tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post6294632176168197356..comments2024-03-19T00:26:30.753-07:00Comments on The Jesus Blog: "eyewitness" in Johannine traditionAnthony Le Donnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-74671175652731689762016-09-08T02:17:28.342-07:002016-09-08T02:17:28.342-07:00I believe that a major theme in the New Testament,...I believe that a major theme in the New Testament, is the debate on the importance of material physical evidence, versus spirit. Overall I believe, the Bible actually settles on stressing physical material, not spiritual, evidence. "Fruits," "works," "signs," deeds, "proof"s. Things on this material "earth," as "observe"d with our physical, literal "eyes." Often using literal "science" (Dan.1.4-15 KJE; Mal. 3.10; 1 Kings 18.20-40).<br /><br />But for a long time, there's a continuous, active debate between the importance of physical things, versus spiritual. And in John? He begins in your key passages above, with an immaterial "Word." Which may merely be in part, a personification of written texts, immaterial ideals. And though he hints this word has become matter, flesh, the material references are rather abstract. John speaks if "flesh" here; but not simply a walking, talking man with a name, like Jesus.<br /><br />So in spite of some enthusiasm here for materiality, in that passage I see more of the continuing equivocal debate on materiality vs. spirits. That debate is settled elsewhere, more than here.<br /><br />Though you are partly right; materiality, flesh, is at least invoked. Though for many lines, this "flesh" is not yet clearly say, a "man."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-39978006369647484292016-09-03T00:16:51.766-07:002016-09-03T00:16:51.766-07:00Rafael,
John and his readers knew the difference ...Rafael, <br />John and his readers knew the difference between an eye-witness and an imagination-witness. It's not a hard distinction to make. What one perceives and accepts on the basis of faith is, by definition, more than just what one observes with one's eyes, but when someone says, "I saw events A, B, and C," he is clearly referring to his observation of historical events, so as to augment the persuasive force of his testimony. He is not using the term merely to refer to a perception or an epiphany, even though the same verb might be employed; for instance, in the sentence, "I now see how wrong it is to pretend that social memory theory is a valid basis for exegesis."<br /> James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-25282264664922127712016-09-01T08:06:59.504-07:002016-09-01T08:06:59.504-07:00Gene Stecher
Chambersburg, Pa.
Hi Rafael, I'm...Gene Stecher<br />Chambersburg, Pa.<br /><br />Hi Rafael, I'm wondering if we should understand Jesus in some way as his own eye witness.<br /><br />We find the FE saying at 3:31ff. "The one who comes from above is above all...He testifies to what he has seen and heard, yet no one accepts his testimony. Who ever accepts his testimony has certified this, that God is true. He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for he gives the spirit without measure."<br /><br />And then, of course, Jesus goes on to testify to himself throughout FG. So can we say that Jesus is an eye witness to the spiritual dimension, he fails as an eye-witness to convince those whom he was sent to convince, the paraclete is an intervening convincer who has some success in opening eyes to Jesus' self- presentation, the author(s) of FG are beneficiaries of the paraclete.<br /><br />If there is additional eyewitness testimony apart from the paraclete, how would we identify it? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-67340897614984706172016-08-31T14:26:55.910-07:002016-08-31T14:26:55.910-07:00Rafael,
First, sorry for mistaking Anthony for you...Rafael,<br />First, sorry for mistaking Anthony for you😎<br />Second, my thought was intended to express that the readers were 'eyewitnesses' because they could trust John's account and have the indwelling Spirit. <br /><br />TimArchepoimenfollowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539020156250047772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-65336190215479486932016-08-30T17:39:18.634-07:002016-08-30T17:39:18.634-07:00Thank you, Tim. I think I would agree with all of ...Thank you, Tim. I think I would agree with all of this, except perhaps that last statement. When you say "the Good News is that the readers can have <i>this same duality</i>," I would agree that FE is claiming that his readers receive (and can be confident in) eyewitness testimony, but this does not make them eyewitnesses in the Johannine sense. Or are you saying it does (in which case you'd side more with Dewey)?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-74087766024298036362016-08-30T17:36:51.747-07:002016-08-30T17:36:51.747-07:00Thank you, Prof. Thompson. I agree with all of thi...Thank you, Prof. Thompson. I agree with all of this. Am I right in reading your comment as agreement?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-3404664572961630052016-08-30T17:36:06.837-07:002016-08-30T17:36:06.837-07:00Yep. Or Yup. Whichever you prefer. 🤓 But these &q...Yep. Or Yup. Whichever you prefer. 🤓 But these "followers of Jesus with spiritual sight" ≠ "eyewitnesses," wouldn't you say?Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-52977620245627146512016-08-30T17:35:10.325-07:002016-08-30T17:35:10.325-07:00Thank you, BF. I think you're on the right tra...Thank you, BF. I think you're on the right track with this.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14471888340005683193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-10448332105719541692016-08-30T04:43:59.444-07:002016-08-30T04:43:59.444-07:00Anthony,
From my perspective, the FE gives us a du...Anthony,<br />From my perspective, the FE gives us a dual perspective of eyewitnesses. First, often just because someone is an eyewitness does not mean they are going to grasp the reality or significance of what they have seen, even the disciples to include John. Second, for the eyewitness whose understanding has been opened through the Paraclete, this one really sees. This duality has unique significance for the FE. His eyewitness account can be trusted because he was there and saw, touched and heard Jesus and has received insight, for lack of a better expression, from the Paraclete. Additionally, the Good News is that the readers can have this same duality, John' enhanced eyewitness account and the hearers own experience of Paraclete which insures that the message is accurate and true.<br /><br />TimArchepoimenfollowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539020156250047772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-60428236693086898432016-08-29T21:35:25.704-07:002016-08-29T21:35:25.704-07:00Sight is not insight in John: everyone may see, bu...Sight is not insight in John: everyone may see, but not everyone understands or truly sees (as Anthony says). John, like other ancients (Heraclitus, eg.) thinks "eyes are surer witnesses than ears" and often prizes seeing more highly than hearing. Note that the resurrection appearances in John are couched in the form "We have seen the Lord" echoing other formulations (We have seen his glory, etc.). As the encounter with Thomas suggests, however, not all will have the opportunity that Thomas and the other disciples have had; the Gospel is written for those who cannot or do not see Jesus in the flesh. But they may have the insight of faith.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03741598025420195169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-67227314315061288082016-08-29T18:10:05.545-07:002016-08-29T18:10:05.545-07:00I would agree that John's "spiritual"...I would agree that John's "spiritual" notion of seeing Jesus is limiting. Or at least it is in the FG itself. The FE would have us believe that not every person in proximity to Jesus had eyes to really see Jesus. But it also seems that the FE wants to recruit more followers of Jesus with spiritual sight. FWIW.<br /><br />-anthonyAnthony Le Donnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01282792648606976883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8637125351921336084.post-79003800644585447142016-08-29T08:56:33.307-07:002016-08-29T08:56:33.307-07:00I would agree with you, that in this Gospel and ey...I would agree with you, that in this Gospel and eyewitness is someone who both saw with their eyes AND saw the spiritual reality also being foregrounded.<br />There is a continual refrain "come and see" in the Gospel, (most evident in the first chapter e.g. where Jesus invites the 2 disciples to come and see where he dwells). One author (that I can't remember) says that the author writes with 2 layers/dimensions always in mind so that every word groans with the weight that it is being asked to bear. <br />There is a continual theme of "to see but not to see" so that that man who was blind now sees, but those with sight can't see. <br /><br />This probably sounds rather under-grad thinking to many of the readers here, and I appreciate that. Suffice to say I love John and as a missiologist dabble in exegesis of John and continue to find fresh depths. <br />Thanks for highlighting this. BarabbasFreedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09337347571496873297noreply@blogger.com