06-03-2008, 07:48 AM
[p.147; 151-152; 151, John]
It is apparent from his style and method of exposition that the author of the fourth Gospel was of Jewish origin, so much so that some modern scholars have ventured to suppose, with some exaggeration, that he wrote originally in Aramaic. As a matter of fact, he not only uses Semitic expressions like ???rejoiceth with joy??? (3:19), ???son of perdition??? (17:12), etc., but also Semitic words which he regularly translates for the benefit of his readers, like ???Rabbi??? and ???Rabboni??? (1:38; 20:16), ???Messias??? (1:41), ???Cephas??? (1:42), ???Siloe??? (9:7), etc. His periods are quite elementary and bare in outline with none of the Greek fondness for subordinate clauses or complicated arrangement. On the other hand, his style shows a pronounced tendency toward parallel ideas which is a fundamental characteristic of Hebrew poetry ???..
In the whole New Testament the word Logos occurs only in these three places. We may conclude from this that the term was not used in the catechesis which derived from Peter and from Paul; but it must have been usual in the catechesis of John for he uses it in the first verses of his writing with no explanation whatever, taking for granted that his readers know what he means. The term itself was a familiar one in Greek philosophy from the time of Heraclitus. But the same word expressed different concepts in different centuries just as it varied in meaning with the Sophists, the followers of Socrates (logic) and the Stoics. It played a great part in the speculations of the Alexandrian Jew Philo also, but his concept of the Logos is different from the Greek and more akin to that of ???Wisdom??? in the Old Testament. This is also true of the thoughts implied in the terms Memra and Dibbura, in the sense of ???word??? (of God), which are extremely frequent in the Jewish Targummim but not in the Talmud ???..
And except for the sublimity of the concepts, the method followed in the discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees offers a number of similarities to those employed in the rabbinic disputations of the time. Modern Jewish scholars particularly well versed in the Talmud have pointed out these similarities with fine discrimination and adjudged them a collective confirmation of the historical character of the discourses in the fourth Gospel. Even with his disciples Jesus must have taken a different tone at different times; we might expect his words to be more simple at first when they had just begun to follow him and more difficult later, until he lifted them to heights never reached before in his discourse of farewell at the Last Supper. Then, too, among the disciples themselves he must have had his chosen and more intimate friends for whom he reserved confidences he did not give the others (cf. 13:21-28); and the most intimate among these, as we know, was John, who is therefore the most important witness of all even from a purely historical point of view.
It is apparent from his style and method of exposition that the author of the fourth Gospel was of Jewish origin, so much so that some modern scholars have ventured to suppose, with some exaggeration, that he wrote originally in Aramaic. As a matter of fact, he not only uses Semitic expressions like ???rejoiceth with joy??? (3:19), ???son of perdition??? (17:12), etc., but also Semitic words which he regularly translates for the benefit of his readers, like ???Rabbi??? and ???Rabboni??? (1:38; 20:16), ???Messias??? (1:41), ???Cephas??? (1:42), ???Siloe??? (9:7), etc. His periods are quite elementary and bare in outline with none of the Greek fondness for subordinate clauses or complicated arrangement. On the other hand, his style shows a pronounced tendency toward parallel ideas which is a fundamental characteristic of Hebrew poetry ???..
In the whole New Testament the word Logos occurs only in these three places. We may conclude from this that the term was not used in the catechesis which derived from Peter and from Paul; but it must have been usual in the catechesis of John for he uses it in the first verses of his writing with no explanation whatever, taking for granted that his readers know what he means. The term itself was a familiar one in Greek philosophy from the time of Heraclitus. But the same word expressed different concepts in different centuries just as it varied in meaning with the Sophists, the followers of Socrates (logic) and the Stoics. It played a great part in the speculations of the Alexandrian Jew Philo also, but his concept of the Logos is different from the Greek and more akin to that of ???Wisdom??? in the Old Testament. This is also true of the thoughts implied in the terms Memra and Dibbura, in the sense of ???word??? (of God), which are extremely frequent in the Jewish Targummim but not in the Talmud ???..
And except for the sublimity of the concepts, the method followed in the discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees offers a number of similarities to those employed in the rabbinic disputations of the time. Modern Jewish scholars particularly well versed in the Talmud have pointed out these similarities with fine discrimination and adjudged them a collective confirmation of the historical character of the discourses in the fourth Gospel. Even with his disciples Jesus must have taken a different tone at different times; we might expect his words to be more simple at first when they had just begun to follow him and more difficult later, until he lifted them to heights never reached before in his discourse of farewell at the Last Supper. Then, too, among the disciples themselves he must have had his chosen and more intimate friends for whom he reserved confidences he did not give the others (cf. 13:21-28); and the most intimate among these, as we know, was John, who is therefore the most important witness of all even from a purely historical point of view.