John, Volume 36

George R. Beasley-Murray, Bruce M. Metzger,David Allen Hubbard,Glenn W. Barker,John D. W. Watts,James W. Watts,Ralph P. Martin,Lynn Allan Losie

• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780310588467
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Comentario bíblico

The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation. This series emphasizes a thorough analysis of textual, linguistic, structural, and theological evidence. The result is judicious and balanced insight into the meanings of the text in the framework of biblical theology. These widely acclaimed commentaries serve as exceptional resources for the professional theologian and instructor, the seminary or university student, the working minister, and everyone concerned with building theological understanding from a solid base of biblical scholarship.

Overview of Commentary Organization

• Introduction—covers issues pertaining to the whole book, including context, date, authorship, composition, interpretive issues, purpose, and theology.
• Each section of the commentary includes:
• Pericope Bibliography—a helpful resource containing the most important works that pertain to each particular pericope.
• Translation—the author's own translation of the biblical text, reflecting the end result of exegesis and attending to Hebrew and Greek idiomatic usage of words, phrases, and tenses, yet in reasonably good English.
• Notes—the author's notes to the translation that address any textual variants, grammatical forms, syntactical constructions, basic meanings of words, and problems of translation.
• Form/Structure/Setting—a discussion of redaction, genre, sources, and tradition as they concern the origin of the pericope, its canonical form, and its relation to the biblical and extra-biblical contexts in order to illuminate the structure and character of the pericope. Rhetorical or compositional features important to understanding the passage are also introduced here.
• Comment—verse-by-verse interpretation of the text and dialogue with other interpreters, engaging with current opinion and scholarly research.
• Explanation—brings together all the results of the discussion in previous sections to expose the meaning and intention of the text at several levels: (1) within the context of the book itself; (2) its meaning in the OT or NT; (3) its place in the entire canon; (4) theological relevance to broader OT or NT issues.
  • General Bibliography—occurring at the end of each volume, this extensive bibliographycontains all sources used anywhere in the commentary.

John

I. The Prologue (1:1–18)

Bibliography

Aland, K. “Eine Untersuchung zu Joh 1, 3.4.” ZNW 59 (1968) 174–209. Borgen, P. “Observations on the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John.” NTS 16 (1969–70) 288–95. ———. “The Logos Was the True Light. Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of John.” NovT 14 (1972) 115–30. Boman, T. Das hebräische Denken im Vergleich reit dem Griechischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954. 45–56. (ET: He brew Thought Compared with Greek. tr. Jules L. Moreau. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. 58–69.) Culpepper, R. A. “The Pivot of John’s Prologue.” NTS 27 (1980–81) 1–31. Demke, C. “Der sogenannte Logos Hymnus in Johanneische Prolog.” ZNW 58 (1967) 45–68. Dodd, C. H. Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 263–85, 294–96. “The Prologue to the Fourth Gospel and Christian Worship.” Studies in the Fourth Gospel. Ed F. L. Cross. London: Mowbray, 1957. 9–22. Hooker, M. D. “John the Baptist and the Johannine Prologue.” NTS 16 (1969–70) 354–58. ———. “The Johannine Prologue and the Messianic Secret.” NTS 21 (1974–75) 40–58. Jeremias, J. “The Revealing Word.” The Central Message of the New Testament. London: SCM, 1965. 71–90. Käsemann, E. “The Structure and Purpose of the Prologue to John’s Gospel.” New Testament Questions of Today. London: SCM, 1969. 138–67. Richter, G. “Die Fieischwerdung des Logos im Johannes-Evangelium.” NovT 13 (1971) 81–126; 14 (1972) 257–76. Robinson, J. A. T. “The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John.” NTS 9 (1962–63) 120–29. Sanders, J. T. The New Testament Christological Hymns. SNTSMS 15. Cambridge: CUP, 1971. 29–57. Thyen, H. “Aus der Literatur zum Johannesevangelium.” TR 39 (1975) 53–69, 222–52.

Translation

1In the beginning was the Word,

and the Word was with God,

and the Word was God.

2This was in the beginning with God.

3Everything came into existence through him,

and apart from him not a thing came into being.a

4What has come into being hadb its life in him,

and the life was the light of men;

5And the light shines on in the darkness,

and the darkness did not grasp it.

6There came on the scene a man sent from God, whose name was John; 7he came for witness, to bear testimony concerning the light, in order that all might believe through him.

8He was not the light, but came to bear testimony about the light. 9This was the authentic light, which enlightens every, man by. his coming into the world.

10He was in the world,

and the world came into existence through him,

and the world did not know him.

11He came to his own domain,

and his own people did not accept him.

12But to all who did accept him

he gave authority to become God’s children,

namely to those who believe on his name, 13who were begottenc not from humans’ blood, nor out of the desire of the flesh, nor out of the desire of a man, but of God.

14And the Word became flesh

and pitched his tent among us,

and we gazed on his glory,

glory such as belongs to the only Son from the Father,

full of grace and truth.

15John bears testimony concerning him, and in his proclamation said, “This is he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after med has become before me,’ for he existed prior to me.”

16For a share of his fullness we all received, even grace upon grace.

17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth were established through Jesus Christ.

18God no one has ever seen. The only Son,e by nature God, who is ever close to the Father’s heart, has brought knowledge of him.

Notes

a. There is uncertainty whether the second line of v 3 should end with οὐδὲ ἕν or with ὃ γέγονεν. The majority of early writers, both orthodox and Gnostic, adopted the former alternative; but the use of the statement by the Arians and Macedonians to prove on that basis that the Holy Spirit was a created being led the orthodox to favor the second way of reading the sentence. Most moderns consider the former to be intended, on the grounds of rhythmical balance of the clauses; the “staircase parallelism,” characteristic of vv 1–5, is then preserved. For the ambiguity of the term ζωή on this reading see Comment.

b. Since the perfect tense of γέγονεν is naturally followed by a present, some authorities (notably

D OL MSS), read ἐστιν in v 4 instead of ἦν. The external attestation for ἦν is slightly better than for ἐστιν; the latter is probably due to accommodating ἦν to γέγονεν; moreover the occurrence of ἦν in the next line indicates that such was read also in the first.

c. All Gr. manuscripts, virtually all of the early versions and most of the Fathers read in v 13 οἳ οὐκ ἐγεννήθησαν, agreeing with the τοῖς πιστεύουσιν of v 12. The OL MS b reads qui natus est, reflecting ὃς οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, supported by, among others, Tertullian, who charged the Valentinians with responsibility for altering the sing. reading to the pl. The external evidence for the pl. is overwhelming, and most adopt it without hesitation. Nevertheless many modern critics and exegetes have accepted the originality of the sing. (including Burney, Boismard, Dupont, F. M. Braun, P. Hofrichter, whose researches persuaded Thyen of its rightness), and it is incorporated into the JB. The conviction, voiced by many, that the pl. was changed to the sing. to make it refer to the Virgin Birth of Jesus is reversed by Hofrichter; in his view the sing. was altered to a pl. because it appears to exclude the virgin birth through a denial that Jesus was begotten ἐξ αἱμάτων, which includes the blood of Mary! The decision is more difficult than is generally acknowledged, and we leave it open.

d. Various attempts were made by copyists to improve the rough Gr. of v 15a. Note especially the reading of the first hand of Sinaiticus, which omits the grammatically offensive relative clause and makes a single statement: οὖτος ἦν ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν. The reading adopted in the UBS and Nestle editions of the Gr. NT should be accepted.

e. The decision as to whether μονογενὴς θεός or μονογενὴς υἰός in v 18 is the original reading is difficult. Both readings are consistent with Johannine theology, and both have good external attestation, though the support of P⁶⁶ and P⁷⁵ gives advantage to the former. The difference in the uncials would be minimal, θ ΘΣ or ΥΣ (both abbreviations were usual). While υἱός seems more natural in view of the following εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, it should, perhaps for that very reason, be viewed as the easier reading and so yield to the more difficult θεός. In that case θεός must be viewed as in apposition to μονογενὴς and be understood as “God by nature” as in v 1c (so Schnackenburg, 1:280). Lindars, in agreement, comments, “The harder reading has the merit of bringing the thought back to v 1, and so constitutes another case of the Johannine inclusio, ‘God’ her has the same meaning as ‘and the Word was God’ (1c)” (99).

Form/Structure/Setting

1. The Composition of the Prologue

The poetic quality of the prologue is observable, even in translation. C.F. Burney maintained that a retroversion of the passage into Aramaic reveals the form of a hymn consisting of eleven couplets, interspersed with comments; this hymn he saw preserved in vv 1–5, 10–11, 14, 16–17 (Aramaic Origin, 40–41). The suggestion of an Aramaic original, while accepted by Bultmann, has been widely rejected, but the basic idea of a poem concerning the Logos has found general acceptance.

Bernard’s comments are worthy of note; he pointed out that the hymn does not consist only of couplets but contains also triplets (in vv 1, 10, 18) and even single lines (vv 2, 14e); he omitted vv 16–17 from the hymn and considered that it concluded with v 18; the remaining verses give comments from the Evangelist: 6–8, 15 on the witness of John the Baptist; 12–13 correct the notion that no one recognized the Word; and 16–17 illustrate the grace and truth of 14 (I cxliv–vii).

Variations in attempts to delimit the postulated poem have strengthened the skepticism of some as to whether any such poem ever existed. Barrett, for example, prefers to describe the prologue as “rhythmical prose” (150), as also does Lindars (80–82). Interestingly, Haenchen accepts the idea of an original poem, but in his desire to recognize its freedom of construction (over against Bultmann’s postulate of couplets only) he construes the poem as “rhythmical prose”! (137). It is not difficult to observe the difference between the lyrical prose of I Cor 13 and the more formal poetry of such hymn citations as I Tim 3:16; 2 Tim 2:11–13. It is noteworthy that Phil 2:6–11 and Col 1:15–20 are closely related to the prologue in theology, and both are commonly regarded as Christological hymns. The balance of vv 1–5 in the prologue favors their origin in a hymnic composition, as also vv 10–12. But there is a tendency among scholars to restrict the further extent of the poem. Various writers wish to omit v 2 from it, on the ground that there is a smooth transition from v 1 to v 3, and that v 2 explains the application of θεός to the Logos in v 1c (so C. Demke, Logos Hymnus, 54; also Käsemann, Structure, 151; Schnackenburg, 1:227; Thyen TR [39] 58); yet these reasons are hardly strong enough to require the elimination of v 2 from the poem, and most regard 1–5 as a unity. V 9 is commonly linked with 6–8a as explanatory comment from the Evangelist. More importantly, 14–18 are frequently separated from 1–5, 10–12b on the grounds that the later verses have in mind the Sinai tradition rather than the wisdom tradition of the earlier verses, and that whereas the poem is written in the third person, 14–15 are uttered in the first person and appear to be in the nature of a confession, forming the church’s responsive praise to the affirmations of the hymn to the Logos (so Demke, ibid.; Käsemann, 150–52; Boismard, Saint Luc et la rédaction, 206–210; Thyen claims that the majority of exegetes now adhere to this position, TR [39] 222, 246). It is not an easy question to determine. Vv 1–5, 10–12b give the impression of being incomplete excerpts from the original hymn, calling for a climax such as 14 provides; 10–12b are best interpreted as relating (in the poem) to the preincarnate ministry of the Logos. anticipating the incarnation rather than being a statement of it; and v 14 consists of balanced clauses like the former verses! If indeed 14–18 are to be viewed as elements of the Church’s confession of faith, like 3:16, this would underscore what in any case is implied in the postulate of a hymn at the base of the prologue, that the theology of the Logos incarnate was not the product of a single theological genius, as the Church has generally viewed the Evangelist, but a fundamental tenet of a church (or group of churches) of which the Evangelist was a prominent leader, whose gospel is its definitive exposition.

2. The Structure of the Prologue

If from one point of view the prologue may be viewed as a poem provided with explanatory comments, from the literary viewpoint it is a closely knit composition, constructed with consummate artistry.

This latter aspect has been emphasized by some scholars, who hold that the text is the result of an intricate process, whereby an extended chiasmus has been fashioned. Attempts to display such a structure are described by R. A. Culpepper (“The Pivot of John’s Prologue,” 2–6); he himself sets forth an analysis wherein vv 1–2 are balanced by v 18, 3 by 17, 4–5 by 16,...