life one needs to have
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now