"The Jews gathered round him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no-one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no-one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?", "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Reading through the Gospel according to St. John, we'll notice how much different it seems with the Synoptics (Matt, Mark, Luke) which led many to believe it to be embellished and that it is more of a theological/philosophical account rather than historical. But, is it really true that John is more theology than history? This is an excerpt of an article by, New Testament and Early Christianity scholar Dr. Michael J. Kruger: "In 2007, Richard Bauckham published an article in NTS entitled, “Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of John,” which answers precisely this question. In my opinion, Bauckham’s article has not received the attention it deserves.
In his article, Bauckham argues that John bears certain characteristics that his readers would have understood as historiographical—meaning they would have understood it to be a work of history. And these characteristics are actually more prominent in John than in the Synoptics: (1) Geography (2) Eyewitness Testimony (3) Discourse Length." There are more than these. From other readings, I've always thought the physician, Dr. St. Luke was the more careful historian-journalist (especially in the Book of Acts) But, Dr. Kruger concludes "All of these considerations leave us with a rather counter-intuitive conclusion—at least from the perspective of modern critical scholarship—namely that John’s gospel actually contains clearer historiographical credentials than the Synoptics. After all the hits that John’s gospel has taken over the years, this is remarkable fact." God didn't (and doesn't) leave us in the dark, and He has ordained godly men and women to relay and preserve His precious Word to us, and more importantly He sent His Spirit to give us understanding and witness to the truth of the Gospel and His Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ.
~13.02.2015
Comments
Post a Comment