4- The Gospel according to John: Johns Gospel is radically different from the three others; to such an extent indeed that Father Roguet in his book Initiation to the Gospel (Initiation a l Evangile), having commented on the other three, immediately evokes a startling image for the fourth. He calls it different world . Indeed it is a different book; different in the arrangement and choice of subject, descriptions and speech; different in its style, geography, chronology; there are even differences in theological outlook, Jesus {P.B.u.h.} words are therefore differently recorded by John from the other evangelists. Father Roguet, notes on this, that whereas the synoptic record Jesus words in a style that is “striking, much nearer to the oral style”, in John all is meditation. To such an extent, that “one sometimes wonders if Jesus is still speaking or whether his ideas have not imperceptibly been extended by the Evangelist’s own thoughts.” Who was the author of this Gospel? This is a highly debated question and extremely varying opinions have been expressed on this subject. O. Culmann in his work The New Testament does not subscribe to this view. The Ecumenical Translation of the Bible states that the majority of critics do not accept the hypothesis that the Gospel was written by John, although this possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. Everything points however towards the fact that the text we know today had several authors: “ It is probable that the Gospel as it stands today was put into circulation by the author’s disciples who added chapter 21 and very likely several annotations (i.e. 4,2 and perhaps 4,44; 7,37b; 11,2; 19,35). The historical value of John’s stories has been contested to a great extent. The discrepancy between them and the other Gospels is quite blatant. O. Culmann explains this; he sees in John a different theological point of view from the other evangelists. This aim “directs the choice of stories from the Logia’ recorded, as well as the way in which they are reproduced … Thus the author often prolongs the lines and makes the historical Jesus say what the Holy spirit Itself (supposedly) revealed to Him.” This, for the exegete in question, is the reason for the discrepancies. It is of course quite conceivable that John, who was writing after the other evangelists, should have chosen certain stories suitable for illustrating his own theories. The Ecumenical Translation picks out a certain number of such instance (page282). Certain gaps hardly seem credible however, like the fact that the Institution of the Eucharist is not described. In contrast to this, there are stories, which are unique to John and not present in the other three. Such as John’s description to the appearance of Jesus {P.B.u.h.}raised from the dead to his disciples beside the sea of Tiberias (John 21, 1-14). Another important point on which John’s Gospel differs from the other three is in duration of Jesus‘s {P.B.u.h.} mission. Matthew, Mark, and Luke place it over a period of one year. John spreads it over two years. Note: 1- John was not one of Jesus {P.B.u.h.} disciple. The anonymous writer called himself “John to earn the readers trust It is unacceptable that John was Jesus disciple. Simply because that means he was at least 20 years. This means that John at the age of 85 wrote his gospel. This age is an unusual for writing. Furthermore, what made John wait 65 years before he began writing his gospel? 2- Evidences which assert that Jesus {P.B.u.h.} did not say everything the Gospels record. Here are Some doubtful verses quoted from the Bible: 1- John 14:9 “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.” 2- John 6:35 “And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life. 3- John 8:12 I am the light of the world
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:25:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015