Contextual Exegesis of the Johannine Prologue

The Johannine Prologue maintains an enigmatic consciousness vis-à-vis modern academia.  It is difficult to ascertain the exact contextual influences the author of John used to illustrate his λόγος aretalogy.  The questions remain: what are the contextual influences that inspired the first five verses of the Johannine Prologue?  Also, what is the meaning of λόγος, or the Word, and the most efficient hermeneutical tradition to understand this term?  Scholars such as Bultmann, Brown, Käsemann, as well as many others, theorized a myriad of different hypotheses to explain these questions.  Notwithstanding this paper is designed, by use of contextual analysis, to bolster the polemic in favor of the Johannine Prologue as an extension of the Jewish intellectual traditions, or as a pre-codified midrashic homily.  In addition, the λόγος theology, which will be demonstrated to also reside in the contemporaneous Jewish intellectual tradition, was an extension of the Jewish concept of σοφια as well as salvation history, which was then used by the Johannine community as the Word incarnated as Jesus Christ.

The Gospel of John is unique indeed.  Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, the Gospel of John exhibits a “high” Christology, in which Jesus Christ is believed to be fully divine.[i]  This point is exemplified immediately within the Prologue.  Upon analyzing the different translations of the first five versus of the Johannine Prologue, there are no clear discrepancies between translations.[ii]  However, the intricate exegesis of some of the particular words within the pericope, coupled with the text’s structure, suggests an interesting parallel with other biblical texts, especially in regards to the Septuagint.

Verse one opens with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”[iii]  Immediately the Greek phrase, Έν άρχη, or in the beginning, reverberates a distinct parallel with the first verse of Genesis in the Pentateuch.[iv]  Genesis 1:1 introduces the cosmological order of God, as well as His creation process of πάντα or all things.  E.A. Speiser argues in his commentary that the opening statement in Genesis derives from the P or Priestly source and is an extremely simplistic introduction with only the rudimentary sequence of facts.[v] Although, what may seem as a perfunctory style, Speiser believes that this passage, is a result of special cultivation process refined by a traditional school set forth to resolve an ultimate and objective credo based only on the true majestic act of God as the Creator.[vi]

Since this cosmological outline is so precise, many later rabbinic traditions[vii] commented and interpreted subtle nuances within the creation process while incorporating many influential philosophies based on contemporaneous Hellenistic intellectualism.[viii]  Even though Raymond E. Brown argues in his commentary on the Gospel of John that additional philosophical influences were not imbued within the Johannine Prologue, Brown believes that the apparent Hellenistic thought had already been incorporated in previous centuries by Jewish intellectuals.[ix]  One of the ubiquitous Hellenistic traditions that heavily influenced the author of John is the philosophy of emanationism.   Thus, the Johannine Prologue is using the cosmological organization as well as the creation story from the book of Genesis and adding in contextual exegesis similar to the Jewish intellectual traditions.  The evidence of this is perceptible with the theology of λόγος.

 λόγος, or the Word, represents a unique concept of Jesus Christ as being a divine entity in the presence of God before the creation of the world.[x]  Consequently, the Prologue instills emanationism within Johannine theology and Christology by conveying the concept that something beyond humanity exists outside of God and before creation.  Again, John 1:1 confirms this concept, “and the Word was with God,” or λόγoς exists with God.[xi]   The ambiguity of this verse invokes great confusion.  Is λόγος a part of God, God Himself, or another God?  The ambiguities are relinquished in this verse by dividing it into three parts.  This exegesis advocates part 1a, of this verse, as making the initial identification of the subject, while the remaining parts, 1b and 1c, are seen as the tension between the two.[xii]  How can λόγος be with God if λόγος was God? The essential problem is found in the Greek translation of God.  In 1b λόγος is with ό θεός, which translates to God or the God; while in contrast, 1c has λόγος being only θεός, or the Word was God, which in this case means only “divine.”[xiii]  Scholar Ernest Haenchen explains in his commentaries that λόγος was not necessarily a substitution for God, but rather a subordinate of God; therefore λόγος had a primeval union with God.[xiv]

Nonetheless, scholars like Bultmann argue that the conception of a pluralistic God is not correct in the Christian sense, but perhaps in a more pagan conception of deity.[xv]  Once again, however, by looking at contemporaneous Jewish intellectual traditions this idea seems more plausible than not.  In fact the philosophy of emanationism is based on this concept; for in emanation theory, the Creator creates by self-contemplation.  By means of self-contemplation, the Creator, thus, emanates being or intellect into another existent.  When the next existent, or first emanation, contemplates the Creator and then his being, creation then emanates and expands so forth.  The last emanation before the sub-lunar realm, or earth, is the emanation known as the active intellect.  The Johannine Prologue maintains this theory of emanationism by using the term λόγος in lieu of the active intellect.  In Greek, λόγος symbolizes much more significance than just the direct translation as the Word.  David K. Rensberger and Harold W. Attridge believe, “The Logos in Greek thought [is] the divine principle of reason [or intellect] that gives order to the universe and links the human mind to the mind of God.”[xvi]  Therefore, λόγος, or active intellect, mediates, as a “divine” emanation, between God and His sub-lunar creations.

David K. Rensberger, Harold W. Attridge, and J.H. Bernard all reinforce the opinion that this concept of λόγος is cultivated in Jewish intellectual traditions as well.[xvii]  J.H. Bernard writes, “In the Targums, or paraphrases of the Old Testament, the action of Yahweh is constantly described as his ‘Word,’ the term Memra being sometimes used as of a Person.”[xviii]  Moreover, this ideology is ensconced deeper within Jewish intellectual traditions with the writings of Philo and the σοφια myth.

Σοφια in Greek is translated as Wisdom.  Like λόγος, σοφια has a deep philosophical meaning.  Furthermore, in Proverbs, σοφια also exists with God before creation in primordial life.  It is interesting to note, also, that σοφια is a feminine term or aspect in relation to a masculine God.  Proverbs 8:22–23 speaks, “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago.  Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.”[xix]  Even though this connection with the Johannine Prologue is quite astounding, the author of John was not the first to connect σοφια with λόγος.  Philo writes, “This river is generic goodness; and this issues forth out of the Eden of the wisdom [σοφια] of God, and that is the word [λόγος] of God.”[xx]  For Philo, λόγος serves to mediate between God and humankind just as in the σοφια myth; so Philo is attempting to harmonize these traditions.  Philo also sustains the divinity of λόγος, but Philo is not sure if λόγος is an emanation and subordinate of God, or an attribute of God’s being.[xxi]  Pheme Perkins believes that Philo viewed λόγος as being the shadow of God or His instrument.[xxii]  Perkins is using Philo’s own term of Bezaleel in his Legum Allegoriae, III, to justly surmise this concept.   Philo states, “Now, Bezaleel, being interpreted, means God in his shadow.  But the shadow of God is his word, which he used like an instrument when he was making the world.”[xxiii]  Scholar Shaye J.D. Cohen collaborates to a point with Perkins, as λόγος being a mediating factor, but disputes the ontological characteristics of λόγος.  Cohen concludes that no matter what Philo understood λόγος to be ontologically, in the Johannine Prologue, as previously explored, λόγος is an ontological divinity outside of God.[xxiv]

After Philo, in the proto-Christianity of New Testament times, including the Gnostics, σοφια is replaced with λόγος.[xxv]  Nonetheless in Gnosticism, the context of λόγος, which replaced the σοφια myth,[xxvi] differed from that of the Johannine Prologue.  In fact, the entire Gospel of John is the antithesis of Gnosticism.  John 1:14 illustrates the incarnation of λόγος as Jesus Christ, yet again, the incarnated λόγος maintains His mediating role.  However, now the role of λόγος manifests an essential importance soteriologically.  Gnostics derive a different understanding of λόγος; basically the two concepts, λόγος and Jesus Christ, remain distinct rather than harmonized.

Perkins states that Gnosticism does not necessarily require a revealer by whom their identification is given to individual human beings.[xxvii]  Thus soteriology is not necessarily dependent on a redeemer, but rather, on the human being’s ability to enable inner purification and spiritual enlightenment.  The Gospel of Thomas also uses the Jewish intellectual traditions as an influence for the author’s ideologies.  However, the Gospel of Thomas also maintains the ideology of the “secret knowledge” that human beings enable through inner purification and spiritual enlightenment.  Elaine Pagels argues that even though Thomas uses a similar hermeneutical process in his exegesis of the Septuagint, based on Jewish intellectual traditions, the relevance of λόγος pertains mainly protologically rather than eschatologically; for it is indispensable for human beings to re-find their “divine image,” which originates in creation as φώς, or light which resides in the λόγος.[xxviii]  Pagels interprets this concept in the Gospel of Thomas log. 2, “Jesus said, ‘Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds.  When he finds, he will become troubled.  When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all.’”[xxix]

As previously mentioned, λόγος maintains a significant role as the incarnated mediator and redeemer in the Johannine Prologue.  Nevertheless, like Thomas, φώς resides within λόγος.  John 1:4–5 reads, “In him was life, and the life was the light of all people.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.”[xxx]  The author of the Prologue is still using Jewish intellectual traditions within his theology, but he ascribes a unique ethos vis-à-vis salvation history–the ζώη, or life, and φώς in λόγος, becomes flesh as in John 1:14.  So like the Gospel of Thomas, to acquire φώς you must work through the λόγος; but in juxtaposition, individually one cannot obtain fulfillment or salvation in the Johannine Prologue, salvation is obtained only through λόγος as flesh, or Jesus Christ as the redeemer.

Peder Borgen upholds the polemic for the amalgamation of Jewish intellectual traditions within the Johannine Prologue.  For Borgen, with the inclusion of the term φώς, salvation history demonstrates prevalence in both midrashic homilies and the Johannine Prologue. One of the more significant aspects being that the Johannine Prologue expounds upon Genesis 1:1-5 by means of exegesis and form, such as the “targumic” paraphrasing as well as the chiasmus textual style.[xxxi]  Borgen argues that this perennial φώς is present at the creation of humankind, with the law giving of Moses, and finally as λόγος becomes flesh.[xxxii]  Thus, for Borgen, the verses, “In him was life, and the life was the light of all people,”[xxxiii] represents λόγος bringing forth ζώη in creation by providing salvation through the φώς of his being.  Moreover, the φώς of salvation is brought, by λόγος, to the Jews through the lawgiving of Moses.[xxxiv]  In addition, salvation then becomes flesh and is now obtained through λόγος or Jesus Christ.  Thus Borgen agrees that there is a continuance from the Jewish intellectual traditions to the Johannine Prologue by means of the contextual evidence for salvation history.[xxxv]

By analyzing the Johannine Prologue with the contextual method, the evidence confirms a fascinating parallel with Jewish intellectual traditions, such as midrashic homilies.  The intricacies of certain vernaculars used within the Prologue reveal the authors nuances on Jewish thought and salvation history.  One of the most fascinating resolutions of this research is rendered within the phenomenological disparities between Gnostic and Johannine exegesis, even though both interpretations were based on similar hermeneutical traditions.

 

---

[i] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writers (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) 177.

[ii] John 1:1–5 (NRSV), The HarperCollins Study Bible, ed. Harold Attridge and Wayne Meeks (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006) 1816, compared with The Complete Parallel Bible [authored by Publisher], (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 2830–2831, which contains the NRSV, REB, NAB, and NJB translations.

[iii] John 1:1 (NRSV), The HarperCollins Study Bible, 1816.

[iv] John 1:1 (RSV), The R.S.V. Interlinear Greek–English New Testament, trans. by Alfred Marshall (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970) 356, introduces a critical parallel with Genesis 1:1 (NRSV), The HarperCollins Study Bible, ed. Harold Attridge and Wayne Meeks (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006) 5.

[v] E.A. Speiser, The Anchor Bible: Genesis (New York: Double Day & Company, Inc., 1964) 8.

[vi] Speiser, Anchor Bible, 8.  In this passage Speiser describes a readily process of this traditional redaction.   

[vii] Based on the Pharisaic traditions, the rabbinic traditions are exegetical and law based writings by Jewish scholars and Rabbis. These writings are believed to originate from pre-Talmudic oral traditions, especially around Second Temple and New Testament times, but were later codified in the Talmudic era.  This tradition has also become heavily popular in the Medieval and Modern eras.

[viii] Raymond E. Brown, The Anchor Bible: The Gospel According to John [i-xii] (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966) LVI.

[ix] Raymond E. Brown, Introduction, The Anchor Bible, LVI–LVII.

[x]Raymond E. Brown, John 1:1, The Anchor Bible, 4.

[xi] John 1:1 (NRSV), The HarperCollins Study Bible, 1816.

[xii] John 1:1 (NRSV), The HarperCollins Study Bible, 1816.  In the beginning was the Word (1a), and the Word was with God (1b), and the Word was God (1c).

[xiii] Ernst Haenchen, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, John 1, trans. by Robert W. Funk, ed. by Robert W. Funk with Ulrich Busse (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984) 109.

[xiv] Haenchen, Hermeneia, John 1, 109.

[xv] Haenchen, Hermeneia, John 1, 109.  This is also supported by Daniel Boyarin in Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) 108–111.

[xvi] John 1:1 (NRSV).  David K. Rensberger and Harold W. Attridge, in their commentary of verse 1 in the HarperCollins Study Bible, point out the significance of the Logos in Greek thought.

[xvii] John 1:1 (NRSV).  David K. Rensberger and Harold W. Attridge, in their commentary of verse 1 in The HarperCollins Study Bible, point out the significance of the Logos in Greek and Jewish thought.  In support, J.H. Bernard agrees that the Logos or word in both Greek and Jewish thought acts as a mediator or active force of God in his commentary of verse 1 and the Logos in The International Critical Commentary: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. John, Volume 1, ed. by A.H. McNeile (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1929) cxxxviii–cxxxix.

 

[xviii] J.H. Bernard, Doctrine of Logos, The International Critical Commentary, cxxxix.

[xix] Proverbs 8:22–23 (NRSV), The HarperCollins Study Bible,

[xx] Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged, trans. by C.D. Yonge (United States of America: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1993) 32.

[xxi] Philo, The Works of Philo, 385.

[xxii] Pheme Perkins, “Logos Christologies in the Nag Hammadi Codices,” Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 1981) 381.

[xxiii] Philo, The Works of Philo, 61.

[xxiv] Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006) 78–79.

[xxv] Michael V. Fox, The Anchor Bible: Proverbs 1–9 (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 2000) 279.

[xxvi] An example of the Gnostic Sophia myth can be found in the Trimorphic Protennoia: The Discourse of Protennoia [On Fate: 2] verses 1–24 in The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. by James M. Robinson, trans. and introduced by members of the Coptic Gnostic Library Project of The Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont California (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1990) 519.

[xxvii] Pheme Perkins, “Logos Christologies in the Nag Hammadi Codices,” 379.

[xxviii] Elaine H. Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in the Gospel of Thomas and John,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 118, No. 3, (Autumn, 1999), 478–479.

[xxix] Elaine Pagels, “Exegesis of Genesis 1 in Thomas and John,” 480.  Pagels uses Log. 2 in the Gospel of Thomas, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, ed. by James M. Robinson, 126.

[xxx] John 1:4–5, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 1816.

[xxxi] Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines, 94.

[xxxii] Peder Borgen, “Logos was the True light: Contributions to the Interpretation of the Prologue of John,” Novum Testmentum, Vol. 14, Fase. 2 (April, 1972) 124.

[xxxiii] John 1:4, The HarperCollins Study Bible, 1816.

[xxxiv] Borgen, “Logos was the True Light,” 124.

[xxxv] Peder Borgen, “Logos was the True Light,” 124.  This argument displayed by Peder Borgen is also agreed upon by Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines, 94.