Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/john-the-theologian-and-his-paschal-gospel-a-prologu e-to-theology-first-edition-edition-behr/
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof
OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©JohnBehr2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018955389
ISBN978–0–19–883753–4
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
AfterIletitbeknownafewyearsagothatIwaswritingabookonJohn,Iwas oftenaskedhowmycommentaryiscomingon.Toavoiddisappointmentor confusion,Ishouldmakeitclearup-front:thisisnotacommentaryonJohn! ItisratheranattempttoputintodialoguevariousreadersofJohn,ancientand modern Fathers,especiallyfromthesecondandthirdcenturiesbutalsolater figures,andmodernscripturalscholars,theologians,andphilosophers with, ultimately,atheologicalgoal:thatofunderstandingwhatismeantbyIncarnationandhowitrelatestothePassion,howthisisconceivedofasrevelation, andhowwespeakofit,thatis,therelationshipbetweenscripturalexegesisand theologicaldiscourse.
ThegenesisofthisvolumeliesprimarilyintheworkinwhichIhavebeen engagedoverthepastdecadesontheFathersofthe firstcenturies,especially IrenaeusandOrigen.Havingmademywayinaseriesofpublicationsthrough tothecontroversiesofthesixthcentury,Irealizedthattogofurthermeant returningbackwards,toreconsiderOrigen’ s OnFirstPrinciples.Duringthe preparationofaneweditionofthatwork,Iwasalsoaskedtowriteanew volumeonIrenaeus,takingmebackevenearlier.Thisimmersioninthe literatureofearlyChristianitypersuadedmethattheywerenotreading John,andespeciallytheProloguetohisGospel,inthewaythatweoften presumetoday.Thatis,theydidnotreadthePrologueasanarrativeofa ‘ preIncarnateWord’ (aphraseIhaveyettoencounterintheFathers)who subsequentlybecomesincarnatebybeingbornintheworldtoreturnlater onthroughthePassiontotheFather,suchthat ‘Incarnation’ is ‘anepisodein thebiographyoftheWord’,asRowanWilliams(negatively)characterizedit. Indeed,somuchisthisnotthecase,thattheclassicworkdevotedtothetopic, OntheIncarnation byAthanasius,speaksofcreationashavingbeeneffected by ‘ourLordJesusChrist’ andbarelyevenmentionsthebirthofJesus!
Persuadedthatsomethingmoreisgoingon,Ibeganreadingthrough modernscripturalscholarshiponJohn,andfoundthat,evenwhilesucha pictureisoftenpresumed,freshavenuesofreflectionhaveopenedupinrecent decades,especiallywiththeworkofJohnAshtonandthosewhomhehas inspired,seeingtheGospelofJohnintermsoftheapocalypticliteratureof thelate firstcentury.Atthesametime,RussHittingerrecommendedthat Iread IAmtheTruth byMichelHenry;fascinatedbythiswork,Ifound myselfgoingevenfurtherback,thistimetomyinitialstudiesincontinental philosophy,toretracethepaththatledtoHenryandhiswork.Itisthese threadsthatarebroughttogetherinthispresentvolume.Itscentralargument
isthatIncarnationshouldbeunderstoodnotasapastevent,butastheongoing embodimentofGodinthosewhofollowChrist.
TheworkbeginswithvariousmethodologicalconsiderationsintheIntroduction,inparticularQuentinSkinner’scautionregardingthe ‘mythologyof doctrines’ andHans-GeorgGadamer’snotionofthe ‘effective-history’ always atworkintheprocessofunderstanding.Italsoconsidersbrieflywaysinwhich earlyFathersunderstoodtheidentityofJesusastheWordofGodotherthan as ‘anepisodeinabiography’,thenotionof ‘pre-existence’ and ‘incarnation’ as analysedbyHebertMcCabe,andconcludeswithasectiononthereaderswe haveinvitedtothistheologicalsymposium.PartIisdevotedtothequestionof theidentityofJohnandtheparticularcharacterofhisGospel.Itbeginsin Chapter1,buildingupontheworkofRichardBauckhamandCharlesHill,by consideringtheidentityofJohn,asheisrememberedinthesecondcentury, especiallybythosewhotracetheirlineagetohim.Ofparticularinteresthereis thattheylookbacktohimnotonlyastheauthoroftheGospel(andthe Apocalypse),butastheonewhoseobservanceofPascha,Easter,theyclaimto follow,andindeeditseemsthatinitiallytheyweretheonlyonestokeepthis feast.Chapter2picksupAshton’ssuggestionthattheGospelshouldbe understoodas ‘anapocalypse inreverse,upsidedown,insideout’ inthe lightofmorerecentworkonthesubjectofapocalypticliteratureandapocalypticism(‘themotherofallChristiantheology’,asErnstKäsemannputit), therelationshipbetweentheApocalypseattributedtoJohnandtheGospel, theparticularcharacterofhisGospelasa ‘paschalgospel’,andwhatisentailed byallthisforthedisciplineofreadingScripture asScripture.PartIIturnstothe GospelofJohn,consideringitundertwodifferentfacetsofembodimentthat are ‘finished’ atthecross:theTempleandthelivinghumanbeing,theSonof Man,thislastcategorybeingoneofthemoresignificantplaces(alongsidethe treatmentofJohn6)whereinsightsfromIrenaeusandothersarebroughtto bearuponthetextsfromJohn.The finalchapterofPartIIsuggeststhatifthe Gospelcanbeconsideredasapaschalgospel,thePrologueisbestunderstood asa ‘paschalhymn’,andoffersawayofreadingthistextverydifferenttothose usuallygiventoday,despitealltheirvariety.PartIIIexploresMichelHenry’ s readingofJohn,bringingtheworksofardevelopedintodialoguewithhisown phenomenologicalreading,givingfurtherclaritytothelifethattheWordoffers andthe fleshthattheWordbecomesandinturnclarifyingsomeaspectsof Henry’sphenomenologicalpresentationofChristianity.TheConclusiondraws our findingstogetherandofferssomesuggestionsregardingthenatureand taskoftheology.Thethreepartsofthisworkarethuseachengagedwitha differentbodyofscholarship respectively:historicalinvestigation,scriptural exegesis,andphilosophicalreflection thoughthereisofcourseoverlap, especiallybetweenthe firsttwoparts.Thesethreedifferentdisciplinesare broughttogetherwith,ultimately,aconstructivetheologicalpurpose.As such,thisworkisunderstoodasitselfaprologuetotheology.
ItshouldbenotedthatIusethetermsthe ‘Passion’ and ‘Pascha’ (‘Easter’)to refertothesingulareventembracingtheCrucifixion,Resurrection,Ascension, andPentecost.Idothisfortworeasons.First,becausethisis,aswewillsee, howthewritersoftheearlycenturiesspeak,andcontinuetodosoevenwhen, fromthefourthcenturyonwards,thissingularfeastofPaschaisrefracted,asit were,intoaspectrumofparticularfeasts.The ‘Passion’ doesnotrefer,atleast forthesewriters,tothesufferinginGesthsemaneandonthecross indistinctionto theresurrectionandthejoyitbrings:thecrossisthesignofvictory,the meansoflife,andthesourceofjoy.Thesecondreasonisthatevenwhen refractedintodifferentcommemorations,thecrucifixionandresurrectionstill holdtogetherintheunityofthesingleevent;theyare,indeed,aspectsofit. Thisisparticularlyimportantinregardtothequestionofthatmostnotable themecomingfromtheGospelofJohn,theIncarnation.Itwasmanycenturies beforeafeastofthenativitywasaddedtotheliturgicalcalendar,andwhenit is,itiscelebratedasseenthroughtheprismofthePassion,asanaspectof Pascha.Skinner’scautionregardingthemythologyofdoctrinesholdswith regardtoliturgyaswell:nowthatwehaveafullcycleofliturgicalcelebrations fromtheAnnunciationtoPentecost(andbeforeandafterthis,fortheMarian feasts),itisveryhardtothinkotherwisethanintermsofaseriesofdiscrete eventsleadingfromconceptionandbirth(thisbeingtakenasthemomentof ‘Incarnation’)todeathandresurrection.Yet,asscripturalscholarshavelong pointedout,theGospelsaretoldfromtheperspectiveoftheend.Likewise,the liturgicalyearopensoutfromPascha,the firstfeasttobecelebrated(in particular,ifnotuniquely,bythosefollowingJohn),extendingbothbackwardsandforwards.Pascha,bothhistoricallyandtheologically,thiswork argues,isthestartingpointandregisterinwhichtoheartheGospelofJohn andalsoitsPrologue.ItisonlymorerecentlythattheProloguehascometobe readastheChristmasreading,reinforcingtheideathat ‘Incarnation’ canbe separatedfromthePassion:intheWesterntradition,fromaroundthethirteenthcentury,itwasthereading,the ‘secondgospel’,thatconcludedthe celebrationoftheMass,theWordbecoming fleshinthebreadoftheeucharisticcelebrationandinthecommunicant;intheEasterntradition(inwhich Istand),itisthePaschalreading,readatthemidnightliturgy,thetransition fromdarknesstolight aPaschalhymnandaprologuetotheology.
Thisworkhasbeenmanyyearsinpreparation,andsothereareagreat manypeopletothank.Theseedfortheideasweredevelopedinaseminar IgaveatStVladimir’sSeminaryonthePaschalChrist;thequestionsaskedby thestudentsandtheensuingdiscussionwereinstrumentalinhelpingshape theworkinitsinitialstages.Astheworkdeveloped,Ibenefittedconsiderably frommanycolleagues,especially:BishopSuriel,ConorCunningham,Crina Gschwandtner,PhilipKariatlis,AndrewLouth,GeorgeParsenios,PaulSaieg, andRichardSchneider.Ihadtheopportunitytopresentakeypartofmywork asmyinaugurallectureastheMetropolitanKallistos(Ware)Chairof
OrthodoxTheologyattheVrijeUniversiteitinAmsterdam,andIthankmy colleaguesthereforthehonourofappointingmetothisChairandforthe feedbacktheygavemeduringawonderfulseminar.Ialsohadtheopportunity topresenttheworkasawholetomembersoftheUniversityofDivinityin Sydneyand,inMoscow,tomembersoftheSaintsCyrilandMethodius PostgraduateSchoolandtheStPhilaret’sInstitute,andtotheCommunity oftheServantsoftheWillofGodinCrawleyDown,andbenefittedconsiderablyfromthewide-rangingdiscussionstheseopportunitiesgenerated.No workofthisscale,ofcourse,couldbecompletedwithoutthesupportof librarians;IthankEleanaSilkforallthematerialsthatshetrackeddown forme.MygratitudeisalsoowedtoTomPerridge,atOxfordUniversity Press,forhisencouragementregardingthisworkoverthepastyears,andto allthoseatthePresswhohavehelpedseethisworkintoprint.Thiswork, furthermore,hasbene fittedimmenselyfromthevariousreaders’ reports: theirinput,especiallywhentheworkwasstillinprocess,wasvitalinhelping focusandsharpentheargumentsdevelopedtherein.Lastly,thisbookis dedicatedtotwocolleagues,indifferentcapacities,andfriends JohnBarnet andLeonLysaght withoutwhosesupportandencouragementoverthepast yearsthisworkwouldneverhavebeenwritten.
AbbreviationsforclassicalandPatristictextsarethosefoundinthefollowing: TheSBLHandbookofStyleforAncientNearEastern,BiblicalandEarlyChristian Studies,ed.P.H.Alexanderetal.(Peabody,MA:Hendrickson,1999).
Fortextsnotlistedinthishandbook,thefollowinghavebeenused: H.G.LiddellandR.Scott, AGreek-EnglishLexicon,rev.H.S.Joneswith R.McKenzie,9thedn,withrevisedsupplement(Oxford:ClarendonPress,1996). G.W.Lampe, APatristicGreekLexicon (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1961).
ScripturalreferenceshavebeengivenaccordingtotheLXX;thisprincipallyaffectsthe numerationofthePsalmsandthenamingof1and2Samueland1and2Kingsas1–4 Kingdoms.
ACWAncientChristianWriters
ANFAnte-NiceneFathers
ATANTAbhandlungzurTheologiedesAltenundNeuenTestaments
BBETBeiträgezurbiblischenExegeseundTheologie
BETBibicalExegesisandTheology
BETLBibliotecaEphemeridumTheologicarumLovaniensum
BISBiblicalInterpretationSeries
BJSBrownJudaicStudies
BZBiblischeZeitschrift
BZNWBeiheftezurZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft
CBQCatholicBiblicalQuarterly
CBRCurrentsinBiblicalResearch
CCSGCorpusChristianorum:SeriesGraeca
CCSLCorpusChristianorum:SeriesLatina
CHChurchHistory
CRINTCompendiaRerumIudaicarumadNovumTestamentum
CSCOCorpusScriptorumChristianorumOrientalum
CSELCorpusScriptorumEcclesiasticorumLatinorum
CSHBCorpusScriptorumHistoriaeByzantinae
ETEnglishtranslation
ExpTimExpositoryTimes
FCFathersoftheChurch
FRLANTForschungenzurReligionundLiteraturdesAltenundNeuenTestaments
GCSDiegriechischenchristlichenSchriftstellerderersten[drei]Jarhunderte
GNOGregoriiNysseniOpera
GOTRGreekOrthodoxTheologicalReview
HSSHarvardSemiticStudies
HTRHarvardTheologicalReview
JBLJournalofBiblicalLiterature
JECSJournalofEarlyChristianStudies
JETSJournaloftheEvangelicalTheologicalSociety
JSJJournalfortheStudyofJudaism
JSNTJournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament
JSNTSupJournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestamentSupplementSeries
JSOTJournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestament
JSOTSupJournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestamentSupplementSeries
JTSJournalofTheologicalStudies
LCLLoebClassicalLibrary
LNTSLibraryofNewTestamentStudies
LSJHenryGeorgeLiddellandRobertScott,revisedbyHenryStuartJones, AGreek-EnglishLexicon (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1996)
LXXSeptuagint
MansiJ.D.Mansi,ed., Sacrorumconciliorumnovaetamplissimacollectio (Florence,1759–98)
MTMasoreticText
NFNeueFolge
NovTNovumTestamentum
NPNFNiceneandPostNiceneFathers
NTSNewTestamentStudies
OCAOrientaliaChristianaAnalecta
OCPOrientaliaChristianaPeriodica
OECSOxfordEarlyChristianStudies
OECTOxfordEarlyChristianTexts
PGPatrologiaGraeca
PLPatrologiaLatina
POPatrologiaOrientalis
PPSPopularPatristicSeries
PTSPatristischeTexteundStudien
RBRevuebiblique
RevistBRevistabíblica
RSRRecherchesdessciencereligieuse
SBLSocietyofBiblicalLiterature
SBLMSSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureMonographSeries
SBLSPSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureSeminarPapers
SBLDSSocietyofBiblicalLiteratureDissertationSeries
SCSourceschrétiennes
SJLAStudiesinJudaisminLateAntiquity
SJTScottishJournalofTheology
SNTSMSSocietyforNewTestamentStudiesMonographSeries
SPCKSocietyforthePromotionofChristianKnowledge
STIStudiesinTheologicalInterpretation
SupNovTSupplementstoNovumTestamentum
SupVCSupplementstoVigiliaeChristianae
SVTQStVladimir’sTheologicalQuarterly
TDNTTheologicalDictionaryoftheNewTestament.Ed.G.Kitteland
G.Friedrich;ETG.W.Bromiley,10vols.(GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans, 1964–76)
TUTexteundUntersuchungen
VCVigiliaeChristianae
WGRWWritingsfromtheGreco-RomanWorld
WMANTWissenschaftlicheMonographienzumAltenandNeuenTestament
WTJWestminsterTheologicalJournal
WUNTWissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzumNeuenTestament
ZACZeitschriftfürAntikesChristentum
ZKTZeitschriftfürkatholischeTheologie
ZNWZeitschriftfürdieneutestamentlicheWissenschaftunddieKundeder älterenKirche
ὁδὸς ἄνωκάτωμίακαὶὡυτή
Thewayupanddownisoneandthesame Heraclitus,61[F38]
Ἐπεὶ γὰροὖν ἐγί γνετ᾽ἄνθρωποςθεὸς θεὸςτελεῖτ᾽ἄνθρωποςεἰ ςτιμὴν ἐμήν·
SincethenGodbecamehuman thehumanendsupasGodtomyhonour.
GregorytheTheologian, CarminaDogmatica 1.1.10, Deincarnatione,adversusApollinarium (PG37.465a)
Ἀλλὰ μυστικῶςτῷῥ ητῷ τῆς ἱστορίαςτὸ τῆςθεωρίας ἄρρητον ὁ μέγας ἐξέδωκεδιὰ τοῦ
Tobesure,thegreatEvangelistJohn,throughtheSpirit,mysticallygave theliteralwordofthenarrativethewordlesscharacterofacontemplation, sothatthroughithemightguideourintellecttothetruthofitsintelligible meaning.
Christiantheology,asweknowit,isinconceivablewithouttheGospelofJohn andespeciallyitsPrologue.Withinacenturyorsoafteritscomposition,itwas describedas ‘thespiritualgospel’ andinthefollowingcenturiesitsauthorwas referredtosimplyas ‘thetheologian’.Itsopeninglinespresentthebasic lineamentsofChristiantheologythereafter,instrikingandbeguilinglysimple words.ItbeginswiththeWordinthebeginning,withGod,andasGod.All thingsweremadebyhim,wearetold,theonewhoisthelifeandlightofall humanbeings,shininginthedarknessofthisworld,butnotovercomebyit.
AfterafewlinesaboutJohntheBaptist,whichmanyscholarsthinkarelater additionstoanoriginalpoemorhymnabouttheWord,wehearthatthe Wordbecame flesh,enablingustoseehisglory,fullofgraceandtruth,by whichwearegiventhepossibilityofbeingbornofGod.Afterfurtherwords abouttheBaptist,alsopossiblyaddedlater,thisshorttextconcludesthat, whiletheLawwasgiventhroughMoses,graceandtruthhavecomethrough JesusChrist(nowmentionedbynameforthe firsttime),andso,althoughno onehaseverseenGod,theonly-begottenGod,restinginthebosomofthe Father,hasnow,nevertheless,madehimknown.TheWord,withGodandas God,andthebecoming fleshofthisWord,statedhereinsimpleandbeautiful prose,arethekeypointsthattheologywouldgrapplewithinsubsequent centuries,incontroversiesthatresultedinimperiallyconvokedworld-wide councilswhichdefined,dogmatically,thechiefarticlesoftheChristianfaith: TrinityandIncarnation.
ThisdramaticopeningtotheFourthGospel,beginninginthedivinerealm ratherthanonearth,isquiteunlikethatoftheotherthreecanonicalGospels, anditsuniquenesscontinuesinthenarrativethatfollows.For,unlikethe Synoptics,theChristwhoappearsonthepagesofJohnmanifeststhegloryof Godateverypoint,suchthatErnstKäsemannwouldnotoriouslydescribehim
as ‘aGodstridingovertheearth’.¹HefurtherassertsthatthePassionisbut ‘ a merepostscript[totheGospel]whichhadtobeincludedbecauseJohncould notignorethistraditionnoryetcouldhe fititorganicallyintohiswork’,and sodecriestheGospelaslittlemorethan ‘naïveDocetism’.²Andyet,inthis Gospel,asLukeTimothyJohnsonpointsout,Jesusoftenappearsmorehuman thanintheothers:herealonehehasfriendsandevencriesatthedeathofone ofthem.³WritingoverhalfacenturybeforeKäsemann,Harnack,inwords echoedbyKäsemann,statedtheparadox,andproblem,forcefully:
Lookingatitfromaliterary-andsystematic-historicalstandpoint,theformation ofJohn’sGospelisincidentallythegreatestriddlethatChristianity’smostancient historyoffers:ItdepictsaChristwhoputstheindescribableintowordsand proclaimsashisownwitnesswhatistheverybasisofthiswitnessandwhathis disciplessensedofhim:aPaulineChristwalkingupontheearth,speakingand acting,farmorehumanthanthatoneandyetfarmoredivine,[with]an abundanceofconnectionstothehistoricalJesus,yetatthesametimethemost sovereigntreatmentanddisplacementofhistory.⁴
TheGospel,Harnackcontinues,reachesitapogeeintheseventeenthchapter, thechapterthatKäsemannfocuseduponinhisstudy:here ‘onefeelsthatitis Christwhoawokeinthedisciplewhathehasreturnedtohiminwords.But wordanddeed,historyanddoctrineareenvelopedinthelightmistofwhatis ecclesial-historical,trans-historical,butalsoun-historicalandspectral,while embeddedinahardandunrealcontrast’.OveracenturylaterthanHarnack, BartEhrmancametoasimilarconclusion,describinghisshockathisrealization,afterreadingonlytheSynopticsforthreeyearsandthenturningto theGospelofJohn(‘InGreek.Inonesitting’,noless!),thathereJesushimself hasbeenelided,forhiswords ‘arenotJesus’swords;theyareJohn’swords placedonJesus’slips’.Itisthisrewritingofhistory,andofJesushimself,that enablesJohn,Ehrmanasserts,tomake ‘baldstatementsthatequateJesuswith Godandsaythathewasapre-existentdivinebeingwhocameintothe world ... [that]JesuswasequalwithGodandevensharedhisnameandhis gloryinhispreincarnatestate’ . ⁵ TheGospel,itsorigins,presentationofthe
¹ErnstKäsemann, TheTestamentofJesus:AStudyoftheGospelintheLightofChapter17, trans.GerhardKrodel(Philadelphia:Fortress,1968[German1966]),9(‘schreitend’,translated byKrodel,as ‘goingabout’).InanearlierarticleKäsemannhadspokenofChrist,inJohn,as ‘walking’ (wandelnd): ‘AufbauundAnliegendesjohanneischenProlog’,inWalterMatthiasand ErnestWolf,eds, LibertasChristiana:FriedrichDelekatzum65.Geburtstag,Beiträgezur evangelischenTheologie26(Munich:Kaiser,1957),75–99.
²Käsemann, Testament,7,26.
³LukeTimothyJohnson, TheRealJesus:TheMisguidedQuestfortheHistoricalJesusandthe TruthoftheTraditionalGospels (SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,1997),156.
⁴ AdolfvonHarnack, LehrbuchderDogmengeschichte ,4thedn(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft,1964[Tübingen1909]),1.108(Prolegomena,§5,Zusatz4).
⁵ BartD.Ehrman, HowJesusBecameGod:TheExaltationofaJewishPreacherfromGalilee (SanFrancisco:HarperCollins,2014),270–1.
humanityofChrist,andindeedwhatitistobehuman,andalsoitshandling ofhistoryandtheology,timeandeternity,remainverymuchariddle, ‘the greatestriddle’ ofearlyChristianity.
Andyet,thereisunanimousagreementthattheGospelofJohnistheprime exampleofa ‘highChristology’:itbegins ‘fromabove’,withadivinepreexistent figure,theWord,whothenbecomesahumanbeinginourowntime, thoughnowintimespast.Duringthelastcenturythiswasoftenviewedasa betrayaloftheactualhuman figureofJesusandthe ‘lowChristology’ of primitiveChristianity.Morerecentscholarship,however,hasbecomeincreasinglyawareofthecomplexworld,orworlds,ofancientJudaism,andthe backgroundofearlyChristianityinSecondTempleJudaism,itsliturgy,and its,oftenapocalyptic,mysticism,andithasbecomemoreaccustomedtoliving in(oratleastthinkingintermsof)aworldinwhichdivineheavenly figures mightdescendfromaboveorvisionariesandmysticsmightascendfrom below.ItiscertainlythecasethatsomeoftheearliestChristianproclamations spokeofthecrucifiedJesusbeing ‘madeLordandChrist’ (Acts2:36)orbeing appointedtodivinesonshipathisresurrection(Rom.1:3–4).Butitisnow generallyacceptedthatitisnotthecasethatanoriginally ‘lowChristology’ developedovertimeintoa ‘highChristology’,forsomekindofdivinepreexistencewasascribedtoChrist,ifnotfromtheverybeginning,thenatleast fromtheearliestChristianwritingswehave,thelettersofPaul:whetherasone who,whilebeing ‘intheformofGod’ , ‘loweredhimself ’ bytakingontheform ofaservantandundergoingcrucifixion,tothenbeingexalted,orhyperexalted, tobeartheverydivinenameitself(Phil.2:5–11),orastheagentofcreation (1Cor.8:6),orasthespiritualrock,providingspiritualwaterstotheIsraelites inthewilderness(1Cor.10:4),orthehumanbeingwhocame ‘fromheaven’ , ratherthanfromtheearthasdidAdam(1Cor.15:47),onewhoisperhapsan ‘angelofGod’ (Gal.4:14).⁶ Moreover,thispre-existentdivinebeingdidnot simplyappearamongus,butwasaffirmedtohavebeen ‘bornofawoman’ (Gal.4:4).Andyet,evenacknowledgingthatthepre-existenceofChristwas affirmedearlierthanhadearlierbeenthought,itisclearthatJohnhastakena furtherstep:thispre-existentdivinebeingishimselfnolessthanGodwith God,andbecomesincarnatetodwellamongusonearth,as,inRowan Williams’ arrestingphrase, ‘anepisodeinthebiographyoftheWord’ , ⁷ before
⁶ Theliteraturejustfromrecentdecadesisimmense.Foracomprehensiveandcompelling presentation,andreferencestoanabundanceofsecondaryliterature,seeLarryHurtado, Lord JesusChrist:DevotiontoJesusinEarliestChristianity (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2003)and LarryHurtado, AncientJewishMonotheismandEarlyChristianJesus-Devotion:TheContextand CharacterofChristologicalFaith,LibraryofEarlyChristianity(Waco,TX:BaylorUniversity Press,2017);andRichardBauckham, JesusandtheGodofIsrael:GodCrucifiedandOtherStudies ontheNewTestament’sChristologyofDivineIdentity (GrandRapids,MI:Eerdmans,2008).
⁷ RowanWilliams, Arius:HeresyandTradition,2ndedn(London:SCMPress,2001[1987]), 244;thecontextofthisphraseisnegative,forreasonswewillconsiderinthesecondsectionof thischapter.
returningtoheaven,takinghishumannaturewithhim. ‘IncarnationalChristology’ beginswiththePrologueofJohn,and,itisheld,quicklycomesto predominate,replacinganexaltationmodelastoolowaviewoftheSonand WordofGod.
SofertileistheGospelofJohnthatitwasthe firstGospeltoreceivea commentary,alreadyinthesecondcentury,andofcourseinnumerabletimes thereafterthroughouttheages.Sowhatmorecanbesaid?Asitturnsout,there ismuchmoretobesaid.Johanninescholarship,aswewillsee,hasdeveloped remarkablyoverthelastcoupleofdecades,inwhatconstitutesnothingless thanacompleteparadigmshift.ForemosthereisJohnAshton,whosebook UnderstandingtheFourthGospel hasbecomealandmarkandtheauthor himselfcharacterizedas ‘oneofthejuggernautsofJohanninescholarship’ . ⁸ Inthe firsteditionofhiswork,the firstpartofthebookwasdevotedto reviewingthepreviouscenturyofJohanninescholarship,aspanthatAshton dividesaroundthe figureofRudolfBultmann—‘BeforeBultmann’ and ‘After Bultmann’—themostimportantofalltwentieth-centuryJohanninescholars.⁹ Itisperhapsnottoofar-fetchedtosaythatAshton’sownworkisalsosucha turningpoint,sothatworkhereafterwillbedescribedas ‘AfterAshton’ . Buildinguponrecentscholarship,inparticularthatofJ.LouisMartyn,and drawingupontherevivalofinterestinapocalypticism,Ashtonconcludedthat ‘thefourthevangelistconceivesofhisownworkasanapocalypse inreverse, upsidedown,insideout’.¹⁰ Thisisindeedafascinatingsuggestion,andone thatwewillexplorefurtherinsubsequentchapters.Andyet,whiletakingback someofhispreviousclaimsabouttheGospelasanapocalypse,Ashton concludesthemorerecent,popularversionofhiswork,byassertingthat ‘despitewhatseemstobeageneralconsensusamongJohanninescholarsthe fourthevangelistwasnotatheologian’,not,atleast,ifbythatonemeans someonerationallyreflectingaboutGodorworkingout ‘aconsistentand satisfactoryChristology’.¹¹
Andhere’stherub.WhatarewetomakeofthisGospelanditsauthor:ishe, orishenot,atheologian?Howdowereadthisapparentlymostsimple,and yetmostperplexingofGospels?Whatarewetomakeofhis ‘incarnational’ theology?Whatismeantby ‘Incarnation’ anyway,despiteitbeingsucha beguilinglyeasyconcepttouse?WhoisthisWordandwhatisthe ‘flesh’ that theWordbecomes?IsitreallythecasethatthePassionisuneasilyappended totheGospelasamerenodtotradition,anddoesan ‘incarnational’
⁸ ThewordsarethoseofTomThatcher,quotedbyJohnAshtonin, ‘SecondThoughtsonthe FourthGospel’,inTomThatcher,ed., WhatWeHaveHeardfromtheBeginning:ThePast,Present, andFutureofJohannineScholarship (WacoTX:BaylorUniversityPress,2007),1–18,at1.
⁹ JohnAshton, UnderstandingtheFourthGospel (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1991).
¹⁰ JohnAshton, UnderstandingtheFourthGospel,newedn.(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2007),328–9.HereafterIwillbereferringtothisedition.
¹¹JohnAshton, TheGospelofJohnandChristianOrigins (Fortress,2014),201.
ChristologyreallyreplaceonefocusedonthePassionandexaltation?Andif heistoberecognizedas ‘atheologian’,ormorecorrectly ‘the theologian’,what doesthismeanforourunderstandingofChristiantheologyandthenatureof itsdiscourse?Thesearethequestionsthatthisbookaddresses,andits argumentisthattheGospel,togetherwithitsPrologue,infactpivotsupon thePassion itisa ‘paschalgospel’—suchthatthebecoming fleshoftheWord speaksnotofthebirthofa ‘pre-incarnateWord’,butofJesus’ ascendingthe crosstotheFathertobeidentifiedastheapocalypticSonofManwhose fleshis inturnbroughtdownfromheaventobeeaten,sothathedwellsinthosewho seehisgloryandwhothemselvestakeupthecrosstobecomehiswitnesses, bornofGodintheirownmartyrdomandbornintolifeaslivinghuman beings,thegloryofGod,thecompletionoftheTemple,andperfectionof God’sstatedpurposeintheopeningchapterofScripture,thatis,tomake humanbeingsinhisimage.TheIncarnation,inbrief,isnot ‘anepisodeina biography’,aneventnowinthepast,buttheongoingembodimentofGodin thosewhofollowChrist.Thisisaboldargumentanditfurtherentails,aswe willsee,carefulattentiontohowScriptureisread asScripture andwhatwe understandtobethenatureofthediscourseoftheology.
But,beforewecanturntoJohnandhisGospel,weneed firsttoconsider carefullywherewestandinsuchaninvestigation,andinparticularhowour ownpresuppositionsforreadinghim,andindeedhisearlyreaders,havebeen shapedbythecenturiesoftheologicalreflectionthatfollowed.Wewillbegin thistaskwithsomemethodologicalconsiderations,drawingespeciallyfrom QuentinSkinnerandhiscautionabout ‘themythologyofdoctrines’,and Hans-GeorgGadamerandtheroleoftraditioninunderstanding,andlook atsomeexamplesofhowneglectofthishasadverselyaffectedstudiesof earlyChristiantheologyanditsrelationtoscripturalexegesis.Wewillthen turn,insectiontwo,toconsiderhowthe ‘mythologyofdoctrines’ hasledto arathermythologicalunderstandingof ‘Incarnation ’ bywayofaprovocative essaywrittenbyHerbertMcCabeandsomefurtherexamplesfromtheearly centuriesofhowtheidentityofJesusastheWordofGodwasthought otherwisethanasan ‘episodeinabiography’.Thischapterconcludeswitha thirdsectionconsideringthedifferentkindofreadersofJohnwhoare broughtintodialogueinthisvolumeandtheconstructivetheologicalproject tobeaccomplished.
Thepicturedescribedintheopeningparagraphofthischapterisreadily recognizabletoallwithevenonlyapassingacquaintancewiththeChristian faith.TheWordofGod,whoiswithGodfromalleternity,atacertain
momentintimebecame flesh,becomingincarnateasahumanbeing(presumablybybeingbornoftheVirginMary,althoughtheProloguedoesnotin factmentionabirthanymorethantheinfancynarrativesinMatthewand Luke,recountingthebirthoftheSonofGod,mentiontheWordofGod)and, afterfulfillinghisworkuponearth,thenreturnstotheFatherbyascending, withhishumanity,tothedivinerealm,sothattheIncarnationis ‘anepisodein thebiographyoftheWord’.Putthisway,the ‘Incarnation’,alongwiththe Trinity foritisthesecondpersonoftheTrinitywhobecomesincarnate is presupposedasastandardarticleofChristiandoctrine.Sostrongisthis presuppositionthatitisalmostinconceivabletothinkofChristiantheology withoutit.
ButpreciselyforthisreasonduecautionisneededwhenreadingtheGospel ofJohn,andindeedotherearlyChristiantextscontributingtothehistoryof Christiantheology.ParticularlyhelpfulhereisQuentinSkinner’sanalysisof thevariousmythologies,especially ‘themythologyofdoctrine’,thatoperate whenduecareisnottaken.¹²Althoughhisconcernisprimarilywithearly modernsocialandpoliticalthought,hiscommentsarealsosalutaryfor theologicalinvestigation.By ‘themythologyofdoctrines’,Skinnermeans ‘theexpectationthateachclassicwriter ... willbefoundtoenunciatesome doctrineoneachofthetopicsregardedasconstitutiveofthesubject’.¹³Itis impossibletostudyanytextwithoutbringingourownexpectationsandprejudgementsaboutwhatisbeingsaidinthetext,for,asSkinneracknowledges, ‘themodelsandpreconceptionsintermsofwhichweunavoidablyorganise andadjustourperceptionsandthoughtswillthemselvestendtoactas determinantsofwhatwethinkandperceive’.¹⁴ However,theproblemthis raisesforintellectualhistoryisthat ‘ourexpectationsaboutwhatsomeone mustbesayingordoingwillthemselvesdeterminethatweunderstandthe agenttobedoingsomethingwhichtheywouldnot orevencouldnot have acceptedasanaccountofwhatthey were doing’.¹⁵ Presumingthatourwayof organizingorclassifyingourunderstandingofadisciplineanditscomponent elements,our ‘paradigm’ touseKuhn’sword,isessentialtothediscipline itself,assomekindofeternally fixedconstellationofthemesinwhichevery previouswriterhasalsoworked,istolabourundera ‘mythologyofdoctrines’ . Doingsoleadsintovarioushistoricalabsurdities.Thereis,forinstance, ‘the dangerofconvertingsomescatteredorincidentalremarksbyclassictheorists intotheir “doctrine” ononeoftheexpectedthemes’,oftenresultingintheclaim thatwritersheldaviewaboutsomethingwhich,inprinciple,theycannothave
¹²QuentinSkinner, ‘MeaningandUnderstandingintheHistoryofIdeas’ , HistoryandTheory 8(1969),3–53;reprintedinamuchabbreviatedandextensivelyrevisedversioninQuentin Skinner, VisionsofPolitics,vol.1, RegardingMethod (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2002),57–89;itistothislatterversionthatIwillrefer.
¹³Skinner, ‘Meaning’,59.¹⁴ Ibid.58.¹⁵ Ibid.59,italicsoriginal.
possiblymeant,oralternatively,havingassumedthattheydidindeedmeanto giveanaccountofacertaindoctrine,thehistorianislefttoexplainwhythey failedtodosoandtoreconstructtheirunderstandingofthedoctrine ‘from guessesandhints’.¹⁶ Ideasanddoctrineshavebeen ‘hypostasisedintoanentity’ sothat ‘itbecomesalltooeasytospeakasifthedevelopedformofthedoctrine hasalwaysinsomesensebeenimminentinhistory’,whiletheactualthinking agentdropsoutofsight ‘asideasgettodobattleontheirownbehalf ’.¹⁷ When investigationofaclassictextproceedsbyelaboratingtheauthor’sdoctrinesof eachofthethemesassumedtobepropertothesubject,the ‘mythologyof coherence’ arises,inwhichthehistoriansuppliesthetextswithacoherencethat ispresupposedbutwhichthetextsinfactlack.Suchinvestigations,Skinner notes,arehabituallyphrasedintermsofeffortandquest: ‘Theambitionis alwaysto “arrive” at “aunifiedinterpretation”,to “gain” a “coherentviewofan author’ssystem”’,butwhichtheymayneverevenhavehadinview.¹⁸ Initsmost extremeform,itleadsto ‘theassumptionthatitmaybequiteproper,inthe interestsofextractingamessageofmaximumcoherence,todiscountstatements ofintentionthattheauthorsthemselvesmakeaboutwhattheyaredoing,or eventodiscountwholeworksthatmayseemtoimpairthecoherenceoftheir systemsofthought’.¹⁹ Wewillseelaterinthissectionjustsuchanexampleand onepertainingtotheclassicworkonourtopic,Athanasius’ OntheIncarnation. Takinghisargumentfurther,Skinnerrehabilitatesanuancednotionof authorialintentormeaning.Unlesssuchmeaningistakenintoaccount, Skinnerargues,afurthermythologyarises,thatofprolepsisoranticipation. Thisisgenerated,asSkinnerputsit, ‘whenwearemoreinterestedinthe retrospectivesignificanceofagivenepisodethanitsmeaningfortheagentat thetime’.²⁰ SkinnergivestheexampleofPetrarch’sascentofMountVentoux, whichisroutinelydescribedasthedawningoftheageoftheRenaissance;we couldeasilysubstitutetheequallyroutineassertionthatsomepre-Nicene writeranticipatedthecreedofNicaea,asifthatiswhattheywereaimingat allalong.Itiscertainlytruethatanauthormayhavepennedsomethingthat latercomestohavegreatersignificancethanwasknownatthetimeofwriting, butthatcannotbeusedtounderstandwhattheauthorintendedbysowriting, for,asSkinnerpointsout, ‘anyplausibleaccountofwhattheagentmeantmust necessarilyfallunder,andmakeuseof,therangeofdescriptionsthattheagent couldinprinciplehaveappliedtodescribeandclassifywhatheorshewas sayingordoing’.²¹Tostrengthenthisappealtoauthorialintentorintended meaning,SkinnerdrawsuponWittgensteinandJ.L.Austin,tofocusthe appealnotoninaccessiblementalacts(asisoftencaricaturedinthefashionablerejectionof ‘authorialintent’)butontextsasintentionalandmeaningful
actsofcommunication.²²Anyadequateaccountofsuchtextsmustincludenot onlyanexpositionofthetextwithinthehistoricalcontextofmeaningin whichtheauthorwrote,what ‘theymayhavemeantbysayingwhatwas said’,²³butalsotherhetoricalstrategiesemployedbytheauthor,whatthey are doing bywriting,andthequestionstowhichtheyareresponding.²⁴
Havingdismantledtheideathatthereare ‘ideas’ or ‘doctrines’,asquasihypostasizedmetaphysical(andmythological)entities,towhichindividual writershave ‘contributed’ (andaretherebyelidedasthinkingagentsintheir ownright),Skinnercomments:
assoonasweseethatthere is nodeterminateideatowhichvariouswriters contributed,butonlyavarietyofstatementsmadebyavarietyofdifferentagents withavarietyofdifferentintentions,whatweareseeingisthatthereisnohistory oftheideatobewritten.Thereisonlyahistoryofitsvarioususes,andofthe varyingintentionswithwhichitwasused.²⁵
Inconcludinghisessay,Skinnerofferstwopositiveresults.First,regarding method: ‘Tounderstandatextmustatleastbetounderstandboththe intentiontobeunderstoodandtheintentionthatthisintentionbeunderstood,whichthetextasanintendedactofcommunicationmusthaveembodied’.²⁶ Thesecondisthepossibilityofthedialoguewithancienttextsthat thisopensup.Onlyonceweacceptthatthereareno ‘perennialproblems’ that arebeingaddressedbyclassicaltexts,butthattheyareconcernedwiththeir ownquestionsandnotours,areweabletohaveourpredeterminedsetof prejudicesandpresuppositionsprisedopen.Thecommonplacethat ‘ ourown societyplacesunrecognizedconstraintsuponourimagination’ needstobe matched,Skinnerasserts,bywhatshouldalsobeacommonplace: ‘thatthe historicalstudyofthebeliefsofothersocietiesshouldbeundertakenas oneoftheindispensibleandirreplaceablemeansofplacinglimitsonthose constraints’ .²⁷ Classicaltexts,then,shouldbestudiednotto findanswersto ourownquestions,buttohearothervoicesinanopendialogue,andsoto growinourownunderstanding.Therootproblemofa ‘historyofideas’ , then,isnotsimplyamethodologicalfallacybut ‘somethinglikeamoral error ’ : ‘tolearnfromthepast andwecannototherwiselearnatall the distinctionbetweenwhatisnecessaryandwhatiscontingentlytheproduct ofourownlocalarrangementsistolearnoneofthekeystoself-awareness itself ’.²⁸ Itisjustsuchadialogue,bringingdifferentreadersofJohntogether, thatthisworkaimstohold.
²²Thisismorefullydevelopedinchapters5and6of RegardingMethod, ‘Motives,Intentions andInterpretation’ and ‘InterpretationandtheUnderstandingofSpeechActs’ respectively, whichalsoreviseandexpandearlieressays.
²³Skinner, ‘Meaning’,79.²⁴ Cf.Ibid.82.²⁵ Ibid.²⁶ Ibid.86.
²⁷ Ibid.89.²⁸ Ibid.
Introduction:TheGospelofJohnandChristianTheology
ThestrongpositiontakenbySkinnerhas,ofcourse,comeinforcriticism. ElizabethClarkhighlightsthreeareasofconcern.²⁹ Firstishisunderstanding ofwrittentextsonthebasisofspeech-acts,drawingfromJ.L.Austin,butnot engagingwithDerrideanclaimsforthepriorityofwriting.Thesecondishis emphasisontheimportanceofcontextforunderstandingtexts,takingtheir contextasprimarilylinguisticandtheoreticalratherthansocialoreconomic. And,third,hisappealtoauthorialintent,evenifnotintermsofaccessingan innerpsychologicalactoftheauthor,butanintentnevertheless,onethatis embodiedinthetextitself.Respondingtosuchcriticism,Skinneracknowledgesthatthereisalwaysasurplusofmeaningtoatext,andthatameaning maywellbefoundinthetextwhichtheauthorneverintended.³⁰ YetSkinner maintainsthepointthatauthorswereneverthelessstilldoingsomething meaningfulincomposingtheirtexts,a ‘linguisticaction’ thatisdiscernible onthebasisofourknowledgeofhowwordswereusedinparticularepochs. This,Itakeit,isindeedameaningfultask,withoutwhichnoserioushistorical orexegeticalworkcouldbeundertaken,or,forthatmatter,anykindof conversation.Itdoesnotmean,however,thatthegoalissimplytouncover the ‘original’ (andthussupposedly ‘correct’)meaningoftheauthor,inthis caseJohnandhisGospel,but,byallowingourownpresuppositionstobe exposedandtherebygrowinginself-awarenessindialoguewithancient readers(whosehorizonwasclosertothatoftheauthorthanourown)as wellasmodernreaders,tohearmoreadequatelyafoundationaltextof Christiantheologyasfaraspossibleandperhapsevento(continueto)draw newwineoutofoldskins,asindeedeveryreadingdoes,thoughsomemore adequatelythanothers.
Themostthoroughandinfluentialanalysisofthehermeneuticissues involvedinsuchreading,asadialoguebetweenancientvoicesandourown, isthatofHans-GeorgGadamerinhiswork TruthandMethod.³¹Heemphasizestheimportanceofrecognizingthe Wirkungsgeschichte,the ‘historyof effect’ or ‘effectivehistory’,alwaysatworkinthetaskofinterpretingtextsand attainingunderstanding.Wecannot,indeed,totallydetachourselvesfromour ownhistoricalcontexttoreachback,withoutanypresuppositions,toa differentperiodtounderstanditsolelywithintheoriginalcontextandwith
²⁹ ElizabethA.Clark, History,Theory,Text:HistoriansandtheLinguisticTurn (Cambridge MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004),138–9,and130–55moregenerally,andthereferences giventhereforfurtherdiscussion.
³⁰ Cf.QuentinSkinner, ‘AReplytoMyCritics’,inJamesTully,ed., MeaningandContext: QuentinSkinnerandHisCritics (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),231–88,at 269–72.
³¹Hans-GeorgGadamer, WahrheitundMethode:Grundzügeeinerphilosophischen Hermeneutik,6thedn(Tübingen:MohrSiebeck,1990); TruthandMethod,2ndrev.edn,with revisedETJoelWeinsheimerandDonaldG.Marshall(London:Continuum,2004).Forashort, butexcellent,studyoftheimportanceofGadamer’shermeneuticsfortheology,seeAndrewLouth, DiscerningtheMystery:AnEssayontheNatureofTheology (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1983).
themeaningofanygivenauthor.Texts,hepointsout,arealwaysmediatedto usthroughthehistoricalprocessofreception,thatis,tradition.Butfarfrom traditionbeingahindrancetounderstanding,itisinfactwhatmakesunderstandingpossibleatall.Thehermeneuticcircle,asGadamerexplains,
isneithersubjectivenorobjective,butdescribesunderstandingastheinterplayof themovementoftraditionandthemovementoftheinterpreter.Theanticipation ofmeaningthatgovernsourunderstandingofatextisnotanactofsubjectivity, butproceedsfromthecommonalitythatbindsustothetradition.Butthis commonalityisconstantlybeingformedinourrelationtotradition.Tradition isnotsimplyapermanentprecondition;rather,weproduceitourselvesinasmuch asweunderstand,participateintheevolutionoftradition,andhencefurther determineitourselves.Thusthecircleofunderstandingisnota ‘methodological’ circle,butdescribesanelementoftheontologicalstructureofunderstanding.³²
Understanding,inGadamer’saccount,takesplacethroughthemediationof differenthorizons,thealwayschangingperspectivesupontheworld.Itbegins whensomethingaddressesus,ashappenswhenweencounter ‘atraditionary text’.³³Whenthisoccurs,ourownpresuppositionsorprejudicesarebrought tolightandcantherebybeputinsuspension.Assuch, ‘thehermeneutically trainedmindwillalsoincludehistoricalconsciousness’.³⁴ Butthisdoesnot meanthatourpresuppositionsare ‘simplysetasideandthetextorother personacceptedasvalidinitsplace.Historicalobjectivismshowsitsnaivetein acceptingthisdisregardingofourselvesaswhatactuallyhappens.Infactour ownprejudiceisproperlybroughtintoplaybybeingputatrisk.Onlybybeing givenfullplayisitabletoexperiencetheother’sclaimtotruthandmakeit possibleforhimtohavefullplayhimself ’.³⁵ Yet,itisalsothecasethatourown horizoninthepresentisitselfformedonthebasisofthepast.Assuch, Gadamerargues ‘[t]hereisnomoreanisolatedhorizonofthepresentinitself thantherearehistoricalhorizonswhichhavetobeacquired. Rather,understandingisalwaysthefusionofthesehorizonssupposedlyexistingbythemselves’ ³⁶ Thusthetaskofunderstandingwhenreadingatextsuchasthe GospelofJohn,inahistoricallyeffected(wirkungsgeschichtlichen)manner, involvesseveralsteps.
Projectingahistoricalhorizon,then,isonlyonephaseintheprocessofunderstanding;itdoesnotbecomesolidifiedintotheself-alienationofapastconsciousness,butisovertakenbyourownpresenthorizonofunderstanding.Inthe processofunderstanding,arealfusingofhorizonsoccurs whichmeansthatas thehistoricalhorizonisprojected,it’ssublationissimultaneouslyaccomplished. ³²Gadamer, TruthandMethod,293–4.³³Ibid.298.³⁴ Ibid.
³⁵ Ibid.298–9.³⁶ Ibid.305,italicsoriginal.
Tobringaboutthisfusioninaregulatedwayisthetaskofwhatwecall historicallyeffectedconsciousness.³⁷
Thetaskof ‘projectingahistoricalhorizon’ isnecessary,andonewhich requiresustotakeSkinner’scautionsseriously.Butthetaskdoesnot,and cannot,stopatthat,forunderstandingisalwaysinthepresent,inthemelding togetherofthedifferenthorizonsinourownunderstanding,yetalwaysopen tofurtherrevisionanddeeperinsight.Moreover,inthismeldingofhorizons wewillalways findasurplusofmeaninginatext,asSkinneralsoaccepts. ‘Not justoccasionallybutalways,themeaningofatextgoesbeyonditsauthor.That iswhyunderstandingisnotmerelyareproductivebutalwaysaproductive activityaswell.Perhapsitisnotcorrecttorefertothisproductiveelement inunderstandingas “betterunderstanding” . Itisenoughtosaythatwe understandina different way, ifweunderstandatall ’.³⁸
OurpurposeinthisIntroductionisnottoresolve,orevenexplorefurther, allthephilosophicalcomplexitiesoftextsandtheirmeanings,buttoremind ourselvesofthepitfallsthatarisewhena ‘mythologyofdoctrines’ holdssway unexaminedandtoorientourselvestowardsthetaskofunderstandingthe GospelofJohnandwhatitspeakstousabout,whichisneithersimplythe projectionofahistoricalhorizon(thoughthatmustbecarefullydone)nor simplyareadinginthepresentobliviousofthepast.Hearingotherancient voicesalongsideandafterJohnhelpsexposeourownpresuppositions,andin particularthe ‘mythology’ (inSkinner’ssense)of ‘incarnation’,thatis,the assumptionthattheauthoroftheFourthGospel(oratleasttheauthorofits Prologue)hasanotionordoctrineof ‘Incarnation’ (forthewordisnotusedin theGospel)similartothattypicallyassumedtoday,thatis,asreferringtoan eventinwhichthe ‘pre-incarnateWord’ wasborninthe fleshtodwellinthe world,an ‘episodeinthebiographyoftheWord’.Theargumentofthisbook, asalreadystated,isthatheandhisearlyreadersdidnot.Yetsuchisthe powerfulholdthataparticularunderstandingof ‘Incarnation’ (asan ‘episode
³⁷ WahrheitundMethode,312; TruthandMethod,305–6,modified.Weinsheimerand Marshallhave ‘itissimultaneouslysuperseded ’.Theterm ‘Aufhebung’ implies ‘takingup’ ,a ‘sublation’,asitisregularlytranslatedwhenusedbyHegel,whichisclearlyinthebackgroundfor Gadamer,ratherthanamaking-redundant,asisimpliedby ‘superseded’.Theterm ‘fusionof horizons’ isalsoasomewhatmisleadingtranslationfor ‘Horizontverschmelzung ’,thoughisnow thecustomarytranslation: ‘fusion’ impliesamuchmoreintegratedandunifiedunionthandoes ‘Verschmelzung’,whichismore ‘meldingtogether’,alwaysmessyandnotatotalfusion,resulting inaunionthatcan’tbeseparated,butnotnecessarilymonolithicorevenlymixed.
³⁸ TruthandMethod,296,italicsoriginal.SeealsoMikhailM.Bakhtin, ‘Responsetoa Questionfromthe NovyMir EditorialStaff,inBakhtin, SpeechGenresandOtherLateEssays, translatedbyVernW.McGee(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,2013),1–9,at4: ‘Worksbreak throughtheboundariesoftheirowntime,theyliveincenturies,thatis,in greattime and frequently(withgreatworks,always)theirlivestherearemoreintenseandfullerthanaretheir liveswithintheirowntime. Itseemsparadoxicalthat greatworkscontinuetoliveinthe distantfuture.Intheprocessoftheirposthumouslifetheyareenrichedwithnewmeanings,new significance:itisasthoughtheseworksoutgrowwhattheywereintheepochoftheircreation’ .
inabiography’)hasinourtheologicalimagination,combinedwithanequally deeplyingrainedideaabouthowScriptureistoberead,thattopreparethe groundmorefullyforoursubsequentexaminationitisnecessarytoexplore justhowextensivelythe ‘mythologyofdoctrines’ hasdominatedtheological scholarshipoverthepastcenturyandhowthisisboundupwithdifferentways ofreadingScripture.
LabouringundertheshadowofHarnack,historicaltheologyhasworkedin theframeworkofthe ‘historyofdogma’,examiningtheTrinitariandebatesof thefourthcentury,followedbytheChristologicaldebatesofthesubsequent centuries,aperiodizationwhichowesmoretoourhandbooksofdogma (whereChristologyfollowstheTrinity)thanitdoestothetextsandcreeds fromtheperiodsthemselves.Summariesofsuchhistories,forexamplethat stapleofallstudentsoftheearlyChurchinthesecondhalfofthelastcentury, J.N.D.Kelly’ s EarlyChristianDoctrine,gathertogether,thematically,what differentwritershavetosayaboutanygiventopics Trinity,Christology, creationandsalvation,ecclesiology,exegeticalpractices withtheresultthat thereaderisnotintroducedtoanyparticular figure,norhowthesedifferent aspects fittogetherinthethoughtofanyonewriter,if,thatis,theywouldeven haveconsideredthemtobeseparateideas.³⁹ Onecannot,ofcourse,indeed treateverythingatonce.Butdividinguptheirworkinthismannerpresupposesthatthetheologyofthosebeingpresentedisamenabletobeingdissected inthisway,withoutconsideringhowanygivenwriterinfactconceivesofhis orhertask,thatis,how they understandthedisciplineoftheology.Evenwhen this ‘historyofdogma’ approachhasbeenabandonedinrecentdecades,to considerparticularwritersintheirsocial,political,andpolemicalcontexts, investigationshabituallystillhaverecoursetoparticularthemes(theIncarnation,theTrinity)as fixedelementsofChristiantheologyforwhichanaccount needstobegivenforanyparticularwriter.
AglaringexampleofSkinner’ s ‘mythologyofdoctrines’ isprovidedby RichardHanson,inhismammothtome, TheSearchfortheChristianDoctrine ofGod;indeedtheverytitle—‘thesearchfor ... ’—isoneoftheproblematic indicatorsthatSkinnerhighlighted.AsHansonputitinanarticlewritten shortlyaftercompletingthework,the ‘trinitariandoctrine’ elaboratedinthe fourthcenturywas ‘asolution, the solution,totheintellectualproblemwhich hadforsolongvexedthechurch’ ⁴⁰ TheproblemperplexingtheChurchwas, thus,anintellectualone:thatofestablishingthedoctrineoftheTrinity. Moreover,thisis,forHansonatleast,ataskseparablefromtheexegetical
J.N.D.Kelly, EarlyChristianDoctrines,5thedn(SanFrancisco:Harper,1978[1958]).
RichardP.C.Hanson, ‘TheAchievementofOrthodoxyintheFourthCentury AD ’,in R.Williams,ed., TheMakingofOrthodoxy:EssaysinHonourofHenryChadwick (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,1989),142–56,at156,italicsoriginal.
practicesofthosewhomhestudied,for,asheputsit,intheconclusiontohis volume:
theexpoundersofthetextoftheBibleareincompetentandill-preparedto expoundit.Thisappliesasmuchtothewoodenandunimaginativeapproach oftheAriansasitdoestothe fixeddeterminationoftheiropponentstoreadtheir doctrineintotheBiblebyhookorcrook.⁴¹
Hethencontinueswiththisevenmoreperplexingstatement:
ItwasmuchmorethepresuppositionswithwhichtheyapproachtheBiblicaltext thatcloudedtheirperceptions,thetendencytotreattheBibleinan ‘atomic’ way asifeachverseorsetofverseswascapableofgivingdirectinformationabout Christiandoctrineapartfromitscontext,the ‘oracular’ conceptofthenatureof theBible,theincapacitywithafewexceptionstotakeseriousaccountofthe backgroundandcircumstancesofthewriters. Theveryreverencewithwhichthey honouredtheBibleasasacredbookstoodinthewayoftheirunderstandingit.In thismattertheywereofcourseonlyreproducingthepresuppositionsofall Christiansbeforethem,ofthewritersoftheNewTestamentitself,ofthetradition ofJewishrabbinicpietyandscholarship.⁴²
Thatis,theirexegeticalpracticeissimplywrong,evenifitisapracticegoing backtotheapostlesthemselvesandtheirproclamationoftheGospel,a mannerofexegesismoreoversharedwiththerabbis,andwhichwas,infact, thecommonapproachtosacredtextsinantiquity.⁴³Andyet,moreperplexingly,thiswastheexegeticalpracticewithinwhichthedoctrineoftheTrinity waselaboratedandhaditsmeaning.Hansonclearlyhasnotimeforthe exegeticalpracticesofthetheologiansofthisperiodbywhichtheyreached theirconclusions,thatis,readingtheScriptures theLaw,thePsalms,andthe Prophets asspeakingofChrist.ForHanson,thedoctrineoftheTrinitywas an ‘intellectualproblem’ thatwasresolvedinthefourthcentury,andwhich cannowsimplybecalleduponasagivenitemofChristiantheology,leaving thefollowingcenturiestoestablishChristologicaldoctrine,thenextchapterof moderndogmatictextbooks.
Hansonnever,asfarasIamaware,addressedthequestionofwhathappens whenonetakesthesesupposedcoretheologicalelements(TrinityandIncarnation)outofthecontextinwhichtheywerecomposed theparticular practiceofreadingScriptureandthecelebrationofliturgywithinwhich theyhadmeaning,bothleadingtoa praxis ofpiety,practicesofidentity formationshapingthebelieverintheimageofChrist,tobehisbody and
⁴¹RichardP.C.Hanson, TheSearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod:TheArianControversy, 318–381 (Edinburgh:T&TClark,1988),848.
⁴²Ibid.848–9,italicsmine.
⁴³Cf.JamesL.Kugel, TraditionsoftheBible:AGuidetotheBibleasitwasattheStartofthe CommonEra (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1998),14–19.
placestheminanothercontext,inthiscasethatofsystematictheologyanda readingofScripturethatfocusesonthehistoricalcontextofeachverse,rather thanseeingScriptureasthebookofChrist.Thistransitioninexegetical practicesmaywellliebehindthenarrativalunderstandingofincarnation thatwewillconsiderfurtherinthenextsectionofthischapter.
SimilarlyproblematicisHanson’streatmentofthe ‘Incarnation’,especially whenhediscussesthe firstworktobespecificallydevotedtothetopic, Athanasius’ OntheIncarnation.Assumingthat ‘Incarnation’ referssolelyto thebirthofthedivineWordfromMary,hasledtoanapproachwhichholds thatthepropertaskof ‘Christology’ istoanalysethecompositionofthebeing ofJesusChrist todeterminewhetherhehastherequisiteelementsofatrue humanbeing,orwhetherthedivineWordhasreplacedthesoul(asHanson supposesisthecaseforAthanasius,whoseChristologyheridiculesasa ‘ spacesuitChristology’) andthentraceinahistoricalmannerhislifeandactivity. SeparatingAthanasius’ understandingofwhoChristisfromwhatChristhas done,specificallythePassion,alsoresultsinascribingtoAthanasiuswhatis oftenreferredtoasa ‘physicaltheoryofredemption’.Itisinthiscontextthat Hansonmakesoneofhismostperplexingstatements,that: ‘oneofthecurious resultsofthistheologyoftheincarnationisthatitalmostdoesawaywitha doctrineoftheatonement.OfcourseAthanasiusbelievesintheatonement,in Christ’sdeathassaving,buthecannotreallyexplainwhyChristshouldhave died’ ⁴⁴ HansoncontinuesbyreferringtoAthanasius’ discussion,beginningin chapter19of OntheIncarnation,whichpresents,hesays, ‘aseriesofpuerile reasonsunworthyoftherestofthetreatise’,toconcludethat ‘thefactisthat hisdoctrineoftheincarnationhasalmostswallowedupanydoctrineofthe atonement,hasrendereditunnecessary’.Hansonoverlooksthefactthatin chapter26Athanasiussignalsthattheprecedingchaptersarenothis final word.Indeed,theyarenotevenhisownproperword: ‘Theseremarksarefor thoseoutsidethechurch,whopileargumentonargumentforthemselves’ . Onlyafterhavingtoyedwithsuchspuriousreasons,perhapsfortherhetorical effectthatallowinghisreaders,ancientandmodern,toidentifywiththem wouldhave,doesAthanasiusthenunderminesuchspeculationandprovide insteadareflectiononwhyChristdied,notbysomeothermeans,butonthe cross,forthosewhoinquireaboutthis ‘notinacontentiousspirit,butasa loveroftruth’.Hanson’sanalysisfailsthemostbasicdemand,emphasizedby Skinner,ofattendingtowhatanauthortellsusthatheorsheisdoinginthe textthatheorsheiswriting.
AswehaveseenemphasizedbySkinner,the firsttaskofunderstanding texts especiallyancientones,theperspectivesandpresuppositionsofwhich willcertainlydifferevenmoreconsiderablyfromourownthanthatofa
contemporary istopayattentiontowhattheauthorssayabouttheirtexts, evenifwethendeterminenottotakethemattheirword.Itisindeednecessary todoso,because,quitesimply,aworksuchas OntheIncarnation mightnot beaboutwhatwehavebecomeconditionedtoexpectwhenhearingtheterm ‘Incarnation’.Theworkisthesecondpartofatwo-parttreatise,the firstpart being AgainsttheGentiles.Thisworkopenswiththestatedintentionthatthe purposeofthisworkistodemonstratethatweshould ‘confessthathewho ascendedthecrossistheWordofGodandtheSaviouroftheuniverse’ . ⁴⁵ The orderofidentificationisimportant:hedoesnotsaythathewillshowhowthe WordofGod,presumablyhavingbecome ‘incarnate’ (inthe ‘space-suit’ ofan inanimatehumanbody)thenascendsthecross,butratherthat theoneonthe cross istheWordofGod.Theworkis,thus,intendedasan ‘apologyforthe cross ’ ⁴⁶ Likewisewhenopeningthesecondpart, OntheIncarnation itself, Athanasiusbeginsbysayingthat,havinglaidout,inthe firstpartofhis treatise,theproblemstowhichtheworkofGodinChristresponds,hewill nowturnto ‘theincarnationoftheWordand ... hisdivinemanifestationto us,whichtheJewsslanderandtheGreeksmock’ . ⁴⁷ ItisnotthatAthanasius hassubstitutedthescandalofthecrossforascandalofincarnation,aswe mightunderstandthatterm,butratherunderstandstheincarnationalreadyin termsofthecross,astheallusionto1Cor.1:23makesclear.Farfrom ‘the doctrineofincarnation’ renderingtheatoningdeathofChristunnecessary,it isinfactthedeathofChristthatAthanasiusisexpoundinginaworkentitled OntheIncarnation!Andforthisreason,contrarytooursetexpectations, Athanasius’ classictextonthesubjectofIncarnationdoesnotatallfocuson thebirthoftheWord,inthesenseofabiographical ‘episode’ ,conflatingthe infancynarrativesofMatthewandLuke(whodonotmentiontheWordof God)withJohn1:14(whichdoesn’tspeakofabirth);indeed,itbarelyeven mentionsthebirthofJesus(andneverMarybyname).Rather,thework demonstrateshowtheoneonthecrossisinfacttheWordofGod,who throughthePassiondemonstrateshisresurrectioninthosewhofollowhim,as hisbody,intakingupthecross.⁴⁸
Something very serioushashappenedinallthis:theverysubjectofChristiantheologyhaschanged,fromJesusChrist,thecrucifiedandrisenLord proclaimedbytheGospel,tothenarrativeoftheWordofGod,treated firstas ‘pre-incarnate’ (atermIhaveyetto findinpatristicliterature)oras ‘asarkos’ , ‘fleshless’ (atermwhichisfound,butused,aswewillsee,quitedifferentlyto
Cf.KhaledAnatolios, Athanasius:TheCoherenceofHisThought (LondonandNewYork: Routledge,1998),28:theworkis ‘firstandforemostan apologiacrucis’ .
Athanasius, Inc. 1,cf.1Cor.1:22–5.
Cf.JohnBehr, IntroductiontoStAthanasius:OntheIncarnation,ed.andtrans.JohnBehr PPS44a(Crestwood,NY:StVladimir’sSeminaryPress,2011),36–40.