Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Testament
http://jnt.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal for the Study of the New Testament can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jnt.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
344
Gospel was composed in stages (p. 1). He posits three stages in all: a rst
version of the Gospel, to be followed by a second, revised version, both
from the evangelists hand and, third, additional material composed by a
later editor including ch. 21, some minor glosses, and possibly the Beloved
Disciple material. Linked with this approach is Lincolns proposal that
the Johannine epistles, by yet another hand, were produced roughly contemporaneously with the Gospel, since they appear to coincide in reecting
the same issues (pp. 50-57). Second, Lincoln is persuaded that the bios,
or ancient biography, is the genre that best suits the character of the
Gospel (pp. 14-17) in which connection his ne discussion on historicity
and truth (pp. 39-50) is essential reading. Third, the engaging personal
note signalling the commentators conversion in the writing from the
assumption of Johns independence of the Synoptics to the conviction
that he knew and used all three (p. 32) becomes the platform for extensive
discussion, both in the introduction and during the commentary, of the
creative nature of that relationship. Fourth, in discussing Johns Christology, Lincoln is emphatic, on the one hand, that the evangelists presentation presupposes the reality of the human life of Jesus of Nazareth (pp.
59-60), while, on the other, he maintains that the unique nature of Jesus
relationship to God means that Jesus is only God (p. 61), enjoys divine
status as the Son (p. 66), and shares the identity of the one God (pp. 68,
70).
The main part of the commentary is followed by an appendix devoted
to 7.538.11, which is succeeded in turn by a bibliography (English
language only) and indexes of scriptural references, modern authors and
subjects.
Lincoln begins his preface by posing the questions: Why another commentary? Dont we have more than enough? (p. vii). And well he might.
Accessible to beginners because of the simplicity of its medium and
difcult for professionals because of the profundity of its message, the
Fourth Gospel has been at the centre of the Christian faith throughout its
history, shaping its doctrine and inspiring its worship, its music and its
art. Commentaries there have been aplenty during that process, including
several celebrated examples of the genre in the last century alone, all of
which is calculated to make the production of yet another seem daunting
in prospect. Yet Lincolns skills are such as to make this commentary
indispensable to beginners and professionals alike, bringing fresh perspectives to the continuing endeavour to understand this extraordinary Gospel.
No beginner himself, Lincoln is the author of several volumes in the
eld of New Testament studies and has recently become well established
on the Johannine front with the publication of his magisterial Truth on
345
346
347
as the Nicene Creed, are already implicit in the prologue read within the
Gospel as a whole (p. 98); and third, on 8.42 (cp. 15.26), Christian
theology has rightly seen this languageas foundational for its notion of
trinitarian relations and their divine processions. God produces God, both
Son and Spirit, in a way that manifests internal differentiation within the
one God (p. 272; see further pp. 182, 306, 435 etc.). The problem here is
not the fact that later Christian tradition drew inspiration from the Gospel
in formulating its doctrine, but whether or not we can afrm with condence that it caught its implications rightly. The following reections
on Johns Christology are offered in the spirit of continuing the debate on
this crucial and most perplexing of issues.
First, there is Johns perspective on the signicance of Jesus life. As
Lincoln notes, Christology for John is intimately woven with theology
(p. 59). How true. In fact, so dominant is Johns theocentric perspective
that the career of Jesus, son of Joseph (1.45), acquires signicance only
in the context of God and Gods dealings with the created world. We are
greeted with this perspective in the Gospel prologue and are reminded of
it as the narrative proceeds, not only by the miniature gospel at 3.16
(Lindars 1972: 24), but also by the repeated disclaimers placed by John
on Jesus lips that he can do nothing on his own authority but speaks and
acts only at Gods behest (5.19-30; cf. 7.16-18; 8.26-29; 10.37-38; 12.4450; 14.10, 24; 17.7-8). Thus, it would appear that what drives Johns
account is the fundamental conviction that in Jesus human life God was
made known as never before and, accordingly, he endows his subject
with the character of the Deity thus revealed. If this is the case, then it
raises acutely the issue of how far we are justied in drawing conclusions
of an exclusively Christological nature from the language John uses of
Jesus. How, for example, do we approach Johns use of the term
monogens (1.14, 18; 3.16, 18; cf. 1 Jn 4.9)? Does it imply that Jesus was
consubstantial with the Father, as the Nicene Creed has it, or does the
emphasis lie with God and the lengths to which God was prepared to go
in his love for the world? If we favour the second option, monogens then
becomes an expression of Gods special regard for Jesus who, among
Gods children (1.12; 11.52; cf. 20.17), remains one of a kind, the child
on whom a father dotes (cf. 1.14), because his relationship to God was
one of unrivalled obedience and utter self-giving (cf. 10.17) (see Edwards
2003: 95-96). Indeed, the fact that monogens and agaptos are translation variants may well tell us that Johns choice of the former has behind
it the thought of Abraham and his beloved son Isaac whom he was willing
to sacrice (see Jn 3.16; cp. Gen. 22.2 [Aq.]; 22.12 [Sm.]; Heb. 11.17)
and also perhaps that this is the Johannine equivalent of references in the
348
349
350
and prophetic words of C.K. Barrett on Johns use of the Logos concept
seem apt:
How far John was successful in using the model without being dominated
by it, how far he allowed it to lead him into making statements that did not
correspond with what he really wished to say, will doubtless continue to
be disputed (Barrett 1982: 12).
351
Blomberg, C.L.
2001
The Historical Reliability of Johns Gospel (Leicester: Apollos/IVP).
Danker, F.W. (ed.)
2000
A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Edwards, R.
2003
Discovering John (London: SPCK).
Esler, P.F., and R.A. Piper
2006
Lazarus, Mary and Martha: A Social-Scientic and Theological Reading of
John (London: SCM Press).
Lincoln, A.T.
2000
Truth on Trial: The Lawsuit Motif in Johns Gospel (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson).
Lindars, B.
1972
The Gospel of John (London: Oliphants).
Lieu, J.M.
1981
Authority to Become Children of God: A Study of 1 John, NovT 23: 21028.